Tom McMahon, Please Kindly Go To Hell, Along With Your Friend Whittaker Chambers

Tom McMahon, Please Kindly Go To Hell, Along With Your Friend Whittaker Chambers

An interesting exchange with Diana Mertz Hsieh that started with this post on her blog. Go read the whole thing, it's one of those jaw-dropping-amazing-blog-o-sphere moments. To oversimplify greatly, the exchange took a decided turn for the worse after I quoted one verse of the hymn Amazing Grace. Here's Diana's response:

Tom, I am quite familiar with the Christian view of redemption. As far as I'm concerned, it's MONSTROUSLY EVIL. So please, go proseletize your faith in supernatural redemption for any and all sins elsewhere. I will not allow you to use my property to offer aid and comfort to the lowest depths of human evil. It's ideas like yours that make mass graveyards like the Third Reich and Soviet Russia possible. The committed racist seems benign in comparison.

After another exchange or two, she posted this comment:

Tom, the only "deeper story" is a passionate committment to reason and life. Although I respect the rights of Christians to be as idiotic as they please in their own lives, I absolutely will not pretend that the tenets of the Christian faith are anything but irrational and deadly absurdities. That shouldn't be news to you.

And then the final one from Diana Mertz Hsieh:

Tom McMahon: You are no longer welcome to post comments on this blog. Please kindly go to hell, along with your friend Whittaker Chambers.

Pretty much sums it up, I guess. Now if you will excuse me, I gotta go get some ice for my buddy Whittaker. It's kinda hot in here, you know. And are atheists really allowed to tell you to go to hell? Seems like that should be points off for bad form.

UPDATE #1: This is how Diana sees it:

I will happily admit that I did get more upset with "the more love and compassion [Tom] showed" to racists and Nazis. I'd also agree that "the message of the Gospel is foolishness" -- although faith in it doesn't make it any less so.

When in fact she is talking about this comment:

Nice going, Tom. The more love and compassion you showed, the more unhinged she became. Weird how that happens. Hey, the message of the Gospel is foolishness to those who don't believe. This is a pretty stark example of that. You handled yourself remarkably.

UPDATE #2: I've been de-linked from Paul Hsieh's Geekpress. Expected but sad nonetheless.

UPDATE #3: Another interesting comment from Diana Mertz Hsieh:

Rob: Did you really not understand what I meant when I said "DO NOT POST ON THIS TOPIC AGAIN"? Do you have any respect for property rights? These are rhetorical questions. Please do not reply to them here. I will delete any future comments from you, as I've had quite enough of your antics. Go post some more stupid comments on Tom's blog, if you like.

So Diana, YOU have property rights with your blog, but you are telling someone to go post stupid comments on MY blog, as if I have no property rights with mine? And what's so hard about deleting comments you don't like anyway?

Comments

[Kevin Murpy]

Tom,

I've always been impressed by your calm and patient responses when I come across your comments on blogs where the people are seriously wacko.

I find it sad that somebody who doesn't care for Christian redemption because of its perceived unfairness nevertheless thinks you should be condemned to hell for having a link on your webpage to a site (national review) that once published a negative review of a particular book. I knew that the Objectivists revered Rand, but I had no idea that they had deified her and thus you were guilty of blasphemy by proxy.

I guess you just have to shake the dust off your sandals and move on.

[Tom McMahon]

Yeah, to be that sore about a bad book review from 50 years ago! Amazing, really.

[Guy]

Long after I read Ayn Rand, I had class on anger management where I received a list of "beliefs" that make it difficult for one to act "assertively".

One was the belief that "people who disagree with you are bad and must be punished". In two words, angry intolerance.

Sounds like Diane holds that belief, as I did once, it seems to be quite a risk for people who study Rand.

...Now, I wonder where I can find the rest of that list...

[Woody]

Tom, do NOT go to Hell. It's a trick. Hell is full of lawyers and Democrats. (Of course, although they are dead, they still continue to vote Democratic.)

Last night I spoke with my mom, who is still pretty sharp, about how impossible it is to get liberals to even see our side of any issue. She hit the nail on the head with her answer. She said that they don't listen to us. They aren't listening at all. They are so sure of themselves and so full of it that they dismiss everything from conservatives as invalid and only are thinking about what they're going to say next.

Tom, I worked on this once and you started it yourself. We need to come up with standard responses that we get from the left so as to give them a chart where they can reference response number so-and-so rather than have to type the whole thing out. I didn't have "go to hell" on my list as I'm ususally told to "go f*** yourself." You ran across a lefty who had class.

[Tom McMahon]

Just so there's no mistake: Diana Mertz Hsieh is no lefty, she's an Objectivist.

I'm beginning to think there are two classes of blogs with political or social commentary: Persuaders, and Venters. I used to think they were all Persuaders, trying to bring other folks around to their way of thinking. But in reality, there are an awful lot of Venters out there, just venting their opinions and persuading nobody, and that's just fine with them.

4-Block idea: Left/Right and Venter/Persuader .

[Rob]

Nice going, Tom. The more love and compassion you showed, the more unhinged she became. Weird how that happens. Hey, the message of the Gospel is foolishness to those who don't believe. This is a pretty stark example of that. You handled yourself remarkably.

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Tom,

I'm willing to try my hand at persuasion. Objectivists hold that altruism is incompatible with capitalism. It also holds that rights are derived from man's nature as a rational animal. Given Objectivists' emphasis against the initiation of force, it is a grave injustice for us to be labeled fascists as National Review is wont to do.

I do not share certain of Diana's ideas about moral sanction and evil, but I am surprised that you would bring up the supposed salvation of Nazi war criminals as an example to bolster your case for tolerance.

Jim

[Rob]

So, James, you're saying that the millions of Americans that are pouring out help to those displaced by Katrina are wrong? We should be selling relief to them instead? Altruism is the height of capitalism. I would even go so far as to say that capitalism exists to support altruism.
As for tolerance, Christianity is extremely intolerant of sin, but infinitly tolerant of sinners. They have every opportunity to have their slate wiped clean with but a simple confession. To deny this is to simply have never seen the life-changing effect of salvation.

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Rob,

I am not saying that charity is wrong. I'm saying it's a minor virtue compared to productivity. Also, I'm saying that people have no duty to engage in it. Incidentally, why limit the moral claim to the Katrina victims? Why not make it our duty to help all of those in every pesthole around the world? The concept that altruism subverts is that man's life, liberty and property are his by right.

Jim

[Rob]

Tom... Looks like your link fell off of GeekPress. Let the shunning begin! :-}

[Tom McMahon]

Jim: The story of the Army chaplain and the Nazis was to illustrate different concepts of Redemption, not tolerance. The Nazis were only tolerated for 2 weeks after their convictions, at which point they were hung by their necks until they were dead.

[Tom McMahon]

Rob: Yeah, I just noticed that too. But I fully expected it. Not that Paul Hsieh is such a bad guy or anything; on the contrary, he's one of the good ones, and was an inspiration to me when I was starting this blog. But consider the tough spot he's in now. I think that being married and all he really has no choice than to remove me from his blog list, lest it cause trouble at home. And frankly, given the circumstances, I think it's the right thing for him to do.

That being said, I have no intention of removing Geekpress from my blog list, and I'll continue to read it every day.

[Kevin Murphy]

Sheesh, what rational person couldn't figure out the point of Tom's story? He'd suggested that instead of just cutting off all contact with people who are EVIL!!!! (Diana's word, not mine), maybe you could talk to them and get them to see the error of their way and as an illustration provided the story of how an Army Chaplain got some EVIL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! NAZIS!!!!!!!!! to see the errors of their way. It's only rational that educating simple racists to there error is far easier than educating mass murder racists.

Personally, I found Ms. Hsieh's response to be completely emotional, with no trace of rationality whatsoever, but thats just me.

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Kevin,

Given that there are so many in the world who are not racists, why waste the time?

I think the National Review thing was the last straw for Diana and I'm somewhat sorry for bringing it up, however it's not just a 50 year old thing. Every 2 years or so National Review publishes some derogatory comment about Rand. Also, if Buckley really disagreed with the review he's had 50 years to correct it.

Jim

[Tom McMahon]

Jim, Many years ago I read Witness and had no idea that one day far in the future that I would be told to go to Hell with my friend, Whittaker Chambers. I consider this to be quite an honor. I mean, how long has it been since anybody has been told to go to Hell with Whittaker Chambers? I dare say that I may well be the very first recipient of this honor in the new millennium.

So I got that going for me, which is nice . . .

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Incidentally, Objectivists do not hate Christians. We deal with them every day in our lives and lots of times in our families and they are a source of great benefit. However, we generally try to provide value for value. This is not in a strict monetary sense. Most Objectivists are loving, caring people when love is earned.

However, aspiring professional Objectivist intellectuals like Diana have a special problem: how do I engage people with whom I disagree without giving them a moral sanction in the realm of ideas? And it is a serious issue. Look at the state of conservatism today. I doubt there is a small government conservative of the Goldwater variety left in politics today. Why? The religious conservatives took over and allied with liberals to bloat our budgets. They have acted on their own to curtail genetic science and legislate morality. Where does big government in both economics and the social sphere end?

Jim

[Tom McMahon]

Jim, perhaps you should start a blog yourself. I think you would be good at it, and if this thread is any indication, you have a knack for getting the opposing side to listen to you.

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Tom,

Was Chambers' characterization of Rand's views accurate? How is it possible that Atlas Shrugged can be distorted so much to be portrayed as a ally of fascism? Rand was an enemy of totalitarianism of all stripes.

Jim

[Rob]

Jim... religous conservatives aren't trying to legislate morality. That's a lost cause. What they ARE trying to do (and I heartely support) is stop public funds going to things which the majority of Americans don't support. There's a huge difference. The former violates the first ammenment whereas the latter is called Democracy. That's the thing about democracy, the minority always gets the shaft.
I second Tom's suggestion... get a blog and lets do this argument right.. :-}

[Rob]

jhn>The concept that altruism subverts is that man's life, liberty and property are his by right.
Uhhh, but that's the foundation this country was founded on. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happieness is an unalienable right. That's where America came from and that's why we DO give support to every "pesthole" around the world. If objectiveism is opposed to this then I would kindly suggest that they picked the wrong country to prosper in. :-}

[Kevin Murphy]

Jim,

If you remember the context it was about extended family memembers and how you should act when you encounter them at family functions. Tom's suggestion wasn't to go forth and convert racists worldwide.

PS if that's your honest belief, why do you bother with us commenters here?

[Tom McMahon]

Jim, I have an excerpt from that Whittaker Chambers 1957 review of Atlas Shrugged in queue for tomorrow, along with a link to the entire review. Talk to you then.

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Kevin,

I remember the context and I happen to have a xenophobic old ex-marine uncle whose views sometimes give me heartburn. But he has never once insulted me or my wife and wouldn't insult anyone important to me. And that's what is important in family relations if they are to mean something.

Jim

[Woody]

Tom wrote: "Just so there's no mistake: Diana Mertz Hsieh is no lefty, she's an Objectivist."

Sorry for my error, Tom. I classified her as a liberal based on my experiences without having read or understood the entire discussion. I know libertarians and people who recommend Atlas Shrugged and I've lived a good while, but I'm amazed that I have never heard of an Objectivist. Maybe it's from living in the Bible Belt.

I'll stand back and look forward to your enlightening entry tomorrow.

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Kevin,

I bother with the commenters here because I remember a time long ago when I had views much the same as yourselves.

Jim