I am tired of being misquoted by you, and after correcting you, being misquoted yet again. Stop it.
If you can show me where I "made an issue fo the sort of social policy Olasky SUPPORTS," do it, Neocon. If you can't, apologize.
I pointed out that he is is a Biblical inerrantist. I noted also that his advice for Christian journalism is to report the news from a Bibical inerrantist perspective.
I think Biblical inerrancy as a basis for foreign policy advice, or maybe advice on matters such as judicial nominations, or maybe on separation of church and state, or maybe advice on laws concerning whether or not to prosecute people who kill their disobedient chilren (that's a joke!; even though the Bible says that's fine, SURELY the inerrantists have figured out a way around this one!) is a highly dubious proposition. In fact, what I said was something like that I could imagine very humorous scenarios playing out. Much fodder for Saturday Night Live.
But you, I suppose because it changes the subject from issues I've raised you prefer not to engage, keep changing the subject to a mythical attack I have made on "Olasky's social policies."
Again: You accused me of making an issue of the "sort of social policy Olasky supports."
I did not do this, unless, of course, you are referring to my mentioning his take on the proper approach Christian jouralism requires on the news.
Are you perhaps mixing up my words about Pat Robertson with my words about Olasky?
Again:
Bush has chosen this man as his chief advisor on ethics.
The man's views arise from a fundamentalist view of the Bible
as an infallible and inerrant literal source of instruction,
however odd this may seem to some who stand outside his
magic circle of belief.
The specific items of advice he gives the president based on
such notions may turn out to be any of a number of things. One
really can't say. Various scenarios can be imagined, some
rolicking, some dismal, some dangerous, some excellent, some
average.
That is the position I have made clear. I have also made clear that I'm sure Olasky is a nice person. I think I said he'd probably be a good neighbor. I do not feel this way about either Pat Robertson or the Reverend Moon.
Please, Neocon. Do not, once again, pretend I have said anything about
"the sort of social policy Olasky supports." [your words, mischaracterizing mine.]
This, once again, is my position. And I am getting tired of this game:
Olasky will be active, one presumes, in giving social policy advice to Bush. His notions on social ethics are based on a belief that the Bible is inerrant.
Therefore he is on the face of it, to me, a bizarre choice as an ethics advisor to the president, unless he doesn't take his Biblical inerrancy seriously and literally. But it's about being literal, so....? I acknowledge up front that I consider Biblical inerrancy downright silly as a notion, however restful it might be to the old braincells.
In sum:
I have done the above. I have not done this, which is what you accuse me of:
Make "an issue of the sort of social policy Olasky supports."
My concern is what advice to the President of the United States Biblical inerrancy might require. As I said,
"such notions may turn out to be any of a number of things. One
really can't say. Various scenarios can be imagined, some
rolicking, some dismal, some dangerous, some excellent, some average. "
I do not know, Neocon, what foreign policy advice, for example, Biblical inerrancy might suggest. I have no idea.
In domestic terms, I also have no idea how the following precept would affect social policy advice, though I do know it is the position of Biblical inerrantists. From Paul, First Corinthians: Neither was man created for the sake of woman, but woman for the sake of man.
|
