Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for November 13th, 2011

Frank Schaeffer, the son of Francis Schaeffer has pretty much turn against his father’s legacy (theology and worldview) and made a name for himself base upon bashing his father.

I don’t know about you, but when I hit his age, I don’t want to be known by the world as a man who hates his father and can’t make any contribution to society without trying to be a parasite of the very father you hate.  That’s just sad–whether it’s a rebelling teenager and even more so for a grown man that’s a grandpa.

The subject of Frank Schaeffer’s irrational attack against Evangelical Christianity and worldview is not a new topic on Veritas Domain.  He often engages in the sloppy fallacy of guilt by association in his argumentation, in the most unsophisticated and angry form.  For instance,  back in April 1st, 2010 Frak wrote a piece in his column for Huffington Post titled, “The Evangelical Mainstream Insanity Behind the End Times Michigan Militia” in which he tied a militia that wants to kill cops back to his dad and himself back in his Evangelical days.  No surprise there if you have followed Frank for any time, everything bad supposedly comes from Franky and his father.  It’s as if Franky would want you to believe that the root of all evil is his father.  Frank writes,

A federal prosecutor in Michigan says authorities decided to arrest members of the Hutaree Christian militia after learning “they were prepared to kill.”

When I first learned of the news I went to the Hutaree Militia homepage and was struck by the fact that their site included links to a number of evangelical “End Times” sites like that of the Jack Van Impe ministries.

In the 1970s and 80s I appeared several times with Jack Van Impe on his TV program. His act was to predict the “imminent” return of Jesus. My act was to raise money for my latest far religious right effort to make abortion illegal.

As the son of well known evangelicals and far right leader Francis Schaeffer I was in the middle of the chain of events that led to the arrests of men prepared to kill cops for Jesus. The rhetoric we in the early pro-life movement unleashed combined, with the apocalyptic fantasies of the fundamentalist evangelicals, is a deadly brew.

From the above quote, readers will see that Frank believes his father and him were in the chain of events behind this dangerous militia, along with some quarters of the Pop Dispensationalist’s Evangelicals.

Frank also see these Pop Dispensationalist contribute to the birth of the Tea Party, something Schaeffer totally despises:

Knowingly or unknowingly, Jenkins and LaHaye cashed in on years of evangelical/fundamentalists’ imagined victim-hood –something that is now key to understanding the Tea Party movement.

Frank’s conclusion to his piece then makes the comparison of the Michigan militia to the Tea Party, with the assertion that the Tea Party movement shares in this violent ideology (and suggestion that they are morally culpable for it):

The truth is that the “crazies” in Michigan are just acting on what millions of evangelicals say they believe and I don’t only mean about the so called End Times. I also mean that these days the Tea Party movement is spouting a rhetoric of doom and extremism that holds that the American government and even the nation is no longer legitimate. Add in the theology and you have a self-fulfilling “prophecy” of Armageddon. Sadly we have not seen the last of such actions.

Of course, Frank’s argument runs totally on the bandwagoning fallacy, from bandwagoning his father to the Militia, Pop Dispensationalists to his dad, the Militia to the Pop Dispensationalists, the Pop Dispensationalist to the Tea Party and finally the Tea Party to the Militia, and since a subset of these (the militia) has planned to carry out violence therefore all these are dangerous and ought to be rejected because of their “similarities.”

———————————-

It might not be easy for Franky to see the fallacies because of his passionate emotion, so I thought it best be illustrated by applying his own standard back to himself with his current views.  Enter in the Occupy Movement.

This movement has been plagued with violence and all sorts of problem, whether it’s at Wall Street, Washington DC, San Francisco or Portland.

Some have been so consume by their ideology, they will even push an old lady down:

And block handicaps from getting out:

Some have attacked officers by stabbing them,  been arrested for carrying explosives, rape in Philadelphia, sexual assaults elsewhere, interfering with other’s freedom of assembly, hurting businesses, comitting crimes such as vandalism, tresspassing,  theft, pooping everywhere, urinating everywhere, etc.

Is Huffington Post responsible for all of this, since to borrow Schaeffer’s reasoning (but with different referents plugged in):

Knowingly or unknowingly, Huffington Post cashed in on years of Progressive and Liberal imagined victim-hood –something that is now key to understanding the Occupy movement.

And since Franky has been with Huffington Post for years, blogging for them, writing against the 1% and others who are rich, Republican or religious in blogs, books and articles, can we say that the Occupy Wall Street is acting out what he believes?

Frank might say that all these bad things about Occupy Wall Street has been done by a few fringe trying to hijack the movement, whether Marxists, anarchists or plain old bad people.  But if he reason that way making this fine distinction, can he do the same when it comes those on the more conservative spectrum as well?

As much as Franky talk and talk about the Tea Party will be violent, Occupy Wall Street has BEEN much more criminal and violent.

Will Franky come out and condemn the Occupy Movement and expose it’s danger?  And more importantly, will he own up to his hypocrisy?

Read Full Post »