When constructing an argument, a set of reasoned rebuttals, against a position, it's considered more effective to deal with your opponents perceived strong points. If you're able to clarify that the opponent's core values are in error then you will have defeated or diminished their position. But when your attack on the other side is based on paranoia, falsehood, and non-authoritative references, then you end up with a position that is weaker than the one you oppose.

The story begins with a set of lies about conservative positions. The particular positions involve matters of life, that life should be protected and not subject to government control. In particular the discussion centers on the matters of Terri Schaivo and embryonic stem cell research.

We all know the popular misrepresentations -- Terri Schaivo and ESCR.  Though Terri Schaivo was not terminal, someone apparently had the right to put her to death, with court support, the Utilitarians (predominantly the Left) insist that the right to put her to death trumps her right to life. And though we know human life exists when sperm and egg join, some seem intent on performing experimentation on Life.

A Leftist blog called DownWithTyrrany repeated the lies and made them very clear:

• anti-stem cell research
• supported government intervention in the Terri Schaivo case

The first is obvious -- opposing embryonic stem cell research is not the same as opposing stem cell research. But we can't let the facts get in the way. The second, supporting "government intervention" is some creative spin. When Michael Schaivo filed suit it was he who brought the court (the government) into the matter. But again, we can't let the facts get in the way.

There are other lies in the post, these are noted becuase of their subsequent quotation. One of my favorite targets for his frequent lies and spreading of lies is, of course, TalkToAction. Fred Clarkson repeats the lies, probably because he agrees with them. There's no surprise. In his paranoia he quotes that same paranoid blogger who resorts to violent metaphor (being thrown "under the bus") and suggests that those of other opinions are merely "bigoted".

These lies are not the personal property of DownWithTyrrany and TalkToAction -- they're a concensus understanding on the Left.

So how does Clarkson conclude his point?  With some proof of error or wrong-doing?  Na.  He just tries to raise money for Marxist activists.  That's the quality writing we get from TalkToAction.

Cross-posted at Evangelical Perspective.

HUCKABEE: Well, I don’t think that’s a radical view to say we’re going to affirm marriage. I think the radical view is to say that we’re going to change the definition of marriage so that it can mean two men, two women, a man and three women, a man and a child, a man and animal. Again, once we change the definition, the door is open to change it again. I think the radical position is to make a change in what’s been historic.

Was Huckabee saying that, if one is practices homosexuality then one might as well practice bestiality? No, he said no such thing. He did not set up a practical equivalence. Huckabee did NOT say that homosexual practice is the same as practicing bestiality. What he did was to draw a moral equivalency and that is a quite different thing. This is mainstream Christian theology, not at all part of any extreme movement, despite Sargent's assertion.

Clearer still is Sargent's failure to separate from the other things that Huckabee mentioned: Pedophilia and polyandry. Because Sargent took the practical equivalence route, it is fair to ask this: Are these now acceptable practical equivalents for those who support the morality of homosexual practice? Many in the homosexual community regularly denies Their support of pedophilia (despite the recruitment to homosexual behavior via public school curricula and television shows like Desperate Housewives) but at the same time polyandry/multiple partners is mainstream in that community. (Yes, these practices are certainly just as immoral when they occur within the heterosexual community.)

Sargent's willingness to lie by misrepresentation may prove to be effective. But it is little more than the lowest of smears.

Heterophobe:  Always looking for the worst possible scenario, Bruce Wilson insinuates that Huckabee might be out to kill people. What a sad little man.

Personally, I don't think Huck can win in the current state of affairs. He has a lot of support but this type of theological discussion, as correct as it is, should be kept out of the campaign period. He needs some better handlers if he is going to win anything.

Belief in God, I will argue, requres a distinctive view of reality which leads to interpreting the postulates of scientific theories in a distinctively theistic way. So the theist is not a "methodological naturalist" in science; to take that position would be to assume either that something in creation is divine rather than God, or that belief in God makes no difference ot one's interpretation of nature. At the same time, however, the distinctively Christian-theistic view of reality I'm going to argue for does not consist of looking for miracles to explain the workings of nature. Rather, it consists of interpreting numbers, or atoms, or evolution, or whatever, as having a non-reductionist nature -- which is what I will argue belief in God requires.
-- Roy Clouser, The Myth of Religious Neutrality, revised edition, p. 121-122.

When Christians academics approach natural science, theoretical science, mathematics, psychology, and philosophy from a different framework than do the naturalists, the accusation is often that we are extreme, out of the mainstream, and therefore present an unacceptable view of reality. Despite the banter that we are merely "creationists" and having our world view in place will destroy public education, it can be argued that Christianity rightly places this Personal God in His rightful place, as opposed to the Impersonal Deities of Reason, Dialectic, or whatever other worship/idol happens to be the fad of the decade.

As Dr. Clouser clarifies in the section on mathematics, 1+1=2 may be a perfectly clear formula in daily life, but the world view behind the interpretations of "+" and "=" yields a plethora of perspectives. For those of us over age 50, we've seen them come and go in public education. Mathematics has gone through the "New Math", the postmodern non-commitment to answers, and further on to (yes, it is this ridiculous) color assignments.

The reductionist practices of educational theorists have taken their toll on math education as well as other fields, as Dr. Clouser points out. The results of this way of thinking most certainly affects curriculum design. The Christian thinker would do well to be involved in education beyond school involvement and interpersonal interaction. Those who can construct a quality curriculum because that curriculum reflects a Christian world view. New Math, non-commitment, and color speculations reflect a certain neo-paganism which requires confrontation.

Cross-posted in: Evangelical Perspective

Following suit, one of the responders reiterated the fallacies of the original post and drew the association, this time to the Republican party.

With this type of logic, if it were acceptable, all pro-life persons would be treated as Terrorists.  Whether Mr. Clarkson meant that or not is beside the point -- he is directly encouranging and reinforcing a level of social hatred that is unreasonable if he wishes his positions to be taken seriously.

Of course the Right has problems.  Let us confront and correct those things.  At the same time let us also continue to expose the nonsense that masquerades as intelligence.