Okay, I'll Plead Guilty to the Charge of Sarcasm
One of my favorite bloggers and fellow resident of the Toledo Diocese, Jeffrey Smith of The Roving Medievalist, Catholic Toledo, et al, has taken me to task for what he sees as some negative recent trends on this blog:
There's far more of a "hate filled agenda" on your blog, lately. The sarcasm, vitriol, and hatred of anyone who doesn't agree with your own idealogy is really getting out of control.My response to Jeffrey's comments is here.
I'll admit that he's got me on the sarcasm.
But "vitriol" and "hatred"? I really do try to avoid engaging in that sort of thing, especially after an episode of my engaging in name calling last fall found its way onto the pages of a major national newspaper.
Nonetheless, I will admit that as this election season has progressed, I have become much more vociferous in strongly expressing my political opinions, as well as my objections to all the candidates for President (even then, I've been kinder to Jeffrey's chosen candidate, Hillary!, than I have to either McCain or Obama).
But I'm still trying to figure out just what "agenda" and "ideology" it is to which I'm so blindly loyal as to spew "vitriol" and "hatred" toward anyone who might disagree with me. If I have such an agenda or ideology, I truly wouldn't know how to describe it. If you know what it is, please let me know. As I've stated before, none of the current candidates for President and neither of the major political parties line up with my set of policy priorities.
But, apart from my harshly taking Professor Kmiec to task for his inability to articulate a morally justifiable case of "truly grave moral reasons" for supporting Obama (even though I have noted on more than one occasion that such a case CAN be made - see, e.g., M.Z. Forrest), and apart from my steadfast refusal to refer to those who support legalized abortion as "pro-choice" or my unwillingness to acquiesce to the notion that providing color of law to the killing of the unborn is somehow less objectionable and less worthy of condemnation than providing color of law to slavery or racism, I don't see what might be misinterpreted as particularly "vitriolic" or "hate-filled".