Wednesday, September 9, 2009

When Steve Hays Attacks! ......Again.


Steve Hays over at Triablogue has stooped to a new low in his most recent post. For those who have missed this exchange, I criticized Steve's poor analogy that he posted on the Papacy. He has since retorted with personal attacks instead of going back and forming a better argument. He has now resorted to painting me as a proponent of sexual abuse! Just when I thought I had witnessed every form of slander on the net, Hays takes it to a new low. Hays could not defend his argument in relation to his original analogy. Since I pointed out the fact that his analogy was seriously flawed, he has now resorted to nonstop personal attacks. It reminds me of the politician who won't debate the issue and instead slings mud at his opponent hoping everyone will forget about the original debate. Here is one of his latest comments.

"Notice that MB exhibits the bunker mentality which made the priestly abuse scandal possible in the first place. This doglike loyalty to the institution directly contributes to institutional corruption. At this rate you have to wonder if MB would hold the altar boy down while the “shepherd” sodomizes the sheep." Steve Hays


Everyone that has read my blog over the past two years can see that I have never endorsed sexual abuse. Also, anyone who has been following this exchange can see that sexual abuse has never been part of the original topic. The debate surrounds his bad analogy of comparing the Church to schools of fish and flocks of birds. In Steve's pathetic desperation to defend his pride he is now calling me a child molester. I now have to suggest that Steve Hays visit a shrink. He is obviously not mentally stable. I have never known anyone calling themselves a Christian to characterize someone they do not even know as being sympathetic to such heinous crimes. Steve can't tell the difference between attacking an argument and slandering a person's character. There is no need for me to retort with similar personal attacks such as these. I think the readers are now getting a good look at Steve's true colors. If this is the best of the best from these apologists, then the Church is certainly safe. I ask a fourth time, where are Steve's real arguments? Or are we going to see him continue to melt down and self destruct?


In an effort to cut down on people going to his blog, I have to cut this guy off and move on to some real apologists who will actually put together logical arguments without resorting to personal slander. I think Steve has done enough damage to his soul by these latest false accusations. There is nothing further for me to discuss here.

"Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you."
(Matthew 5:11,12)

8 comments:

The Plutonian said...

If you don't mind, Matthew, I have an issue. At the top of each blog, there is a FLAG BLOG Button for which grounds can be given as to why a blogger has abused his blogging priviliges. In the case of Hays, there is HATE SPEECH, SOAM, and IMPERSONATION (he did impersonate a Troll, didn't he? I would have least liked a statement from you to your Readers that they should exercse their Conscience about using Trollblog's FLAG BLOG Button.

Secondly, with respect to "Trialblog"'s reputation, I feel that the nickname TROLLBLOG would act as a reminder of the ideals this blog stands for. You are not the first to suffer an arbitrary personal attack from this pseudo-Christain blog, though you cold be the last should their FLAG BLOG Button be sufficiently used.

Blessings to you, even if you disagree with me on the issues I raise.

Alex said...

I find it amazing that there have been zero protestant friends of Steve who have taken issue with his irrational and completely unsubstantiated attack on Matt by suggesting that Matt would, “hold the altar boy down while the “shepherd” sodomizes the sheep.” Are there any Protestants at Triablogue who have the slightest bit of decency and class, or is the whole lot of them a bunch of impetuous temperaments?

Alex said...

More piggish behavior from Triablogue in the comment by Peter Pike:

"Alex,

But that's not what Steve said. He prefaced it with 'At this rate you have to wonder if MB would...'.

Unlike you, most Protestants know how to read, and we got the context of Steve's sentence. You rip it out of context and run with it, but that's because your intellectual dishonesty won't allow you to think critically."

My response:

"Please Peter, the mere speculation was of an accusatory tone. The fact that you are dismissing this proves to me and others that you, Turretinfan, Steve, et al. are not to be taken seriously. When Art Sippo suggested that James Swan was somehow Nazi friendly, I came to James’ defense on Beggars All and said that Art's comments were reprehensible. To suggest that one has to wonder if Matt would be a complicit or active agent in the molestation of a child is crude, unsubstantiated, and outright reprehensible. This is wild speculation which should be recanted and all of you should publically apologize to Matt for defamation of his character. The fact that none of you have come to Matt’s defense and acknowledged that Steve’s comments were out of line suggests to me that you guys are nothing but a bunch of cowardly intellectually-dishonest thugs."

Turretinfan also added his ridiculous two cents by stating:

"But the folks with the real problem, according to our Romanist friends, are those who criticize Cardinal Law and the church that continues to stand behind him and his moral heresy.

-TurretinFan"

These people are not to be taken seriously, and until I see a public apology, I refuse to interact with them any further.

Alex said...

Steve comments again, and I comment for the final time:

Steve: Of course he's complicit. So are you. So is every other Catholic who continues to support this corrupt institution. Nothing the least bit speculative. You support this institution financially, and you defend it at every turn. This is all voluntary on your part. It's not like taxation.

Me: Do you even know what cooperation entails? The institution isn’t corrupt; certain members are, just as your Protestant groups have corrupt members. What have I defended at every turn? I have stated that those who engage in such acts are sinning against those who they are violating and against the common good. I have never defended pedophilia. I have defended the very moral doctrines of the Church that they have violated. You have demonstrated here that you haven’t the slightest clue as to what constitutes cooperation in moral theory. It is also very interesting how your friend Peter just said that I was misreading you, and that Protestants are superior at reading etc., etc., and yet I understood you as you admit here, and he didn’t. You guys are a bunch of clowns.


Steve: You're no better than someone who contributes to NARAL, defends NARAL, but then tries to disassociate yourself from NARAL's policies.

Me: The above is another example of your ignorance. I defend the Catholic faith, not those who violate that faith.


Steve: When MB says critics of Catholic pederasty are "sick," that tells you, at the end of the day, which side he comes down on.

Me: Yes it does. He comes down on the side that vile individuals like yourself who attempt to associate him with the sin of pedophilia without the slightest bit of proof are sick. I agree.


Steve: So you can spare me the feigned indignation. Redirect your outrage at the Magisterium. Take appropriate action. Otherwise, it's just an exercise in mock outrage.

Me: By all means, please continue with your unwarranted attacks against me and Matt. All fair-minded people will see you for what you are…a disgusting and intellectually-dishonest individual.

Alex said...

So Matt, have you stopped beating your wife?

Matthew Bellisario said...

Let the dead bury the dead. These guys aren't even worthy of being taken seriously. They are liars and slanderers of the worst kind. We would all do better not to associate ourselves with them. We have engaged in real substantive arguments, they on the other hand have nothing else in their bag but to slander their opponents. Our work is done here. They have exposed to their readers how dishonest and underhanded they are. No good will come of their blog site. People will look elsewhere to find good reading material.

Glenn said...

"Are there any Protestants at Triablogue who have the slightest bit of decency and class, or is the whole lot of them a bunch of impetuous temperaments?"

Alex - Protestants like that (such as me) are the targets of their venom. For the record, had I seen this vile comment from Steve, I would have added it to the list of reasons for why I don't take seriously his concern that I might not truly be his brother in Christ.

Madeleine said...

I am a protestant Calvinist and I am horrified at what I am reading. Defamation of this nature is disgusting and it minimises the seriousness of real allegations of abuse.

Steve has just recently personally attacked me, my husband and, rather visciously, my friend Glenn over our criticisms of his poor analysis of William Lane Craig's recent comments. I thought that was bad but this is staggering!