Having read Ashleigh’s own blog myself (well, not the WHOLE thing but I read several of her entries), I know you also read it. I never get the impression that many of these people who show up pointing fingers when you post something controversial ever read any more than that one post. I can’t think of anything more ridiculous than judging a person solely on a one line of thought. That’s like walking down a street and hearing somebody talk about how it’s taking his super too long to fix his broken window, and deciding you know everything about that person now. Can you can conclude that the person in my example looks down on the poor, working-class slob who is supposed to fix things? What you really know is how said individual feels about the situation. You don’t know anything about how he feels about the person that is the building super. Which brings me right back to Steve’s comment where he throws down the gauntlet and asks if you can point out where he attacks the person.

Frankly, to me this seemed much more like commentary on a number of social woes we face than on Ashleigh herself. But that’s just my opinion. I could be wrong.

I know that Jesus used sarcasm… so that establishes sarcasm as one of the tools we’ve been given in our spiritual toolbox. I know then that there must be both appropriate (and inappropriate) uses of that tool, as there are with any tools. So that, in general, is why I use it.

Indeed, sarcasm can put people on the defensive, but I would say that if the chance of that discounted the use of sarcasm altogether then Jesus wouldn’t have ever been sarcastic. I bet when Christ drove out the moneychangers from the temple he put them on the “defensive”… for their lives. One could argue that Christ could have been more effective if he put the whip down and nicely spoke to them. And when Christ openly offended the Pharisees and called them names, I’m sure this didn’t exactly help his point get heard.

So what does that mean? I think it means that it’s SOMETIMES okay if we offend people with the truth. Sometimes sarcasm, or even *gulp* name-calling, might be appropriate according to scripture. Of course, these “tools” have to be used wisely, no mistake about it.

But back to your point… I also tend to assign an intensity to my responses based on the person I am responding to. I would disagree with a 65-year-old church trustee much differently than I would a 21-year-old college girl. Perhaps I tend to show greater respect to the elder. The elder will probably be a better listener with all his years and wisdom, and wouldn’t require me to put a “pointy-end” on my conclusions for them to be heard - unlike today’s ADD generation. Now that’s a gross generalization, but the point is that differentiation takes place.

The question of sarcasm is near-continually going on in church circles… sarcasm, aggression, name-calling… and I’ve heard that none of those things are Christ-like. Yet Christ used them, so something is out of joint. Like I said: If someone’s view of love, compassion, and Christ-likeness does not allow for ALL of Christ’s recorded conduct in the Bible, then the view is wrong.

Although everyone is different, and people have their own gifts in different areas. If you avoid sarcasm as a way to make your “teaching” more effective then that’s great. Being from a military and “black and white” engineering background I have found blunt-force truth to more effective… and that’s great, too.

This response ended up being much longer than I planned. I must go practice my guitar now for tomorrow.

@ Earni & War-Axe
You guys are great, there is little left to say.

Nontheless, there is a little bit I do feel I could add. Jesus doesn’t just stand for Truth. A wise preacher (Fr. Corapi) I watch on EWTN says that Truth (Love, Wisdom, Mercy, etc) is not something, but somebody. And His name, is Jesus Christ. In standing for truth War-Axe is standing up for Jesus Christ Himself.

Why do you use sarcasm “to scoot people along the path of reason and logic”?

I always try to avoid sarcasm, even though it comes naturally to me, because I think sarcasm puts people on the defensive and means that my message and point don’t get heard. It causes the person I’m trying to “teach” to react to the delivery. It often is perceived as belittling, even when the person claims its not meant to be - at least that is my experience.

I, am one of those who think Steve was acting with a lot of restraint. To be honest, Ashleigh was being arrogant and naive–not a good combination. Arrogant because she thinks one political science class in international political theory given by a leftist professor makes her an expert and naive because she believes that after spending a just few short years as a legal adult she actually knows something about the world. Ashleigh, by her own admission has lived a fairly sheltered life and is still understandably confused about how life works (again her own admission with statements like “her struggles”).

Let me ask you a question. If Jesus is the Son of God (which He is) and therefore omniscient–i.e., all-knowing–and He proved His intelligence as a twelve year-old when He debated the top Jewish religious leaders of the day: why did He wait until He was thirty to begin His public ministry? Answer: because in Jewish culture they recognize that people under thirty do not have much intellectual, cogent insight to add to the public debate. If you were under thirty you could not sit in the council of the elders at the gate of the city to judge matters. In other words, people under thirty do not get to sit at the big table with the adults and weigh-in on the important matters of the day. They just have not had enough experience and learning yet.

Jesus, always doing what is right, waited until the appropriate time to join the public discourse. Had He joined before thirty years of age He would have offended many of the people He came to save.

There is wisdom in Jewish culture that is often lacking in American culture (particularly since the 1960’s)–honoring our elders, heeding the advice of the learned, experienced and wise, and respecting traditions.

So, I will say what Steve was way too kind to say: Ashleigh, is too young, inexperienced, naive, and arrogant to weigh-in on the important matters of public discourse. If all she has to bring to the big people’s table is a not-yet completed political science degree (I actually earned one of those in 1996 subsequent to spending three years in the U.S. Army–you do the math on how old that makes me) and one course in international political theory then she really needs to go back to the kids table. Or, rather she can sit at the big people’s table, keep quiet, listen and learn.

Furthermore, Ashleigh is a very confused individual who does mean well (her heart is in the right place) but intellectually she has not a clue (her head is lost in space). For instance, she, according to her blog, is guilty for something she had no control over–the fact that she was born white and to a well to-do family. Rather, she should thank the Lord for being blessed to have been born in such a situation then she should do all she can to help those who have not been so blessed. There is nothing wrong with being born white or rich. Just like there is nothing wrong or right about being black, Hispanic, Asian, or Sri Lankan. In God’s eyes we are all equals: sinners whom God loves and desires to redeem.

Which brings me to another point: a wise man once said, “earn all you can so you can give all you can.” Being rich is not wrong, it is a blessing that God bestows on some and not others. Being arrogant because you are rich is wrong…just like thinking less of yourself than you ought because you are poor is wrong. If you are rich–to which Ashleigh alludes–then use your wealth to make the lives of others better. Think about this: a person who makes $50k a year and gives 10% to charity gives $5k. A person who makes $100k a year and also gives 10% to charity can give $10k (100% increase). Furthermore, if all you need to live on is $50k, then you can give away $50k if you make $100k. Your wealth can be as much or more of a blessing to others as it can to you.

Because of Ashleigh’s youth and inexperience she does not understand these concepts and thus has fallen prey to the wiles of leftist professors who desire nothing else but to deceive the young and entrap them in a world of guilt for circumstances which they have no control.

In conclusion, Steve is way more kind than you realize.

In your profile above you say you are a Christ-follower. [...] However, this post in no way resembles anything Jesus Christ stood for.

Did you also see in my profile above that I’m “the loud discerner”? Christ stood for truth. If there could be just ONE overall theme in my blogging, it’d be a pursuit of truth… sometimes delivered delicately, sometimes delivered at high velocities… but pursued none-the-less. As I told Lance, “I try (with a little sarcasm) to scoot people along the path of reason and logic.” You could debate the velocity I choose at any particular moment, but to just say it doesn’t resemble ANYTHING of Christ’s character is simply folly.

So, there… that’s one thing Jesus Christ stood for. It only took 12 seconds to dismantle your core premise. If you wanna dance with me you gotta bring more game than that. But, you get points for being honest and straightforward, so let’s press on.

Basically you have created a public forum for mocking and tearing down your sister in the body of Christ. And you’ve allowed (and encouraged) your commenters to do the same.

Are you serious? I think you’re being a little melodramatic, but let’s address your concerns anyway, because this is probably a good time to make the distinction (and I know that there are those who actually carefully watch my responses so that they better learn how to defend their own positions in controversial situations). And even more importantly, it’s good to address sincerely stated concerns because there’s always a chance the concerns are valid!

Every blog with open comments is a public forum… nothing wrong with that. But this “mocking and tearing down” - is that what’s really going on? Let me start by saying that I’ve had people comment directly on the post (as you can read), and comments made to me via email, and also made to me in person. The various commenters (both within this post and to me directly) range from the fairly mild-mannered to the steely intense. None of them thought I was being unkind or unfair, and many thought I was showing profound (Christ-like?) restraint. In fact, a few people have told me I was being TOO kind… PAINfully kind.

Let’s be sure to make a distinction between taking a critical look at someone’s public statements, and personally attacking their character. I’d challenge you to find anywhere in my post, or in the words of these commenters, an attack on someone’s character. This point cannot be understated… as this is exactly the type of scenario that motivates discerners to muzzle themselves, because they get skiddish about standing up for correct forms of critique. We can thank several decades of male-feminization in the Christian sub-culture for that.

So, indeed, if you read mine and my commenters words you’ll actually see more sympathy for her illogical condition than anything else - even blatant admissions that her heart’s in the right place?! Did you skip over all the Christ-resembling parts?

Now being a public forum everyone is “allowed” to opine. I accept a wide berth of opinions, and rarely do I see the need to “quell” comments. In fact, I’ve been told (by Christ-followers who’d tell me like it is if they had to) that I tend toward the restrained side when replying to comments. I think that’s true… I think it’s the nature of blogs, and of the web.

I certainly have not encouraged anyone to attack anyone’s character, nor have they done so. If something is being “torn down”, it is a statement or idea that was presented and found (by the listener) to be severely flawed. We learned in the movie ‘300′ that everyone is responsible for their own words. You have stumbled upon a place that might just be out of your comfort zone… where intellectual honesty and critical thinking is valued. Speak the truth in love - we can all agree on that… it’s just what “love” looks like that keeps getting confused. Geez, I was just having to address this very thing a week ago with a guy named “Jack” who didn’t like my post about people being free to be obese. He castigated me for being judgmental, but then said in his judgment I was “the farthest thing from a compassionate ‘Christ-follower’.” You can’t make this stuff up.

We know from Christ’s character he was both gentle and aggressive, peaceful and near-violent, silent and loud, nurturing and sarcastic. Whatever was appropriate at the time - he was it. This is the many appearances of love and compassion. As I told “Jack”, Christ showed us both how to love the repentant prostitute, and how to “love” the temple moneychangers. For a Christ-follower, that doesn’t give us license to pick our favorite one of those and use it exclusively… that’d be sinful. So if you’re stuck on “aggressive” Jesus, or on “passive” Jesus, you’re probably in sin.

What Christ’s example DOES tell us is that we’ve got a lot of tools in the chest, and we need to learn to use all of them as appropriate (and as we’ve been gifted by the spirit). Now - I’m about to make a profound truth statement. Is everyone ready? Prepare to copy…

If your view of love, compassion, and Christ-likeness does not allow for all of Christ’s recorded conduct in the Bible, then your view is wrong.

A fellow Christ-follower just today told me that churches have equated compassion with “wimpiness” for so long that anything un-wimpy appears un-compassionate.

I think it’s fine to disagree with Ashleigh.

Disagree probably doesn’t cover it for me. For someone to besmirch - as exploitative of the poor - a capitalist system that has seen its average “poor” become wealthier than 9/10 of the planet (and now suffer from obesity!?)… is sinfully bereft of intellectual honesty.

That besmirching statement (as well as a few others that were made) indicate a gross conceptual disconnect with reality. I believe that disconnect serves to harm her potential to help the poor, and to influence others to do the same. But that’s just my opinion.

To be honest with you, I am troubled by what you’ve written here. In your profile above you say you are a Christ-follower. I assume that means your try to live your life as Jesus Christ did. However, this post in no way resembles anything Jesus Christ stood for.

Basically you have created a public forum for mocking and tearing down your sister in the body of Christ. And you’ve allowed (and encouraged) your commenters to do the same.

I think it’s fine to disagree with Ashleigh. But do so in a manner that honors the God you both love.

You’ll laugh - but when I hear kids who’ve only known school and/or haven’t worked a real job yet.. and they strongly expound on global issues… I think of you guys over in your corner of the planet. I think about what a profound difference it is between people who DO and DO NOT know - by experience - what they are talking about.

And speaking of this poor girl - after perusing her blog it turns out she grew up rich and is having a bad post-high-school reaction to it. She minored in African American studies (she’s white) and has posted that: “For so long I’ve struggled to accept myself as a white person. It is so easy to think of nothing but the terrible things my people have done.”

Never underestimate the power of a marxist professor and a brain full of mush.

@John3Sobieksi
Yeah, her heart is in the right place. That’s why I wanted to help get her head right as well… but she seems pretty stubborn and logic-resistant.

Thanks for the kind words.

@John
Nice Gravatar for you, too. No, she never came out and said who was supposed to be belittled by the cartoon - I can only guess murdering savages. But what race are they, though? Perhaps they’re Armenian and _I_ should be offended. Maybe they’re clowns?

@Lance
Thanks. I try (with a little sarcasm) to scoot people along the path of reason and logic… but…

I don’t understand that cartoon.

Well, she’s got her heart in the right place when trying to help poor people. The thing is that many leftist don’t know, is that they need to leave the thinking to the brain, not the heart.

WarAxe. Have you ever considered being on a debate team? I think you’d be awesome.

What kills me is that the socialist indoctrination she received in political science class didn’t also offer the corresponding philosophy. Isn’t the insignificance of $32/month the reason that people are able to give? And is that not the equivalent of a butterfly flapping its wings on this side of the world?