--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <salsunshine@...> wrote: > > On Jan 15, 2011, at 4:12 AM, blusc0ut wrote: > > > The 'purity of the teaching' argument will always be used > > for the status quo. > > Actually, I don't know of anyone who uses that phrase or > anything like it except for a few TM pseudo-Nazis. Like > "blood libel," people generally recognize that it has > obvious overtones of either racism and hostility, or at > the very least smug superiority. The people still use it, > when they do, is just one more clear example of how > colossally tone-deaf they are. Basic common decency seems > to go right out the window.
Oh, this is such bullshit. We all know what "purity of the teaching" refers to, and it has no such "overtones" in its original context. All it means is that MMY's teaching should be preserved as he formulated it. You may not *agree* that it should be preserved, and that's fine, lots of people don't. But to characterize the phrase as you have above is nothing but a display of your own irrational hostility. I mean, "racism"?? "Blood libel"?? That's just insane. And you, my dear, are hardly in a position to criticize anybody for lack of common decency. Decent people don't post knowing lies about other people on a public forum, as you did last week, twice. Nor do they accuse others of racism without good reason, as you've done above. How profoundly ironic that you would recycle Sarah Palin's despicable "blood libel" phrase, and in a situation in which it's even *less* appropriate. As I said yesterday, you're cut from the same ugly, vicious, dishonest cloth as she is. One would like to think the left doesn't harbor such creeps, but sadly, very sadly, we have our share of them.
