Pages

Friday, June 15, 2007

Serious question to Natalie and Nickie

Thank you ladies for taking the time to comment. May I ask you some sincere questions?

Does it not bother you that Candy only ever gives one side of a discussion? Does it bother you that she never posts comments that disagree with her perspective, even if done graciously and courteously? Or perhaps you were not aware that that is what happens on her blog behind the scenes?

Doesn't it bother you that she bashes a group of Christians regularly and on her side bar? Are you aware that many consider that to be bigotry?

I'm just trying to understand this. I realize that she does have a lot of veryhelpful things on her blog. However if she as openly bashed the overweight, blacks, Jews, gays, the retarded, pick a group, I doubt that many would stand for it. Why then is it okay to bash Catholics or to allow that kind of bigotry to stand just to get a few household hints that could just as easily be gleaned elsewhere?

19 comments:

Natalie said...

In answer to your questions, "No". Why? Because its a free country. She has a right to post whatever she wants, and so do you. As long as she doesn't do anything illegal like hurt anyone Catholic or otherwise, then she has a right to say whatever she wants. And, so do you.

That's hard to accept, especially when she may be criticizing something dear to you, but that's life.

You can let it get to you, or you can ignore it. That's your choice.

Elena said...

I can certainly support the right to free speech.

I don't however patronize all forms of free speech. I don't buy pornography, I don't visit web sites that bash minorities, the disabled, the mentally ill, the overweight, people of color or people that practice a different faith.

There certainly is a big difference between accepting something because it is legal, and supporting it even though it is immoral. I think in this case, the bigotry shown towards Catholics borders on the immoral.

I guess I shouldn't be too surprised that people tend to ignore the abuse of others, although I guess I expect more from Christians.

I choose the third option though Nickie, I won't let it get to me, and I can't ignore it, so I plan to do something about it. That too is my choice.

Thanks for answering the question.

Natalie said...

Acknowledging someone's right to free speech is not supporting it. There are tons of blogs that completely offend me; therefore, I don't visit them.

My question is, if you are so against what she is saying, why do you visit her site? Why do you waste your time? Those are just simple questions. You don't patronize pornography because of your beliefs, yet you patronize her site... also of which is against your beliefs.

Natalie said...

And, why do I, as a Christian, choose to ignore criticism of others that I don't agree with? And, why do I acknowledge the free will and rights of others?

Because Christ did.

Larry and Deb said...

I haven't ever posted a comment here but I wanted you to know that YES!!!! It bothers me!!!! ;-) I can understand and appreciate what you're trying to do here, and I think Candy totally misrepresents you. There is more I could say about that, but I won't.

--Deb

Nickie said...

I do not agree with everything that Candy says on her website. I am not here to argue with you about who has the right to blog about what. I am just asking you as one christian sister to another, to what profit is this documentation? Is this the way to confront a christian you feel has wronged you? Is this really where you want to put your time and energy? Maybe it is, and if so, you certainly have that right as an american, although I am not certain that you have that right as a daughter of the king. Blessings,
Nickie

Nickie said...

Oh, I forgot to answer your question. If I thought that Candy bashed people on her website I would not visit it. However, believing someone is wrong and trying to persuade them of something out of concern for them--misguided or not--is not bashing them. If your attempts to pursuade her that she's wrong about catholics was unsuccessful, that still doesn't make her a bigot. If you truly believe that she is wrong, the only Christian thing that you can do is pray for her (which I hope you already do?) since neither of you have a common authority except God. Continuing along these lines of documentation will continue to make your sister in Christ defensive and will "document" the hippocracy of the lack of Christian love that you are commanded to have for your neighbor. That would not be a great witness to non-believers who visit your site. These are strong words, and you can choose to ignore them if you wish, but they were written out of concern for you by a fellow sister.

Blessings,
Nickie

Elena said...

Acknowledging someone's right to free speech is not supporting it. There are tons of blogs that completely offend me; therefore, I don't visit them.

OK, but you visit Candy's blog. Her anti-Catholic rhetoric and propoganda on the side bar don't offend you?

My question is, if you are so against what she is saying, why do you visit her site?

Because she does say a lot of things that are incorrect on Catholicism that stand uncorrected. On my blog, which manages to show up on the first and second pages of Google searches, I can correct those statements. They do not stand unopposed.

Why do you waste your time?

I don't consider defending the faith a waste of time.

Those are just simple questions. You don't patronize pornography because of your beliefs, yet you patronize her site...

I don't patronize her site - I oppose it. Big difference.

Elena said...

And, why do I, as a Christian, choose to ignore criticism of others that I don't agree with? And, why do I acknowledge the free will and rights of others?

Because Christ did.


Could you give me an example of where Jesus specifically ignored the persecution of others? Thanks in advance.

Elena said...

I am just asking you as one christian sister to another, to what profit is this documentation?

Honesty and history. It keeps us both honest on what was said, when it was said, and how it was said. And it gives historical accu racy against false accusations. It's insurance.


Is this the way to confront a christian you feel has wronged you?

I don't think there is anything un-Christian about good record keeping and documentation.


Is this really where you want to put your time and energy?

Well,it's just a cut and paste so that takes maybe 2 seconds.

Maybe it is, and if so, you certainly have that right as an american, although I am not certain that you have that right as a daughter of the king.

Well why not? I'm not keeping track of her transgressions. I'm merely keeping track of my comments. That way when she says I called her a "hypocrite" or some such, I don't have to rack my brain thinking,"Hmmm?? I don't remember saying that...did I really write that?" I can rely on written sources. Like I said, it keeps us both honest. And of course if an apology is forthcoming, I will gladly relay it.

Elena said...

There is more I could say about that, but I won't.

Thank you for commenting Deb.

Elena said...

Oh, I forgot to answer your question. If I thought that Candy bashed people on her website I would not visit it.

Candy does Bash Catholics on her site. She also does not allow them to defend themselves.



However, believing someone is wrong and trying to persuade them of something out of concern for them--misguided or not--is not bashing them.

I totally agree. But that is not whatshe does. The links on her web site are wrong. They do not accurately represent Catholicism. She is not trying to persuade, she is trying to propogandize.


If your attempts to pursuade her that she's wrong about catholics was unsuccessful, that still doesn't make her a bigot.

Sure it does. Look up the definition of bigot.

If you truly believe that she is wrong, the only Christian thing that you can do is pray for her (which I hope you already do?)

Oh absolutely. I don't necessarily think it is the "only" Christian that I can do. It's not sandle shaking time yet!

since neither of you have a common authority except God. Continuing along these lines of documentation will continue to make your sister in Christ defensive and will "document" the hippocracy of the lack of Christian love that you are commanded to have for your neighbor.

Debate and discussion amongst Christians is very ancient and very scriptural. There is nothing "unloving" about it.

That would not be a great witness to non-believers who visit your site.


I disagree. I think some non-believers are turned off to the whimpiness to some sides of Christianity and are looking for Christian sites that offer them strong logical, compelling and persuasive argumentation.

These are strong words, and you can choose to ignore them if you wish, but they were written out of concern for you by a fellow sister.

Thank you. However I think your concern is better served trying to convince Candy to stick with homemaking, and drop the false apologetics. Thanks for taking the time to comment.

Natalie said...

Elena,

While Christ was being tortured, he was ridiculed, spat upon, and tormented. He knew that it was meant to be, and did it for the salvation of man. He could have called legions of angels to stop the Romans, but he didn't. He remained quiet, speaking very little.

Now, that I've answered your question, I will say this. I appreciate your site and any others that represent true feminism and the return to home values. I go to them to glean knowledge regardless of their denomination.

But, to yours, I won't be returning.

Sister, you are looking for a fight. A fight against anyone that questions you. I admire your feeling the need to defend your faith, but it appears to me that you're creating fights where there is none.

I'm not here to defend Candy. I have my issues with her site, but like I said, I admire anyone who brings attention to the sanctity of the home.

I know you will post your comments to this, picking apart every little sentence, possibly every word, as you feel the need to do in defending the faith that you think I am attacking. And, that's okay. Its your blog.

You have a great following, who I'm sure can't stand me now... ha ha. And, they will remain with you. But, I'm afraid I no longer can.

Nickie said...

bigot

noun
a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own

WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University


The key to the word bigot is intolerant. If you define intolerant simply as "disagreeing with" (which was your implication by your rebuttal), then I guess we are all bigots unless we have no opinion worth arguing/debating. This would make you and I bigots, (I assume that since you are a christian you disagree with other religions?) wouldn't it? In fact, this would make all evangelists bigots, wouldn't it? Anyone who tries to persuade anyone of anything would be a bigot by this use of the word intolerant.

It is my opinion (and my dictionary's) that intolerant as refering to bigots means "hostile to". Hostile meaning antagonistic, unfriendly. I do not know Candy personally, I obviously haven't read her personal correspondance to you, but I have never found her writing to be antagonistic or unfriendly. She is characteristically upbeat and friendly in her blogs. I don't think that she is a perfect person and I don't care if she thinks she is a perfect person or not. I just know that she does not come across as a bigot. However, it looks as if everything you've read by me has fallen on deaf ears. I am sad about that, but I feel that I did my best. I hope that you are able to let this rest.

Best wishes,
Nickie

Larry and Deb said...

"I have never found her writing to be antagonistic or unfriendly. She is characteristically upbeat and friendly in her blogs."

I think, Nickie, that's one very good reason why Elena has chosen to document her comments and Candy's. Because Candy is not only characteristically upbeat and friendly in her posts -- she also characteristically writes things and then deletes them later (which, strangely enough, are usually the comments that seem to run counter to her upbeat and friendly online persona), and she also characteristically doesn't post any comment that disagrees with or questions her in a way with which she's uncomfortable.

What's wrong with that? It builds an inaccurate portrayal of her views and who she is as a person, on which she is building a strong following of women where she has some influence. It is, in a word, dishonest, but it also dangerous for those who look to her for some kind of guidance.

Is it wrong for Elena to point that out and provide documentation that give evidence of that? Absolutely not. On the contrary, I applaud Elena for trying to bring it to light. It is not right to walk away when someone is doing something of potential harm to others, and make no mistake, Candy's duplicitous leadership is potentially harmful.

--Deb

Elena said...

Sister, you are looking for a fight. A fight against anyone that questions you.

Natalie, you couldn't be more wrong. While I welcome and even enjoy a good discussion and debate (which is very biblical and a big part of Christian History) I welcome such with graciousness, sincerity, logic, and goodwill. I know that this is possible. In fact guys do it all the time!

Nonetheless, don't confuse being open to debate and discussion to defending the faith. I defend the faith because I am called to do so. That too is scriptural and very Christian.


I admire your feeling the need to defend your faith, but it appears to me that you're creating fights where there is none.

It only appears that way because that is how Candy presents it. Her entire side board presentation on Catholicism is offensive. Perhaps you don't think she's asking for a fight. I know better.

I'm not here to defend Candy. I have my issues with her site, but like I said, I admire anyone who brings attention to the sanctity of the home.

If she had stuff on her side bar about the Klu Klux Klan, or making fun of the mentally ill or fat people, I wonder if you would still admire her efforts to bring "sanctity to the home." How much sanctity can there be when you are deliberately disrespectful of other people.

I know you will post your comments to this, picking apart every little sentence, possibly every word, as you feel the need to do in defending the faith that you think I am attacking.

It's called fisking. It is the closest I can come to being like a real conversation where you say something, and then I respond. I like to digest a longer post in smaller parts. It's not meant to be offensive, it's just easier for my to process.



And, that's okay. Its your blog.

You have a great following, who I'm sure can't stand me now... ha ha.

I don't think so Natalie, and I'm not offended either. I'm just trying to understand how other Christians can tolerate such unChristian behavior on an ongoing basis.


And, they will remain with you. But, I'm afraid I no longer can.

I'm sorry to hear that Natalie. I wonder if you will be avoiding Candy's blog as well, or if you will continue to tolerate her intolerance.

Either way, I have no hard feelings and wish you well.

Elena said...

The key to the word bigot is intolerant. If you define intolerant simply as "disagreeing with" (which was your implication by your rebuttal), then I guess we are all bigots unless we have no opinion worth arguing/debating.

I don't define intolerance as "simply disagreeing." Candy doesn't simply disagree. She completely cenors and does not allow anyone to ever have a logical, thought out, sincere, compelling comment that disagrees with her on her blog ever. She does not know how to talk to people that do not agree with her. That is intolerance, particularly since she continues to post things and link things that are offensive.


Anyone who tries to persuade anyone of anything would be a bigot by this use of the word intolerant.

Nonsense. Just because you try to compel or persuade someone else does not mean that you are intolerant of them. Where ever did you get that idea? Right now, I am trying to compel you and persuade you to see how wrong Candy is in how she deals with Catholics. You're not having it. And yet I am tolerant of your ideas. I am still allowing you to post here. I would even buy you a piece of pie and a coffee if you lived next door! That is tolerance Nickie!!


It is my opinion (and my dictionary's) that intolerant as refering to bigots means "hostile to". Hostile meaning antagonistic, unfriendly. I do not know Candy personally, I obviously haven't read her personal correspondance to you, but I have never found her writing to be antagonistic or unfriendly.


Well there you go. I have found her to be antagonistic and unfriendly. She has always treated me as such, because I am Catholic.

She is characteristically upbeat and friendly in her blogs.

Could it be that you are not tuned into her digs? I can tell yhou right now how this book we are reading is going to end. The entire last chapter is a dig at the Catholic Church. I guarantee that's why she chose it.

I might add that I have known several truly evil people in my life. It may surprise you what evil truly looks like. I'm not saying Candy is evil. I am suggesting that appearances are deceptive.

I just know that she does not come across as a bigot.

To you. I am telling you that to me and several others she absolutely does.

However, it looks as if everything you've read by me has fallen on deaf ears. I am sad about that, but I feel that I did my best. I hope that you are able to let this rest.

Well, I probably won't let this rest for a while. I don't think it serves anyone's interest to let her go unchallenged. I would hope though that you read some of the crap she has written about Catholics in the past, and then check them against a credible Catholic reference and perhaps see how full of it she really is. Look for the inuendo behind what she writes, says and does. I think you'll start seeing behind the facade.

I do appreciate your taking the time to correspond with me. No hard feelings and I wish you the best as well.

Elena said...

Hey Deb! Speak it Sistah!! Thanks for your support!

kitkat said...

I am jumping in on this a bit late, but I just felt that I had to share a bit of my story. I started reading Candy's blog a few years ago on the recommendation of a very good friend. My very best friend ever, actually. We had been best friends since freshman year in high school when I was the new girl and she was the first person to talk to me at school. She was the maid of honor at my wedding. Best Friends. Anyway, I knew that we were moving in a bit different directions religiously (she was raised Methodist, moving Baptist and I was raised Lutheran MS, moving Catholic), but it really didn't matter to me because she is my friend and I love her. We were both Christians and that is all that mattered to me.

Anyway, the more she read Candy's blog and the anti-Catholic links the more she began to withdraw from me. (To be fair, she also began to attend a Baptist Church so she may have been getting some things from there, too. And a disclaimer: I am NOT picking on Baptists as a whole. I am assuming that her IFB Church was a bit anti-Catholic based on what she told me.) I did NOT want religion to play a major roll in our friendship. She suddenly felt that she had to save me and pray for my soul. She thought that she had to send me links to Chick Tracts to help reveal the truth about the Catholic Church. She comments regularly on Candy's blog and has bought the lies about the Catholic Church that come from Candy's blog and so many other's like hers.

You may think that untruths published on blogs hurt only the bloggers themselves, but that just isn't true. I have lost my best friend, not because I don't want her friendship but because she believes something about my religious views that simply isn't true AND SHE HOLDS IT AGAINST ME. She thinks that I am somehow worshipping pagan gods by going to Mass and that I and damned. She thinks that she will give up her salvation if she allows herself to associate with me in any other way than to try to save my soul. I am wordly and , heaven forbid, "going Catholic".

I am NOT blaming Candy. My friend has free will and she is choosing the path that she is on. But, please do not think for one moment that bloggers like her don't have any influece on their readers. Please do not fail to see how incorrect information presented as truth can have a damaging impact on other people that you can't see from the other side of the computer screen. Everyone has a right to their opinion, but using lies presented as truth falls into a very dangerous place that I have a hard time defining as "Free Speech". It breeds hate that can be diguised under a very pretty package.

This comment is getting very long. I am sorry for hijacking your comment section, Elena. I just would like the opportunity to show folks why it is one thing to have a personal opinion, but quite another to use untruths to support your opinons and change hearts.

I know that some of your readers won't believe me or will come up with lots of other reasons and excuses why bloggers like Candy should be able to say whatever untruths they want without any opposition. I am sure that I won't be able to change their mind. But I do hope that my experience will at least help them see that things posted on blogs can have an impact on the readers.