Someone sent me a link to a recent piece by the putrid Max Boot declaring that we need an "unapologetic atheist" as president, seems the Richard Dawkins club reposted it. I read the piece at another site and decided this was more interesting than the piece.
As to Max Boot, you can keep the jerk. I have no doubt but that we already have an unapologetic atheist in the presidency, a worshiper of himself, a golden-mooncalf. You cannot serve both God and Mammon and Trump's the most unapologetic in a series of Mammonists who have held that office. As Stephen Colbert pointed out listening to him mouthing a bit of verse off of the teleprompter, he's never read a word of the Bible before then. If I wanted to spend more time on this I'd note the uses of insincerity in the pursuit of self-interest linking it to Dawkins' shilling for donations in that way. But why bother?
A note to L.P. If you do a word search for N. S. on this blog, you will find that I've never mentioned the little twerp in a single post. Your obsession with him is the only thing that was said about him on this blog. I will not post another comment mentioning his name.
ReplyDeleteYou have posted on the Covington faux-scandal. That you don't see your ideological opponents as actual human beings does not make my interest in individuals an "obsession." It is simply one instance of many in which you assume the worst about anyone who doesn't agree with you.
DeleteAnother example: Garry Wills. A trained classicist, fluent in Greek and Latin, Pulitzer Prize-winning historian, professor at Northwestern, but, he disagreed with Diana Price, so, clearly, he's not a "real" historian in the small universe this blog occupies.
You don't have to mention Voldemort's name - he's in the press because he's suing various media outlets for their awful, biased, TDS-rooted coverage of that picture he's in. Again, he is 16 years old, and was subject to harassment and threats via social media and direct contact because his face is the most recognizable. People were calling for him to be shot, burned alive (and his parents too) and shoved into a wood chipper. I am not making this up. Google it for yourself.
Imagine a 16-year-old girl caught working at a Planned Parenthood in similar circumstances? You'd be gnashing your teeth and pulling your hair and the Republicans bullies and how that is typical of their white male behavior. But when the same things happen to a white male, they have it coming!
Only God judges, but Jesus made it quite clear we are to love those who persecute us. You do not love them, or even try to. You want to visit pain and suffering on them and laugh gleefully as it occurs. Where, exactly, is that in the New Testament? I've listened to quite a few Walter Brueggemann lectures (thank you) so I know you're not getting it from him.
There is a certain level of irony in a misogynist such as yourself operating at this level of hysteria.
DeleteIt's also hilarious that you are whining about me criticizing people, or, rather, white males. What were you doing to that Brian Sims guy? Amber Ruffin? Diana Price? that Smollett guy? Me, even inventing wrongs for me to have committed which I never did in order to slam me for the ones you falsely witnessed?
I doubt Planned Parenthood employs 16-year-old girls, to start with. I wonder why they would. I didn't accuse the girls you described Sims as harassing and calling out a doxxing on of being in the employ of the anti-choice racket, I didn't even say they were part of the part of that which is a racket. Considering some of the employees of Womens' clinics who your guys have murdered and maimed have been Men as well as Women, you're falling back into your habit of inventing wrongs in order to argue against me.
"Voldermort"? What the hell are you bringing up a fictitious character from a Harry Potter book for? I read the seven books to my nieces so I'm entirely familiar with the character and even I don't have any idea what you're talking about.
------------
"Another example: Garry Wills. A trained classicist, fluent in Greek and Latin, Pulitzer Prize-winning historian, professor at Northwestern, but, he disagreed with Diana Price, so, clearly, he's not a "real" historian in the small universe this blog occupies."
First, YOU used something Gary Wills claimed about the Stratford man being a "man of the theater" who would have been inspired by the boy actor Rice to have written roles such as Cleopatra AS FAR AS I KNOW GARY WILLS NEVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT DIANA PRICES BRILLIANT SCHOLARSHIP. I merely pointed out on the basis of Ros Barber's brilliant idea of collecting the entire documentary of the Stratford man in one place that there is absolutely no evidence that places the Stratford man in the same room, theater, on the same street, in London in the years when the boy actor Rice was on the stage, there is no evidence he ever saw him in a play or knew his name, therefore Gary Wills is creating fiction in the place of scholarship when he made that argument. If I recall I expressed shock that someone with his credentials and reputation would think it perfectly OK to do that, though, he being a Stratfordian, that's typical of their "scholarship".
I mentioned a bunch of elite Catholic prep school boys being assholes in public, harassing women, getting into a what looks like was a yelling match with a bunch of older men and mocking a Native American elder who tried to diffuse the confrontation. They were assholes, typical of the young and even more typical of a gang of rich-white-elite-prep boys. I've been in college with prep boys, they are almost uniformly assholes at one level or another, many of them continue as the such right into old age as Brett Kavanaugh, no doubt, will.
I don't mind you misrepresenting me, I'm here to defend myself, I won't post comments about people who aren't.
Oh, just saw make that "Garry Wills". Clearly, if you had read her book, you would know that Diana Price is a superior scholar to him.
DeleteSo "atheism" is a declaration of principles and beliefs, just like Christianity or any other religion?
ReplyDeleteWell, it must be if one can be an "unapologetic atheist." I'm not an "unapologetic Christian," if only because I understand the concept of Christian apologetics. Atheism has its apologetics, too, so how you can be "unapologetic" about it is rather odd. Or why you should "apologize" in the more general sense for being an atheist, is equally odd.
Donald Trump apparently is "apologetic," even as he disavows any tenet of Christianity and proves himself ignorant of anything connected to Christianity ("2 Corinthians," and asking two Presbyterian ministers in the White House if Presbyterians were "Christians" is pretty much the give-away). He's as unbelieving as a stump, and about as intelligent. So an "unapologetic atheist" would get in Buttigieg's face about his Christianity? And that would win elections how?
I love these people who've never won elected office in their lives, telling politicians how to do the job (the main requirement is being able to win an election. Despise Ted Cruz or AOC, as you will, but they know how to do that much. Do you, Mr. Boot?). I'd rather politicians not wear their religious beliefs on their sleeves, but given many Democrats are apparently worried about running another woman, any woman, for President again, I don't see the advantage to brow-beating the electorate into accepting an "unapologetic atheist" (any more than I think it's possible). Most opponents of Democrats (going back to the original Democrat, Jefferson) claim their opponents are atheists, anyway. What's the advantage if they agree with that label?
These things that pass for knowledge I don't understand.