May 17, 2007
If only Auntie Em could have blogged.
She'd have said: "Almira Gulch. Just because you own half the town doesn't mean that you have the power to run the rest of us. For twenty-three years I've been dying to tell you what I thought of you! And now... well, being a Christian woman, I can't say it! But I can link to someone who will."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
25 comments:
Sullivan has an amazing scam going. He often never says what he thinks directly, so he finds someone to say it for him, thus giving himself "plausible deniability". Amazing that in this instance, he actually links to the person saying it. On his old blog, he'd print emails from "readers" without attribution. Thus he could print the most salacious, nasty things without actually saying them himself. He gets paid an awful lot for doing very little. Cha-ching! More organic gourmet kibble for the flea-bitten beagles!
First Greenwald, now Sullivan! Is no one safe!?!
I should clarify that my comment is directed to Palladian, not our hostess.
Strangely enough, just the other day a reader wrote into my blog about Andrew Sullivan.
A coincidence?
A less scrupulous personality than Mr. Sullivan might make up reader emails from time to time to give himself some wiggle room with which to make controversial statements, or to make a position he holds seem less unique.
But the keeper and defender of The Conservative Soul is above such trickery.
And Palladian, there's no reason to bring Sully's beagles into this argument, his fur children should be kept out of this discussion.
Methinks that you have already missed the point of the article, however;
What really irritates many of us on the left about 'Christian conservatives' (not just Falwell, but also Pat Robertson and others) is that they have an ideological position already and they they use spurious logic and selective reading of the scriptures to try and attach a moral or Deistic underpinning to their position. That way they don't have to argue from the position of facts, but instead only say 'it's God's will.' That way they can be arrogant, smug and refuse to listen to reason while continuing to espouse their (otherwise indefensible) position.
That way they can be arrogant, smug and refuse to listen to reason while continuing to espouse their (otherwise indefensible) position.
You mean like Socialists and global warming advocates do?
I never did understand what it is about being a Christian woman that kept Aunt Em from telling Miss Gulch just what it was she'd been dying for twenty-three years to tell her she thought about her. That she was an evil bigoted puppy-hating charlatan homophobic huckster witch? I mean, it wasn't like Aunt Em was going to go all throw-the-money-changers-out-of-the-Temple-may-a-house-fall-on-your-sister's-head angry on her. Was it? "Myra Gulch, you are a bully who scares young innocent orphans." Heck, Jesus himself might have said as much.
And did Myra Gulch, in an earlier episode, blame all the Kansas tornados on Em and Henry Gale's lack of morals or something?
Come on, Em, suck it up, sister... punch her on her witchy old nose.
I doubt Miss Gulch gave homos a thought.
"I doubt Miss Gulch gave homos a thought."
I bet she did when we dropped that house on her tired old head. Well, a very brief thought...
Sullivan has an amazing scam going. He often never says what he thinks directly, so he finds someone to say it for him, thus giving himself "plausible deniability".
While that's certainly true, this is a really bad example of that. Sullivan's directly stated his dislike of Falwell many, many times.
It is also arguably the only topic Andrew hasn't been on both sides of (yet).
"That way [Christian conservatives] can be arrogant, smug and refuse to listen to reason while continuing to espouse their (otherwise indefensible) position."
You mean like Socialists and global warming advocates do?
Yes -- exactly like that.
Eli... Falwell and Robertson irritate many of us on the right who are Christian, conservative, and fundamentalist -- in the real sense not in the PC morally idiotic sense that Sullivan would use that term.
Falwell was to Christians what Sharpton and Jesse Jackson should be to reasonable African-Americans everywhere. They are/were willing to go on air -- media whores -- and say outrageous things or take positions that could be defended reasonably, but either be incapable or unable of doing so.
It always strikes me as ironic that the very groups or individuals who decry stereotyping and intolerance exult over his death or deem it OK to engage in the very same behavior towards conservative Christians.
Falwell did not speak for Southern Baptists (he wasn't an SBC er in any case) or most other conservative Christians -- ever as far as I've known and wasn't held in high regard -- neither is Pat Robertson. They have the same authority those other Rev's have (though I will say at least Falwell and Robertson have real degrees) -- the ability to get their mugs on TV and blather.
No, Gahrie and revenant,
As you have seen in the past, when I've argued global warming, I've backed up whatever I've said with hard data and facts.
I'd argue rather that it is the anti-global warming crowd that just accepts that there isn't any on blind faith, since they have to ignore the data that is being produced every day (and suspend for example the belief that Mt. Kilimanjaro exists, or perhaps suggest melting icecaps and higher global temperatures are just a figment of a fevered imagination.
Hence I would suggest that those who come closer to the smug and blind side are those who have to deny facts (or find one of the 1% or so of scientists who disagree-- many of whom receive grant money from sources associated with the energy industry, in order to buttress their claims), not those who use them to support their point of view.
But it is nice to know that you listen to Rush every day, since about two weeks ago he gave marching orders to his listeners to start likening global warming advocates to a church.
I, on the other hand, listen to all sorts of sources (that's how I know what Rush said) and then do my own thinking.
Eli Blake:
1) I haven't listened to Rush in well over 10 years. (He hadn't even formed the EiB network yet I believe)
2) All you can prove at this point is that the Earth (and the entire solar system) is getting warmer. You can't prove why.
3) I'm not anti-global warming. I'm in favor of it. I think the world is a better place to live in when it's warm...ice ages suck.
However I am a skeptic when it comes to the theory of man made global warming.
Falwell was to Christians what Sharpton and Jesse Jackson should be to reasonable African-Americans everywhere.
Conservative Christians publically criticizing Falwell and Robertson are no more common than black Americans criticizing Sharpton and Jackson, Troy. If you wanted to find evidence that the Southern Baptist Convention took a dim view of Falwell's attitudes you'd be hard pressed to find any.
Falwell did not speak for Southern Baptists (he wasn't an SBC er in any case)
Was he an official spokesman for the SBC? Of course not. But if you're trying to pretend that the Southern Baptist Convention was somehow opposed to Falwell, I beg to differ. Leading SBC seminary presidents have described him as "a real hero of the faith", saying that "only once in a generation will a man of his stature arise" and that "we all owe him a debt of eternal gratitude".
Does that sound like the SBC had serious problems with Falwell? Then there's the official SBC official press release on Falwell's death, which hails him as "a true giant of the faith" and mourns that his death "leaves an enormous gap in the leadership ranks of evangelical Christianity in America and around the world".
Falwell sometimes got criticized when he stepped far, FAR over the line, as he did with his 9/11 comments. But when it came to comments like his AIDS-as-divine-plague schtick, the religious right fell neatly into two categories: the ones who publicly stated their agreement, and the ones who stayed silent and let him speak unopposed.
But it is nice to know that you listen to Rush every day, since about two weeks ago he gave marching orders to his listeners to start likening global warming advocates to a church.
The resemblance of the modern environmentalist movement to a secular evangelical religion has been repeatedly noted for decades. If Rush is now drawing the parallel (and from the sound of it you listen to him more than the rest of the forum combined) he's just pointing out what countless other people were already well aware of.
"You mean like Socialists and global warming advocates do?"
Yep.
Eli--just a small nitpick if I may--the issue about doing science for money is really a red herring--In this day and age, ALL science is supported by government money, private foundation money or corporate money. Science is expensive, and if you are going assert that money is an evil influence, what you are unbeknowingly arguing is that you regard some money as more tainted than other money.
And to be clear, I am pretty much in Gahrie's camp about GW: Its happening, its real, and its preferable to the next or past ice ages. Humankind contributes some component to global warming--I am skeptical about precisely how much humans contribute. End of story.
I just want to say that I think that Ann's intro in this post is just about the funniest one I've read in a long long time. Especially cause I can hear Clara Blandick saying it!
Eli
Facts are elusive things.
If you have facts which prove that the Global Warming Theory is anything other than a theory, please step up. You'll be the first.
'Til then, please don't sneer so superciliously at religious true believers for their lack of facts to support their beliefs. In my experience, they generally understand & are willing to admit that they are acting on faith when they are trying to present their articles of faith.
Eli
On the other hand, some clerics have tried to tell me that it's a fact that Jesus is (not was) an environmentalist. Or is anti war, in favor of the minimum wage, etc.
Is there any credible argument that Jesus *wasn't* anti-war? He certainly felt that it was better to be killed than it was to kill.
He had to be killed in order to be a sacrifice in our stead. If He was all about *us* dying, probably we could die for our own selves?
There really isn't anything much at all about the behavior of nations in the New Testament. Certainly He wasn't militant, but He didn't tell the Centurion to quit being a Centurion.
And when he didn't protest his arrest he more or less said that there would be a time to take up arms later.
And again, he had to be arrested in order to die.
Revenant
First, I was responding to the specific "facts" vs. "faith" argument re clerics being all faith & GWT supporters being all fact.
After asking "where's the facts proving GWT, I “sidebarred” into clerics who have invented the Jesus facts I listed. In answer to your brief in response on Jesus’ anti-war position, which response seems to be that it’s a fact that Jesus is totally anti-war, I’d note that you & these estimable clerics avoid the question about whether Jesus is/was on record as opposing the Civil War which ended slavery, WW I which ended German imperialism, or WW II which ended Fascism (& more German Imperialism).
I’m sidebarring further, but I would add that some of these clerics are willing to deny the divinity of Christ or even the existence of an historical Christ, but are nevertheless clear about the facts of his anti-war credentials. (Or, for that matter his credentials on the environment, micro economics, & whatever other liberal article of faith suits their Sunday Sermon that day.)
Post a Comment