my response to Matt Walsh’s response to nakedpastor

"First Stone" (cartoon by nakedpastor David Hayward)

“First Stone” (cartoon by nakedpastor David Hayward)

This is my response to Matt Walsh’s response to my critique of his blog.

First of all I want to thank Walsh for complimenting my picture as “pretty”, even though it’s likely he said this sarcastically. Hey! I’m into sarcasm. Just like he called me “some guy” instead of by my name. I think that says something.

Also, I want to say that I’m sorry he’s receiving such nasty emails and comments. He lives in a land of freedom of speech. He’s allowed to think and say whatever he wants. Hate attracts hate, but no one deserves insults to their person or death threats. I don’t know about the laws where you live, but uttering death threats here is a chargeable offense. He is right to report them. My wife has worried about the stuff my blog stirs up out there. Even yesterday a friend expressed concern to her about some crazies wanting to harm me for the things I say. So I know what Walsh and his family are experiencing. It’s not nice. But I would like him to know that these insults and threats do not represent all liberals, left-wingers, or progressives. We are not a homogenous mass, just like conservatives aren’t. I know conservatives who can articulate their views in a non-condescending manner.

My main criticism of Walsh is that he is condescending and judgmental, and these find expression in his ideas that are discriminatory and divisive. His response is that:

  • it is leftwing, liberal progressives who are hateful (proven from correspondence he says he receives);
  • he hates no one but truly loves everyone, including his enemies (he doesn’t say he loves them but implies it);
  • he expresses this love and concern by telling the absolute truth, even when it hurts.

Here’s my response:

  1. I did not say Walsh is the “equivalent of the Taliban”. I said he is the “Christian equivalent of the Taliban”. This inclusion is an important distinction because “Taliban” alone conjures up crazy male terrorists. I purposefully wrote the word “Christian” to firmly plant the comparison in a religious context. I do not think he is a violent terrorist like the ones we read about in the news that shoot women who read, cut off the heads of religious delinquents or blow things up they disdain. But he does hold an extremist, right-wing ideology that, if rendered into actual policy, would change where he lives into a fundamentalist state.
  2. I also did not say he “plans to blow up the world”. The pretty picture and post communicate that he IS blowing up the world, not with bombs, but with discriminatory and divisive ideas and words. Walsh doesn’t understand that hatred, discrimination, condescension, superiority, or thinking that you are the sayer of absolute truth… whatever you want to call it… is the root of violence. To murder is to establish a permanent separation between you and your antagonist and remove them from your life forever. Now, I would rather be murdered ideologically than physically. But we need to understand that discriminatory ideology is the sharp knife’s edge to segregation.
  3. It doesn’t matter if Walsh loves everybody and hates no one. Love without works is dead. Hate without works is dead. Without expression they are just feelings or ideas. I don’t claim to know what Walsh is feeling. But I can read what he’s saying. I suggest that his ideology, if it was rendered into policy, would turn where he lives into a fundamentalist state. His discriminatory ideas and language persecute those who don’t agree with him. Now, before someone claims I’m persecuting Walsh, please be clear what persecution is. It is not challenging an idea or expressing a disagreement. It is a persistent hostility toward and ill-treatment of people of a different race, religion, sexuality, gender, politics, etcetera. Some of Walsh’s fans responded to me saying that Walsh is young, lacks some maturity, and writes in an inflammatory manner to get and hold our attention. I disagree. I think Walsh is intentionally shaping a discriminatory ideology that can only be expressed through hostility towards those who are different than he is. It is too fine a line to say that even though his ideas and words hate, he doesn’t.

Walsh’s ideas articulate bigotry. He might not like the name, but the definition is “intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself”. He might be comfortable with that.

At the end of my post, I wrote “I believe Walsh and I are one”. He and I are on the same diverse spectrum of ideas, as we all are. My concern is that we work together to form theories that help to make manifest the unity of the human race, shape ideas that unify, and mold actions that are in turn compassionate and provide equality for all.

You may also like...

108 Responses

  1. starfielder true says:

    I like your words Naked Pastor. Thanks for this clarification. Thanks for working towards the good

  2. Caryn LeMur says:

    Well… I went and read a number of posts by Matt. I loved it! I laughed and laughed. Brilliant! It was sooo much like “All In The Family”, and Matt is a great Archie Bunker. I get his blog now.

    From Wikipedia on “All In The Family”: “All in the Family revolved around the life of a working class bigot and his family. … the show broke ground in its depiction of issues previously considered unsuitable for U.S. network television comedy, such as racism, homosexuality, women’s liberation, rape, miscarriage, abortion, breast cancer, the Vietnam War, menopause, and impotence. …. The show ranked number-one in the yearly Nielsen ratings from 1971 to 1976. ”

    From my research, and as best I can tell, Matt was a shock radio personality that went on to become a shock-blogger. He is an ‘Archie Bunker’. If he added in humor, his blog would be a great path for achieving high ratings. He simply cannot be taken seriously, in my opinion.

    One closing thought. Matt wrote this to Gay Activists on 05 April 2014:

    “Don’t you people read? Haven’t you learned anything from history? ‘Advancements’ earned through tyranny never endure. You can only win a debate by suffocating your opposition for so long. Your strategy is doomed for failure, because it has always failed.
    In the name of ‘fighting for the freedom to love,’ you’ve utilized hate. For the sake of ‘tolerance,’ you’ve wielded bigotry. In order to push ‘diversity,’ you’ve been dogmatic.
    You are everything you accuse your opponents of being, and you stand for all the evil things that you claim they champion.
    You are exposed. We see you for what you are: a force of destruction and division.
    You showed your hand, and now you’ll lose the game.
    It’s inevitable.”

    And then, I read blog post after blog post, written by Matt, wherein Matt’s writing style suffocated straw-man opponents, utilized hate, wielded bigotry, was dogmatic, and was a force for destruction and/or division. Matt must know that Matt will ‘lose the game; it is inevitable’.

    I simply cannot take Matt seriously… though… I wonder … before he “inevitably” loses his audience, will he get a sitcom offer from a major studio one day…. maybe?

    Blessings! Caryn

  3. David says:

    Thanks Starfielder!

  4. Robin says:

    I checked his blog out the other day, and I couldn’t even read any of his post through to the end, I had to skim. It hit to close to who I used to be, the attitude, the tone etc. when I was in a church that taught much of that dogma. I still struggle with that ‘know-it-all’ attitude. :/

  5. Mark says:

    I have read probably 3 more articles of Matt’s as I have yours, meaning this is the only one I have read of yours. You both throw out by now tired words bigotry, intolerance blah blah blah. There are extremes from both sides if the political spectrum, I would consider you both near the middle. Now both of you have in a way denounced these people, neither have suggested a solution. Apparently there is no middle ground to be had in this clash of ideas and that is where the problem is. There has been a line drawn and neither side is willing to bargain in good faith. This is tearing your nation apart and will ultimately result in it’s destruction. Both sides need to take a step back and adopt a live and let live attitude. I think sooner than later you will need to drop this ridiculous arguing and fight together to restore your Nation before it is destroyed by the Extremist from either side. Particularly the Communist/Marxists that have infested your nation and are openly calling for a Socialist government there. With Socialism nobody wins everybody loses.

  6. David says:

    Mark: I’m Canadian.

  7. This isn’t a defense of Matt Walsh’s comments, but rather a commentary on the overuse of the word “judgment.”

  8. irreverance says:

    Is Walsh’s theology the Christian equivalent of Taliban theology? Again, I want to emphasize that I’ve not really read his blog. I’ve now skimmed it a bit. My brief impression is that he is part of the American Religious Right. I’m going to generalize my thoughts more toward the Religious Right.

    I think Mark Juergensmeyer’s book, Terror in the Mind of God, is helpful here. He looks at religious violence to understand how it is the same and different from non-religious violence. In the end, he concludes that radical religion in itself doesn’t necessarily lead to violence. However, for those leaning toward violence it does offer cosmic justification to take that next step. I believe this is the great danger of fundamentalism, regardless of its religious origins.

    I believe we need to think of violence as having two different levels. The most overt form of violence is “physical violence.” It does damage to the human body as an individual creature. This does not always, but can, lead to death.

    Alternatively, a more subtle form of violence is “political violence,” which would be the creation and use of laws to marginalize others. While it also doesn’t necessarily kill, it does damage to the human body as a social creature.

    In both cases, we have the real issue, which is the use of force to encroach upon the lives of others. The justification for this trespass is participation in a divine drama, which gives them default authority to do so. This, I believe, is where the American Religious Right and the Taliban are in bed together theologically. They both feel justified in using power to control the lives of others, whether it be through political or physical violence.

    I argue that it is precisely this religious aggression that the prophetic tradition stands against in its calls for justice. In cases where the boundary has already been crossed, it demands that the invader be moved back onto the other side of the fence and the boundary strengthened to protect from future invasion. In cases where the boundary is threatened, the prophetic call is to identify and maintain the boundary.

    Here is a link to Jurgensmeyer’s book:

  9. Michael says:

    Here you go with the equality again. Once again, in typical praxiologist style.

    Matt Walsh’s religion says we are all redeemed. This is not the fundamentalist usual sole fide error, which is the essence of Calvinist theory.

    It is not enough for the naked pastor to accuse Matt of fundamentalist hate, in error. He is totally unaccustomed to the redemption for all mentality, and responds impotently, as he would in addressing a Calvinist sola fide fundamentalist. Wrong!

    In fact, it is Walsh that regards all as equal with his redemption for all. The naked pastor is totally impotent in understanding this crucial difference of perspectives. Walsh doesn’t discriminate AT ALL!

  10. Cecilia Davidson says:

    I get the feeling Michael might just be REALLY blind to the arguments Walsh makes – and the nature of Walsh. As the 5 Drunk Rednecks blog pointed out, Walsh has a long history of being a shock jock, to the point of being fired multiple times because of his taking things too far. His blog is no different.

  11. Reaganator says:

    Thanks for your sane words in the first 2 paragraphs. I trust that Matt Walsh understands (as I do), that not all “liberals” are deep down inside hateful evil people, and that the hateful ones, in fact, probably represent only a small (yet loud) fraction of left-wingers. Just as conservatives denounce the Westboro baptist church and their tactics, I hope that “liberals” everywhere denounce those who use hateful threats of violence, death, and damnation as tactics for furthering the liberal agenda (or ANY agenda at that)

    Unfortunately, I disagree with pretty much everything else you’ve written. Your analysis of him is sensationally flawed and brings to mind what the Nazi’s did with their depiction of the jew (you’ve attributed different traits, but used the same tactics of combining lies, half-truths, and exaggerations), but I didn’t really expect anything else… it’s what you do. You can’t hate a snake for being a snake.

    Props for the Adulteress drawing, it really did make me laugh. And while I understand the point you’re trying to make (depicting Matt as a self-righteous blame-pointer), I think what we really need is to find the proper balance between tolerance and sternness . Orson Scott Card, who is also often accused of being a hate-monger, made his own version of the Story of the Adulteress, which I feel illustrates that balance better than yours.

  12. Cecilia Davidson says:

    I’m really hoping that a name I just saw isn’t referring to a president.

    Considering Walsh’s posts, Reaganator, I dare to say he’s not unique in his overly harsh language and seeming desire to consider himself worthy to judge. Check the conservative blogs within Patheos’ Catholic and Evangelical channels to see similar tones being taken.

    However, to ignore Walsh calling a black lesbian disabled woman horrible names is to whitewash. He’s a shock jock with a huge inability to filter. He’s half the age of Donald Sterling and uses the same tone if not words.

    If you’re going to conpare anyone to being persecuted like the Jews, stick with populaces that ARE persecuted. Muslims in predominantly non-Muslim countries. Gays in Africa. Matt Walsh is a minority voice that is practicing his free speech rights, but his being fired REPEATEDLY in the past 4 years shows that freedom of speech does include the right to call him a pompous ass.

  13. irreverance says:

    >>..brings to mind what the Nazi’s did…<<

    Bzzzzzzt, you lose the argument, per Godwin's Rule.

  14. Michael says:

    Yes, Cecelia, Matt is no longer with those stations, and why? Because he is unabashedly pro-life and against marriage redef! He is also not a universalist!

    Matt Walsh is getting the pro-life and anti marriage redef message out there better than anyone in America! Young folks listen! Women listen! Hearts are being changed, and to what? You got it! Pro-life and 1man/1woman marriage! And more!

    Oh and he is more Equal-inclined than you, and you hate it and him, for it! He knows ALL are redeemed on Earth! He believe Jesus redeemed us, and to show us the way to avoid evil, and attain salvation! Exciting man, that Matt Walsh!

    He will remain a pompous ass to you and your pastor here, as you are praxiologists and universalists, and actively seek to convert hearts to these causes! Unlike Matt! His is to convert hearts to salvation!

    Thang God for Matt Walsh! Thank God he did not get sidetracked by this twisted culture of praxiology and universalism which you represent!!!!!

  15. irreverance says:

    >>You got it! Pro-life and 1man/1woman marriage! And more! <<

    This is an excellent example of I was talking about when I mentioned political violence, which is a shared agenda between fundamentalists of any religion. For example, it's one thing to say "I don't believe that same-gendered people should get married," and it's another to say "same gendered people can't get married, and I want to do my part to stop them." The enthusiasm in this post (note all the exclamation points) indicates someone caught up in the excitement of a cosmic story that justifies the use of power to mold society into a their desired image, a world where those like them get to dominate and abuse those unlike them.

    This, I believe, is what David is referring to with his image of an exploding world. Rather than working toward a shared humanity in which all people are recognized as worthy of a full life by the very fact they they exist, this approach strives to use power to divide humanity into those worthy of a full life in the here and now, and those who are not.

  16. Reaganator says:

    @ Cecilia

    1. Name-calling. You bashed my username and my connection to its namesake, as though I were unworthy of it.

    2. Cliche thinking, bandwagon, pious shaming. You implied that some people aren’t worthy of making judgements or coming to their own decisions, a common tactic of accusing a conservative of being “judgemental” because it’s assumed that conservatives are mostly bible-toters who will remember that their precious bible says “judge not, lest ye be judged” and they’ll suddenly become ashamed of speaking out about their beliefs for fear of appearing “judgemental”. I prefer to think of it as “judge not UNJUSTLY, lest ye be judged UNJUSTLY”. So away I judge, taking care to not come to wrong conclusions, especially when they affect others. You say “judge not”, I say “use good judgement”.

    3. Ambiguous Assertion. You inferred by your sentence structure that Matt was being mean to a black lesbian disabled woman BECAUSE she was a black lesbian disabled woman, instead of acknowledging that he was probably criticising something she did or said. I admit to being completely ignorant of whatever incident you’re referring to, but call you out on your misleading accusation.

    4. False comparison. You compare Matt to Don Sterling simply because it’s popular to hate Don Sterling for being racist (nevermind the fact that what was done to him was umm… i dunno… ILLEGAL. But that’s a different argument entirely).

    5. False interpretation of a comparison. You believe my Jew propaganda analogy to be invalid because the jews were victims of genocide and Matt Walsh is a privileged white male. However, the propaganda TACTICS (which I clearly indicated) that were used then are being reused again. Matt believes that those tactics are being more heavily employed by the “Liberal” movement. And those tactics are the ones you so generously supplied.

    Thanks again for helping him make his point.

    @irreverance Lol, I totally did! FML… anything good I might’ve done is now invalid because of that damn Nazi rule!

  17. Cecilia Davidson says:

    David was right – Matt Walsh fans really ARE Matt Walsh fans :/
    You guy aren’t worth my time because I know the logic. I was raised in a conservative Catholic household. I’ve heard EVERYTHING you said and I know it’s all bullshit.

  18. Reaganator says:

    @ Cecilia
    1. Argument by false authority (your own experiences in a catholic household don’t actually make you an expert on conservativism OR christianity. I doubt you’ve actually heard it ALL)

    2. Argument By Dismissal


  19. Caryn LeMur says:

    I stated my opinion of Matt being just a shock jock with religious overtones. So, in a sense, I was able to ignore him.

    However, in this time of transition in my life, after watching the walsh camp rejoice in Christian written violence and prejudicial comments, I see nothing worthwhile in the Christ they represent. Nothing. I must sadly continue to consider leaving Christianity altogether.

    You are that which I never wished to be…. and if you are Jesus-like… I really need to reconsider this whole thing.

    A Jesus that says ‘Bzzzt’? A Jesus that says ‘Argument by this X, so it is invalid’. A Jesus that cannot listen, or show kindness. A Jesus that is so enthusiastic about overwhelming his opponent with zeal, and not giving gentle reasoning nor compassionate love.

    You remind me again why I need to return to re-thinking your God and/or your Jesus.

    I would rather die an atheist than be like you.

    I must return to re-thinking this whole Christian thing….

    Sincerely; Caryn

  20. Reaganator says:

    I actually consider myself a non-religious agnostic. But please Caryn, don’t go over to atheism. Atheists don’t simply believe there is NO God, they insist that anyone who DOES believe in a god is an idiot, or a liar, or trying to sell something. Agnostics on the other hand say “Oh, you believe in God? That’s cool. I mean… I PERSONALLY haven’t seen anything that I believe proves without a doubt that all that religious stuff is true, but I’m open to the possibility that it MIGHT be, even if it’s not very likely.

    You’re right though, I am a terrible example to use for this whole Christian thing. I’m not always a nice person, but then again Hitler wasn’t always a bad guy.


    Dammit, there’s Godwin’s buzzer again.

  21. Cecilia Davidson says:

    the arguments being made by the supporters of the Walsh blog are reinforcing my philosophy of liking Jesus but disliking his followers. I’d rather not get into arguments with people who interpret Paul’s words as the words of Jesus, or who would dare to compare Matt Walsh to the Jews who were persecuted, or the gays in Uganda who are persecuted. Just like with Phil Robertson, matt has the right to free speech, but not freedom from consequences or people showing him the door

  22. Reaganator says:

    Jesus wasn’t always a nice guy either. Remember that time he walked into the temple and started whipping the $#!+ out of all the salesmen? Some people will take advantage of a gentle tone, and it becomes necessary to be a bit of a “shock jock” in order to get your point across.

  23. Michael says:

    Okay, let’s work together. How about this:

    We work toward a shared humanity in which all people are recognized as worthy of a full life – including the unborn – by the very fact they they exist.

    How about it? Join hands? Let’s get cozy.

    Yes? No?

  24. Cecilia Davidson says:

    and apparently some people love to focus on the whips and the swords. It’s a little telling when some people are willing to focus on one aspect rather than the other.

    Yes Jesus was speaking as a revolutionary. If you ever read into the context of what Jesus said, a lot of the advice and he was giving was contrary to what’s the Pharisees would have taught. PEs and shamed The Sun just season the Pharisees for focusing on the long riders in the idea behind the law, which according to Jesus, was getting closer to the same time Jesus was also making invites that would have made the Romans frightened of him. Take for example the idea that Jesus is suggesting that people walk the extra mile. In truth there was a Roman law that stated that his soldier could not make any slaves or a citizen of the state to carry that soldiers stuff any further than the next mile marker. Jesus was telling people to walk to the next mile marker after that. This was in direct violation of Roman law, but the sorcerer would have gotten in trouble because the commander would assume that the soldier had told the citizen or slave to take the items further than necessary or allowed.
    Return Jesus was being a son of a bitch and it wasn’t just the temple that witnessed this

  25. Cecilia Davidson says:

    I was with you until you stressed the unborn, Michael. How about AFTER birth? Good quality of life for everyone? Including rape victims? Gays? Trans men and trans women? Atheists? Non-Christians?

    You better mean everyone.

  26. Cecilia Davidson says:

    “This was in direct violation of Roman law, but the sorcerer would have gotten in trouble because the commander would assume that the soldier had told the citizen or slave to take the items further than necessary”

    Sorcerer should be soldier

  27. R Vogel says:

    Matt who? On second thought….nevermind

  28. Cecilia Davidson says:

    Vogel, how did you edit the post?

  29. Cecilia Davidson says:

    Oh wait. NVM wrong page

  30. Reaganator says:

    I’m a little confused on the whole abortion thing. I’ve always been under the impression that the “conservative” view of abortion is that it should NOT be allowed EXCEPT in cases of rape, incest, or when competent medical authorities determine that the health and safety of the mother and/or child is at serious risk (but not justifying the abortion of a child simply for having a mental or physical disability).

    I personally don’t care about the whole “when is a fetus a person?” argument. I’m more interested in people taking responsibility for their own actions (a rape victim shouldn’t be held responsible for the actions of her rapist, and so should have the choice to abort or keep.

    This sure sounds reasonable to me. Is this what conservatives want? Is this acceptable to liberals?

  31. Michael says:

    Unfortunately, Cecelia, I do not share your praxiologist views, in “equality for all”.

    Here is the equality we share:
    All are redeemed. That includes the unborn.
    God loves everyone equally. I do too. Matt does too. It is the hallmark of being a Christian.

    You confuse redemption with salvation. A common, yet grave mistake.

    What you are saying is that the unborn, who are also redeemed, can be murdered, and since you are a universalist, as you think everyone should be, it won’t matter, as there is no hell.

    You see, this is a problem.

    Matt, and I and others are not universalists or praxiologists.

    You will not stop in your complaints of disunity until we convert to praxiology and unversalism.

    That won’t happen. We choose salvation.

  32. Cecilia Davidson says:

    A simple “my version of everyone and not the dictionary’s” would do.

  33. kris799 says:

    Wow the Hitler accusation.

    Let’s not forget Hitler put gays, Social Democrats and Communists in concentrations.

  34. kris799 says:

    concentration camps*

  35. David Simmons says:

    @Caryn Lemur
    None of us Christians are perfect representatives of Christ. Some of us do a better job than others. Some do a worse job. Our error is no reason to not be a follower of Jesus. It’s because we’re so flawed as human beings that Jesus died on the cross. None of us are good enough to earn our way into Heaven, which is why Jesus made the way for us to be saved through our faith, not our works. That includes Matt Walsh, David Wayward, myself, you, and every other person on Earth.

    I will say that true followers of Christ produce good fruit in their lives. I’m in no way excusing Christians to act hateful or judgmental. We should all strive to show kindness. I’m just saying that if you’re looking for a perfect Christian, you won’t find one. There are some who are loving and are very Christlike, and then there are some who act more like the Pharisees He often rebuked.

    I encourage you not to give up on Christianity because of Christians. Christianity is based around a relationship with God, not a bunch of hypocrites. Ignore us imperfect people and turn your focus to Jesus.

  36. Steve Hill says:

    I can’t say I’ve ever read anything by Matt Walsh (if I had, it was quite forgettable), but I’ve read what you post on a somewhat regular basis. What I don’t understand is why theological bloggers, conservative or liberal, have an innate “need” to address what others with opposing views say. Why do so many things warrant a response from the other side? Why does a statement have to be issued every time an opposing view says something? While I don’t consider myself above it all, I do wonder what is really being accomplished here. The right would argue that it’s God’s will for absolute true to be preached to all people while the left would say that equality and compassion need to be the focus. While both may be true, the reality is that neither absolute truth, nor equality/compassion will ever reign supreme in a broken world until the day of restoration is upon us.

  37. David says:

    oh oh oh can i answer that one? a few reasons:
    1. i love discussing ideas;
    2. i love challenging ideas that i think are harmful to people
    3. i hope to influence the people who hold those harmful ideas
    4. i want the goodness of the world to be more evident

  38. Cecilia Davidson says:

    Aren’t I allowed to like the teachings of Jesus but not feel obligated to accept doctrine and dogma?

  39. Cecilia Davidson says:

    (I advise anyone of Walsh’s blog following to answer carefully.)

  40. Michael says:

    I can answer as well:

    1. Defend against praxiologists masquerading as Christians.
    2. Defend against universalists masquerading as Christians.

    Less frequently, defend against ex-aliquo cosmologists, although we are lighter with them, as they are closer to repentance, and often make salvation.

    Praxiologists and universalists seek heaven on earth (David, #4), and actively seek converts to agree with them (David #3).

    Also —
    There is no salvation in praxiology theology and salvation.
    Ontology theology is the correct progressive Christianity.
    David (#1 and #2) appears to be unable/unwilling/too impotent to discuss or challenge these perspectives.

  41. Cecilia Davidson says:

    So your’re goal is to act as God in determining who is a Christian

  42. Cecilia Davidson says:


  43. Michael says:

    Cecelia, you are out of your league here. Don’t bother. It will go over your head. Let your pastor respond. He is supposed to be qualified.

  44. Cecilia Davidson says:

    And you’re apparently qualified to judge.

    Didn’t know it was Michael the Father, Michael the Son, and Michael the Holy Spirit

  45. Cecilia Davidson says:

    By the way. Let it be known that I am an ex-Catholic with 20 years of religious education.

    Might I ask why you’re using a study of economics and human behavior in a religious blog?

  46. Jeff P says:

    Dave writes about Walsh: “But he does hold an extremist, right-wing ideology that, if rendered into actual policy, would change where he lives into a fundamentalist state.”

    It seems to me that the right-wing Christians view heaven as a fundamentalist state and want to pass laws to make the here and now in heaven’s image. The progressive Christians believe that heaven is a place of equality, tolerance, and harmony and want to pass laws to make the here and now in heaven’s image. As someone who is barred from the fundamentalist version of heaven (and by extension from the society the fundamentalist would create in the hear and now) I will always align with the Progressive Christians.

  47. Nate says:

    Love your pictures and creativity naked pastor!!! Just curious, why does there always have to be a “right” and “left”, “conservative”, and “liberal.” Is there somewhere in the middle where people that don’t fit into these categories can swim?

  48. Gary says:

    Actually Michael…Cecilia has owned you so far. And your declarations of authority for your personal beliefs are quite…amusing.

    Those of us who embrace a universalism (in some fashion) as a truism really don’t give a fuck that YOU have declared that we are wrong.


  49. Gary says:

    Hey Nate…great question. I believe I find myself in the middle and squarely rejected by either camp at any given time. I could never run for political office because both sides could find plenty of evidence to prove I am not one of them…lol.

  50. Michael says:

    Not quite, Jeff. Not quite at all.

    On Earth there is evil and temptation to contend with: all human caused. There is also good as well. Christianity quite simply states: do good, avoid evil. To some extent, it defines the cosmologcal evils we are supposed to avoid. The rest is written in our hearts.

    It seems to me the very people so-called Progressive Christians most despise are the very people they have become. They often start Christian, aware that there are certain laws against sin: the 10 Commandments, and NT teachings. But if anything is NOT written, even words, like “abortion”, or “homosexuality”, then it all of a sudden finally dawns on them that it’s acceptable. Jesus warned the Pharisees about this. Then they start exploiting this new freedom into a kind of praxiology “progressive Christianity” theology campaign of propaganda. Believe me, if Jesus explicitly warned against abortion and homosexuality using such words , these same folks would not touch it. Instead, they would likely move on to other evils not mentioned. That’s the problem with legality.

    When we become excessively legalistic, our hearts become dead, both to the message of the Gospel, and to our own salvation. We call evil, good, and call good, evil.

    And then, the last stage to justify these sins: there is no hell. Since they are totally ignorant of the terror of an ontological reality – that which is not of time and space – they criticize the Bible by comparing hell to no more than a burning garbage heap, etc. These writers were merely trying to use existential words to describe an ontological terror that we must avoid, at all costs. Yet, they remain unmoved.

    You say “progressive Christians believe that heaven is a place of equality, tolerance, and harmony and want to pass laws to make the here and now in heaven’s image”. You are nearly exactly defining the goals of praxiology as part of the legalism I described above.

    There can never be heaven in existence, as existence is temporal, a mix of good and evil. But if we do good, and avoid evil, we can come close to a heaven like existence, if not ontological. The true after-life ontology of heaven (note that heaven does not exist, nor hell) is one of an eternal blissful state of union with God and others choosing salvation.

    In short, what is described these days as “progressive Christianity” is nothing but a praxiological state and theology, which hides numerous evils, while calling them “good”. There is no salvation in that. Instead, it is the height of abandonment of Christianity, a true folly, a deception which seeks to suck the souls of every person by using evil to tempt them into this mentality. After which, it is difficult, if not impossible to repent from for most.

  51. Michael Trimmer says:

    Question – how is your assertion that Mr Walsh is wrong somehow more tolerant than his assertion that you are wrong?

  52. Ford1968 says:

    I’m not weighing in on this controversy because I don’t know who this Matt fellow is.

    But I do know your work, so I wanted to pop my head in and say that I think you’re swell.

    Keep on keeping on.
    (Another) David.

  53. David says:

    Thanks for popping in Ford!

    Michael Trimmer: I always get that: “How dare you accuse so-and-so of being intolerant! That’s being intolerant!”

    That’s just dumb.

  54. Michael Trimmer says:

    I didn’t say intolerant, I said wrong.

    As far as I can see, Mr Hayward is claiming that Mr Walsh is wrong for viewing Mr Hayward as wrong. They are basically calling each other wrong, and yet Mr Hayward is saying that somehow his objection to Mr Walsh’s differing view is somehow more “tolerant” than Mr Walsh’s objection to Mr Hayward’s view.

    My question is why is Mr Hayward’s claim that he is right somehow more “tolerant” than Mr Walsh’s claim that he is right?

    Mr Hayward claims that Mr Walsh is arrogant for believing in his own correctness, yet does not anyone that holds any belief believe in that belief’s correctness?

  55. Michael says:

    Michael Trimmer: welcome to Christian Progressivism 101:

    Always call the other side intolerable, if they quote, and even prove you, as wrong.

    Yet, incredibly, David’s #1 passion on this blog is, as he states, “his love of discussing ideas”.

    Impossible. In his mind, he is always right, and therefore, the tolerable one, whose aim is (David’s #2), to “challenge ideas that he thinks are harmful to people,”

    In other words, David is not receptive to new ideas, and if they counter his own, they are wrong, and not worth discussing.

    In fact, I challenged him last night (above), and he remains silently paralyzed, totally unable to respond.

  56. David says:

    Not really Michael. I don’t respond to trolls, even if they are articulate and verbose. You’re just as condescending as Walsh.

  57. Michael says:

    Christian Progressiveness 102:

    “Always call the other side trolls if they challenge my position. At minimum, call them condescending if they challenge with an idea or perspective I am not qualified to answer.”


    And worse, not at all, even in the remotest sense, “progressive”.

  58. Cecilia Davidson says:

    Michael, the dismissive of anyone who calls out bullshit, who also happens to be the new substitute for God –

    Your theological arguments are bloated thanks to some kind of constipation. Your beliefs, and pastor’s, need a colonic. Your entire argument can be boiled down to “No, heaven should just be for people like me.” In which case, I’d rather go and not exist rather than join your rather boring heaven.

    Michael T:
    I’d ask why you think it’s wrong, but I’m afraid you’ll be having the same bloated argument that also requires a theological colonic.

  59. Michael says:

    Christian Progessiveness 103:

    Rely on the Goon Squad to rough up the opposition when the leader is too paralyzed to respond.


    And so totally unoriginal and unprogressive.

  60. Jeff P says:

    Hey I’m not even a Christian but I guess I can be a temporary member of the Progressive Christians as defined by Michael’s “rule 103” and play the goon.

    Michael, your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries…and your theology leaves much to be desired.

  61. Cecilia Davidson says:

    Jeff, do you think they sell Pepto in industrial size? Sounds like Michael needs it. xD

    I think I’m setting off a nerve by calling his theology bloated and constipated.

  62. Heather R says:

    Is Cecilia out of her league due to her beliefs, inferior intelligence, womanhood, or a combination of these factors? You are being seen as intolerant due to the behavior you are displaying on this blog. You appear desperate to prove your intellectual superiority and are willing to accuse others of ineptitude in order to prove that point. I find this amusing as superior intellect does not have to resort to vitriolic statements or references to obscure philosophical constructs. Your behavior is intellectually illogical, but psychologically understandable when one views your behavior through a paradigm of intellectual inferiority.

  63. Michael says:

    Now that you have all taken your turn predictably kicking me in the gut, allow me to respond in love. You know. The act you are unaccustomed in seeing.

    It is not possible for me to hate you, as you do me. Now why is that.

    It is because you are redeemed. I know you are redeemed, because you exist. I cannot judge you. There is good in you. I can feel in in that same gut you kicked. If there was no good in you, you would not exist, and I would have no feeling for you.

    Therefore, I will do the only sensible thing that a Christian can do. Exercise agape. Pray for my enemies. And continue to remind you: God redeemed you. God loves you. And so do I. I have no other choice. It is my only choice, as I say Yes to salvation.

  64. Cecilia Davidson says:

    Thanks to the predictable response, I have a few products to field at David:

    For those days where you just can’t make a theological argument without making a mess.

    Comes in many flavors, including Catholic, Methodist, Baptist, Jewish, Muslim, and many more!

  65. Cecilia Davidson says:

    A Mylanta Fortress is our God

    Pepto-Hymnal (only comes in chalky cherry though)

    I’m out of ideas.

  66. Jeff P says:

    It looks like my Monty a Python taunt worked. He turned tail and ran away after leaving one last passive aggressive Christianeeze statement about salvation (always implying some will burn). But God loves us all…

  67. Michael says:

    No, Jeff.

    You are wrong. You imply that God created hell. God did not create hell.

    It was made necessary for humans causing it to be.

    It is a non-temporal reality, not a temporal existential one.

    Same as heaven.

    Same as God.

  68. Heather R says:

    I don’t hate you, Michael, nor am I your enemy. I have not agreed or disagreed with Mr. Hayward, Mr. Walsh, or you. I did not state the nature of my belief system. I may be a conservative, moderate, or progressive Christian; agnostic; atheist; Buddhist; Jew; Muslim; etc. Conceivably, I might agree with your suppositions, or conversely, I may not. I simply perused the comments here, ascertained the probable nature of your vitriol, and proposed a possibility as to why your comments may be taken poorly. Do you dislike constructive criticism? Your response, albeit in love, as you propose, still strikes me as sanctimonious. Let me reword your statement in a manner that is humble and sincere while still asserting your belief system:

    “I believe some of you have taken offense to my words and I would like a chance to respond in the way I know how to love. I cannot hate you because I believe you are redeemed, simply because you exist. I have no place to judge you. I believe there is good in you; therefore, I will do as I believe I am called to do as a Christian: pray. I will also say I believe God redeemed you and loves you. I also love you because I am commanded by God to do so and I accepted His commandments when I made the choice to accept salvation as I believe God intended it.”

    To be blunt, your methodology in stating your beliefs (making the assumption that you follow a call of evangelism) is lacking. One can draw more flies with honey than vinegar. That said, if your purpose is as I suspect, this conversation is moot. You most likely feel vindicated and intellectually superior; however, if you were truly intellectually superior, you would not feel the need to speak sanctimoniously or act in a condescending and disdainful manner.

    If you truly feel that others are inferior intellectually to you, choose to debate someone who is your equal.

  69. Michael says:

    Actually, No, Heather.

    I mean, technically, you are right. But there are problems.

    The first is: You cannot feel what I feel, as in from my heart.

    The second is related to the first: When I wrote what I felt, I used the word “feel” twice. Please reread. That means it was authentic. I really do feel what I feel.

    Curiously, you dropped the “feel” word entirely in your version.

    Didn’t you know?

    Agape without feelings is empty. I can say I agape, as you put it, but without any sense of feeling behind it, it is meaningless.

    Same goes with the other loves: storge, eros and philia are all meaningless – going through the motions meaningless – unless there are genuine heartfelt feelings behind it.

    That love with feelings – the fifth love – is affirmation. Agape with affirmation is authentic, as it is truly said and felt from the heart.

    You cannot feel what I feel in my heart. Written words, without seeing my eyes, or being in my physical presence, must express some semblance of feelings behind it, otherwise the words, no matter how technically correct, are meaningless.

  70. Cecilia Davidson says:

    Why can she not have empathy?

    I get the arguments being made, Michael, but it is so clear that you have more anger in your heart about SOMETHING … what it is, I can’t discern nor have any right to guess at.

    Yes, I talk with an angry tone. It’s something I’m trying to dial back. It comes with listening to others rather than plugging your ears with theology and going la la la.

  71. Heather R says:

    Thank you for responding in a less angry manner, but I do not need to reread your statement. I simply substituted the word “believe” for “feel.” When I believe something to be true, I consider that to be the epitome of emotion applied to logic. Black and white thinking (i.e. in this case, “emotion” vs. “logic”) can be dangerous. I personally choose to see the many shades of gray in between.

    You are correct. I cannot feel what you feel. We can only experience emotion through our own perspectives. We see the world through our own lenses, which are colored by our own experiences. I actually have much empathy for you. I love deeply and hate with a passion. I try to avoid expressing that hate in a manner which may hurt other people.

    Feelings are not facts; they are neither right nor wrong. I choose to accept them but not to live by them. I choose to practice love and tolerance toward everyone, but will fight for the right of free speech for all. Yes, even for those with whom I inherently disagree.

    Please don’t think I am cutting you short as I enjoy debate; however, I have a life…lol. I am fixing dinner, writing this response, cleaning my house, and have two five-page papers due tomorrow night for my master’s program!

  72. Will says:

    Half way down the comments, the argument put forth was “you guys need a colonic”. I agree we need to love each other, but I do not see the left exhibiting anymore love than the right. Sure they may not use the word ‘gay’ in a hurtful way, but they have plenty of other condescending words to throw around. This is why the blogo-sphere is crazy. You don’t have to look people in the eye and live around them. I have friends that are left, right, straight, gay. I treat them all with love. I do not agree with all of their views and they don’t agree with mine, but we can get along and be respectful. That is tolerance. Not trying to force people to agree with you and then saying they need a colonic if they disagree.

  73. Cecilia Davidson says:

    Will, if you bothered to actually read the comment, i said that the THEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT needs a colon cleanse. It’s a bloated, constipated set of arguments that consist of poorly constructed and otherwise really-bad-for-the-soul material.

  74. Jeff P says:

    The philosophy of The Left has room for The Right with concepts like pluralism, tolerance, equal rights, and multi-culturalism. Each person can believe what the want. The only constraint comes in limitations on actions when those actions would infringe on the rights of others.

    The Right has a philosophy of absolute right and wrong given down historically either by kings or deities. The Right wants society organized around these absolute written truths and considers any deviation from the written truths to be “sinful” and an abomination. “You are either with us or against us”. There is no room for The Left in the philosophy of the right. Many on The Right extend this ideology to their concept of heaven. Saved in, not saved out and damned – forever. Black and white. When you have that view of heaven, you tend to also have that view about certain people in the here and now. In groups and out groups.

  75. Cecilia Davidson says:

    Jeff might want to amend one line, as tolerance isn’t the right word. Those who perpetuate bigotry, when confronted, ask why we won’t just tolerate them.

    Other than that, “left wing” Christians are a little more inclusive and empathetic than those who decide that love is conditional.

  76. Will says:

    That’s fine Cecilia, I respect that you feel that way. Have a good day.

  77. Gary says:

    Michael…for the record. YOU are the exact type of Christian that has shown me there is little help for the church institution. Your self absorbed grandstanding, so full of arrogance and self righteousness, is self evident and in no way disguised by your silly declarations of agape love…LOL. You are a clear product of of what I refer to as the dark side of religion.

    And this nonsense several keep spouting that to speak up against abuse is just as intolerant as the abusers are themselves is completely ridiculous. Fighting for the rights of the oppressed is a noble thing. Only those wishing to protect their right to their bigoted abusive ways will even declare such bullshit.

  78. Nate says:

    Gary…well said. I have been at awe watching the responses over the last few days. Michael, what religion are you a part of and whose teachings do you follow? Just curious. I’m really glad I am not a part of Christianity anymore. Oh, and Cecillia, I will totally quote your “Theopectate” bit–that was genius (I loved your other stuff to…you should start a website with that, hilarious!)! I loved it.

  79. Cecilia Davidson says:

    Nate, I already have my own page but I made a blog post for this.

  80. Reaganator says:

    @ David
    By definition, Michael isn’t actually a troll, since all of his arguments are logic-based arguments and pretty reasonable considering his standpoint, unlike the gross logical fallacies put forth by Cecilia Davidson (ULTIMATE ABILITY: you’re wrong about everything because you’re a bigot. Actually, my favorite of hers, which unfortunately I can no longer find the link to, was something about the argument tactics of conservatives: That we like to overwhelm our opponents with … what was it? DETAILS? Excuse me?!? Details create the big picture! If you ignore them, then it’s no wonder you’re so blind!) Michael’s positions may carry the tone of classical religious rhetoric, but if we assume this whole notion of “God” to be true, then they actually make sense.
    @ Michael. Thanks for your well-structured points. I’m also curious to know what religious organization you subscribe to. Many of the doctrinal concepts you describe seem different from the typical catholic/mainstream dogma we usually hear. They’re ideas I’ve heard before, but never outside of my own sphere of learning.

  81. Cecilia Davidson says:

    The best you can do at this point is ignore the recursive and contrarian nature of Michael’s posts. Enough said

  82. Michael says:

    The theology I follow with my life is not of this universe.

    An e-booklet entitled “New Light Within the Christian Worldview” is available at

    All are welcome to read it and come to your own conclusions.

  83. Cecilia Davidson says:

    I’d rather not, considering that this book you follow is clearly OF this universe.

  84. Michael says:

    You are right. It is an ex-aliquo sub-personal excident, made of wood pulp, a shard from our imploded primary matter that caused the universe.

  85. Cecilia Davidson says:

    Not at all what I meant. Theology is a human attempt to explain and examine the inexplicable and untestable.

    Btw – promoting your e-book? Bad taste.

  86. Michael says:

    In a cosmological sense, you are right, since cosmology theory cannot adequately explain the origin of evil, as it does not recognize an ex-nihilo first creation. The result is short-sighted theologies and religions.

    However, the new theology is both explicable and testable in the ontological sense, that God is not responsible for the origin of evil and temptation. Humans caused evil, not God.

    My friend’s book. Not mine.

  87. Cecilia Davidson says:

    And you do nothing to persuade me that you weren’t hocking your wares without permission.

    Sorry, but anything trying to test the untestable with anecdotal “evidence” is posturing. I’m sorry but you have offered no justification for Walsh’s hate speech. You can’t justify it, otherwise you bastardize you’re religion

  88. Gary says:

    “However, the new theology is both explicable and testable in the ontological sense,”

    Yeah…sure it is…LMFAO

  89. Michael says:

    Your continued expressions regarding this matter suggest to me it is serious enough to take action. I urge you to take up your case to the blog owner, who will review the alleged infraction.


  90. Cecilia Davidson says:

    More likely he’s just honestly ignoring you, Michael. To be honest, your theology and your trying to SELL things on someone else’s page are both extraordinarily disrespectful.

    Do yourself a huge favor. Leave. See if Matt Walsh will put up with your trying to sell things on his blog.

  91. Michael says:

    Sorry for the misunderstanding, and for offending you. The book is free, and explains the entire progressive theology. There is no monetary exchange, nor do I have any interest in a monetary exchange. Thanks.

  92. Gary says:

    Don’t flatter yourself Michael. I really was just laughing at your claim that your theories (I am being kind calling them that) are testable. It shows just how much intellect you are willing to set aside to prop up your nonsense.

  93. Michael says:

    Gary, I have no problem with your continued derision of a theory you know little to nothing of. It is normal that any new theory goes through the usual ridicule/attack/acceptance stages, often taking years, decades or even centuries to develop through the stages. However, it is intellectually dishonest to ridicule a theory without first being educated in it. You are not educated in the theory. By education, I mean one cannot learn physics or engineering from a blog any more than an entire theology. What I have written here is not even the tip of the iceberg.

  94. Michael says:

    Go through standard protocol. Learn the theory, then ridicule. This is the way it was with any new theory for thousands of years. Show you got balls, Gary.

  95. Gary says:

    More goading me into researching your theories on how we existed outside of time and are the actual vessel or cause of this “original sin” separate from all of creation? Nah…you revealed your willingness to embrace nonsense once again when you declared that this “theory” is somehow testable in ANY sense. I have no interest in exploring your particular brand of ontology. It is a bizarre and very self serving hypothesis which appears to be designed to allow you to cling to your dogma of original sin. But yeah…I will point out the silliness of any statement claiming that such a belief is in any way “testable”. The moment you make such a declaration you reveal fully the folly of exploring your fantasy any further.

    And BTW – following my testicular cancer episode many years ago I have gone through life with BALL…not balls. But I assure you it has and continues to serve me well. Your crass badgering is quite juvenile.

  96. Michael says:

    On the contrary, the new perspective destroys the original sin theory of cosmology theology. Cosmology theory, by default, defines God as an Existent God, a perverse mega-creature, who created evil in the universe so we can step right into the trap. Creation is then reduced to a cosmology theory of ex-aliquo processes of creation and/or evolution. God becomes the reason why bad things happen to Good people. We blame God. We explore other theories, such as praxiology or New Age-ism to fill the empty void.

    It is easy to see why progressives may be the first to see this problem, and why so many people drop out of religion, and Christianity in general. We should hate the Existent God. It is not the true God, the one who created us as perfect human beings – like God, only finite. Only God is infinite. We reached too high.

    I am only a messenger, one carrying an answer out of your dilemma. I understand your hurt, and others, on this blog. I was once there. If anyone feels the need to dump on me, as a form of frustration, have at it. I can take it. In the meantime, I stand patient and ready to be a friend, and to make a friend.

  97. Gary says:

    None of that rambling mess applies to me. I don’t hate god…I don’t blame god. I have a much healthier view of God. And I do not refuse to entertain your ontological ramblings out of some perceived “hurt”. The more you grasp at these silly notions the more I realize how much grasping you are willing to do in order to convince yourself of your superiority. You make a huge number of declarations which are of course nothing but opinion. (Only God is infinite, we are finite and “reached too high”) and of course you sound ridiculous when you declare these as fact. And declaring yourself as “only a messenger” is profoundly arrogant in its presumption. And frankly…hysterically funny as well.

  98. Cecilia Davidson says:

    Like I said earlier, Gary – Michael the Father, Michael the Son, and Michael the Holy Spirit. The self-proclaimed messenger of his own inflated, nonsubstantial “theology” is nothing more than a pompous man who wants to sell salvation.

  99. Jake says:

    I apologize for being slightly confused.
    You lambaste Matt Walsh for claiming to be a “Speaker of Truths” then go on to post what I can only assume what you believe to be true, or “Speaking the Truth” unless you do not believe what you speak. You seem to be deeply committed to your beliefs so I will not hint that the alternative left is that you might be lying, rather I will call you out directly. Do you consider yourself to be a “Speaker of Truth” similar to Matt Walsh whom you “critique” or are you actively “speaking that which you know to be untrue?”

  100. Michael says:

    Good insight, Jake. I have been trying to extract the basis of this website’s truth as well, several times. But it’s like pulling teeth. I honestly think even they don’t know. The only response I get is criticism of other truths, such as Wals’s cosmological truth, and my ontological truth. They hate those truths, to be sure.

    The only truth I have been able to discern from this website is a form of praxiological truth that is being preached here. But I have also shown that praxiology has nothing to do with Christianity. To be sure, it’s a truth – similar to a solcialist/Marxist one – but certainly not a Christian truth.

  101. David says:

    What if I said I wasn’t trying to talk “Christian truth”? Isn’t all truth just truth? Is there even such a thing as “Christian truth”?

  102. Michael says:

    David, from what I have been observing, you have exited the cosmological truth expressed in biblical Christianity, and have entered into praxiological truth. The problem is, praxiological and cosmological truths are not compatible.

    There are three great theological movements in the world. The first I refer to as “cosmology theology” and its proponents as “cosmologians”. The second I call “praxiology theology” and its members as “praxilogians”. The third has been baptized as “ontology theology” and its followers known as “ontologians”.

    Praxiology theology is nothing more than atheistic and materialistic Marxism wearing the cloak of a saint and in South America it is known as “Liberation theology” (to this day, I know of no one liberated from any sort of oppression by it). It is the biggest theological movement in the world and comprises one third of the Communist and socialist nations. Praxiology theology was founded by Karl Marx and one third of the Catholic clergy in the world are praxiologians who defend and follow it.

    Cosmology theology is the traditional theology found within the Jewish-Muslim-Christian-Catholic religions and elaborated in a space-time context of our present universe and confined by it. Though some of its principles are based on being, they are founded only on “conscious” being and do not take into consideration, include nor work with the reality of “unconscious being”.

    The being of cosmology theology is also conditioned and rather warped by “existence” such that its conclusions become inconclusive. “Existence” seriously compromises the aspects and truths of being in “cosmology theology”. Cosmology theology is the second biggest theological movement in the world and practically all the theologians of the three great Faiths (Catholic, Jewish and Muslim) are cosmologians. The principal founder of cosmology theology was Aristotle followed by Augustine, St. Albert the Great, St. Thomas Aquinas and Maritain.

    The third great theological movement known as ontology theology was founded by Robert and Mary Joyce after nearly 50 years of prayer and spiritual and human reflection and inspired by John Paul II’s “Fide e Ratio”. Robert and Mary Joyce published their conclusions in a series of books that came out in 2010. Ontology theology is based upon and developed from the Biblical text of the revelation of God’s name found in Exodus, where God tells Moses that He is “I am who am” (and not the Divine Motor of Aristotle, the “unmoved mover”). God is the living God who is infinite being. Ontology theology is the most universal of the three theologies because it is not limited to our space-time reality, but embraces all reality, including the validity of and being open to being in eternity.

  103. David says:

    Thanks for the lesson. But how does that justify the fact that Matt Walsh is condescending?

  104. Michael says:

    Your question proves your praxiology. It actually quite say it all. What you are actually questioning is equality. You are questioning the inequality of Walsh’s condescending with your own toward him. Your are stating, in essence, that his is worse, and it needs to be corrected, so that it is at least at your level of condescension. Your Walsh blog effort is to show others the inequality and unfairness in all things, including condescension. Evidence shows this is a praxiological mentality at work.

    Also, your first sentence was unnecessary, and indirectly projects your perception of my condescension toward you. I wrote the long post because, in many posts thus far, you have not acknowledged my assertion that your mentality is of the praxiologist sort. Until you state otherwise, I must define what praxiology is, in case you deny the mentality or have another definition. Evidence I have seen, however, shows that praxiology absolutely saturates both your cartoons and posts, including even the last short response.

  105. Reaganator says:

    Correct me if i’m wrong, but can’t a person be condescending AND still be correct in what they say? “Being right” and “being a jerk”, aren’t mutually exclusive. Being a jerk certainly doesn’t get others to like you, but it has nothing to do with the content of the message. I’ve heard lots of arguments about why everything Matt Walsh publishes should be deleted, recycled, and then the hard drives they were deleted from melted down into slag and thrown into an active volcano to ensure that none of his radical ultra-conservative garbage is ever recovered, but all of them seem to center around the idea that because he is condescending, he is wrong. I have yet to see any that successfully argue against his reasoning in-and-of-itself (except maybe the study claiming that kids raised by same-sex couples do better in society than kids born into hetero-sexual couples. And on that one I’m still inclined to side with Matt, but not for the same reasons. I just think that humans EVOLVED as hetero-sexual organisms, and if being omni-sexual was so much more beneficial, then we’d all be doin’ it like the sea slugs do on discovery channel).

  106. David says:

    Excellent point Reaganator. Although I do feel he is misguided. “Wrong” is a strong word. But I’m willing to call discrimination against others wrong.

  107. Reaganator says:

    Ya, being discriminatory is pretty bad… even worse than being a baby killer, and ALMOST as bad as leaving your dog in the car.

  1. June 6, 2014

    […] all progressives are violent, crazy, rabid lunatics wanting him dead. I don’t want him dead. David Hayward, who Matt also responded to in his recent post, doesn’t want him dead either. In fact, there […]