Tuesday, August 31, 2010

John Smithson Hypocrisy, Moral Sin, And His Shared Beliefes With Sharia Law

John Smithson is an ex-contractor and fundamentalist preacher who also fashions himself as a conservative blogger, but recently he did something very interesting that raised the eyebrow of this author - he wanted to make a wager of $1,000 to verify his site traffic.  What made this request very interesting is that Smithson claims to be a fundamentalist evangelical Christian - in the Stone-Campbell tradition - yet here he was wanting to gamble, which is considered by Campbellites to be a moral wrong, and this isn't the first time Smithson had made a bet to boost his ego.  It appears Smithson is defying the neo-puritanical foundations of his faith, but then as we had reported in the past, Smithson isn't really that religious - sure he claims to be a man of God, but in the past he had called fundamentalism "political and sectarian," and since Smithson describes himself as a fundamentalist, that would make Smithson "political and sectarian."

While we are discussing the hypocrisy of religious zealotry, I wanted to also mention that Smithson had called an image that appeared on this website "blasphemous." I had found that interesting because a while back Smithson had cut-and-paste from another website a list of things that offend Muslims, with depictions of Mohammed being one of them. It would seem that Smithson is offended by what he perceives to be Jesus on the cross, so it is easy to come to the conclusion that Smithson shares something with Sharia law.

Did it ever occur to Smithson that the Romans crucified many other people then Jesus?  Maybe the image was a reference to the Japanese practice of crucifixion...

I am also reminded of Smithson's assertion that Dietrich Bonhoeffer is one of his personal heros.  Bonhoeffer was inspired by the liberation theology he observed in Harlem, New York - a belief Smithson had constantly attacked the president for allegedly adhering to.  Of course Smithson believed Bonhoeffer was not a liberation theist because "black liberation theology" was not named until later.  This is a silly argument - just because something wasn't officially titled means it did not exist?  I guess Christianity didn't exist until people started calling themselves Christians...

Basically, Smithson has exhibited a complete disregard for his faith when it inconveniences his narrative.  Don't like what someone is saying?  Attack their character and make baseless accusations.  Don't like what you see?  Return to faith and attack the religiousness of it.  Don't like the facts?  Just ignore them and create a new set of facts.  The hypocrisy is amazing...

No comments:

Post a Comment

Please share your thoughts and experiences in relation to this post. Remember to be respectful in your posting. Comments that that are deemed inappropriate will be deleted.