One of your columnists responds to a comment he does not like, from a Mormon presidential candidate, and responds, “Stick that in your magic underwear.”...You want the counter-argument? That we should mock religion? Nobody does it better than The Crack Emcee.
We just witnessed ESPN firing an employee for using the phrase “chink in the armor” in a headline about the New York Knicks’ Jeremy Lin. While no one could prove a desire to mock Lin’s ethnic heritage, and the employee expressed great regret for what he insisted was an unthinking lapse, it was deemed unacceptable even as an honest mistake. Regardless of what one thinks of ESPN’s reaction, one is left to marvel at the contrast before us. Would the New York Times find it acceptable if one of their columnists chose to mock Muslim religious practices? Jewish faith practices?
२४ फेब्रुवारी, २०१२
"Mr. Blow may attempt to delete that Tweet..."
But Jim Geraghty has preserved the Mormon-bashing outburst of the NYT columnist.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
८९ टिप्पण्या:
Standards are a one way street.
Mr. Charles M. Blow has just ensured lifetime employment by the New York Times.
We should also mock the mockers. Nobody does that better than Trooper York.
But who mocks the mockers who mock?
I guess that's where self-effacement "comes in handy."
Tim, You said the truth!
Like many and possibly most bigots, I'm certain that Mr. Blow is a nice man and generally a very good citizen.
The left can say whatever they want- no matter how distasteful, bigoted, hate-filled.
No one should be allowed to criticize the left's beloved dictator, and it should be illegal to do so. The left will say anything to defend their beloved dictator, his majesty the king.
The mocker is aptly named.
Epidemic pearl-clutching will be the death of us all.
Christians who make fun of Mormons for silly Mormon beliefs are the least self-aware people ever.
Also, there is so much objectionable about Mormonism that magic underwear comments are lazy and irrelevant.
Mr. blow is just a mindless wretched bigot of the violent cult we call the Democratic Party.
This is not the stupidist thing Blow has said, by far.
Isn't it possible to trace the underwear mocking back to Sullivan's Daily Dish a few election cycles ago?
Is there an earlier source?
I'm interested in the etymology of mock
So far no riots.
Blow could do some good by bringing up magic books and clothing in other religions too.
Well "chink" is a pejorative description full of negative historical connotations, while the special underwear, or temple garment, worn by those who have taken part of the Endowment ceremony, is factual and a matter of pride but can be made fun of just as the Yamaka, or he wearing of he veil can be.I suppose he could have tweeted "take that and stuff it in your pipe, but MItt doesn't smoke. So that take put it under your Yamaka.
I thought there wasn't supposed to be anything wrong with a dude visualizing sticking something in another dude's underwear.
Charles blow is mocking people.
Really?
Oh, he's black, so don't expect any objective assessment of his behavior.
Joe Biden thinks Mr. Blow is articulate, bright, and clean. And a nice looking guy.
Why are leftists such intellectual cowards?
If what he said is so funny or insightful why did he delete it?
My great-great grandfather was tarred and feathered before being run out of Missouri at the end of a bunch of guns.
My great grandfather had to sit and listen to adulterous U.S. congressmen debate his debauched and deluded polygamist character before they voted to not seat him as the duly elected territorial delegate.
A bumbling bore like Charles Blow doesn't phase me.
Blow was commenting on Romney's stance on single parenting, and single parent families, and how there are generations of children, almost certainly doomed to a life of poverty. Especially minority children.
Blow himself penned a column disparaging the self same topic a few tears, (freudian slip) years ago, along with most of the NYT editorial board.
Apparently its okay for liberals to say "Keep it in your pants", but when a religious conservative says it, "Dat's Racis'!"
As Chase says, Mr.Blow is probably a good man, and a good citizen.
And also a hypocrite.
The left has an obsession with racism. I bet if you go to the Wisc State Journal right now, look at some of the main on line articles, and look at the comments, you will see liberals going off on rants about how racist all of their political opponents are.
But the left, especially the Madison left, are the nasty anti-Christian bigots around. Or with the HHS controversy.....it is really showing how much anti-Catholic bigotry there is in the Democrat party. To say nothing of anti-Morman bigots.
"Christians who make fun of Mormons for silly Mormon beliefs are the least self-aware people ever."
Well, I do think Mormon beliefs ar silly. I also consider their association with Christianity to be tenuous at best. However (and despite Crack's screeds), I find them to be good citizens, helpful neighbors and, in the main, patriotic Americans willing to accept religious pluralism.
However, I try to resist making light of posturing dickwads like yourself, with your road-company sub-Bill Maher routine about flying spaghetti monsters, homophobe red beanie boys and the endless tantrum of "there IS NO GOD! YOU'RE ALL TEH STOOPIDZ! LOL!," though you do tend to make a rather large target.
If a Mormon family moved next to me, I'd welcome them. If a gay couple moved next to me, I'd welcome them. An agressive, Christophobe one-note johnny like you? Not so much.
Mr. Charles M. Blow has just ensured lifetime employment by the New York Times.
Sadly that is probably true. At the very least, they should make Blow issue an apology. He should really leave the Mormon jokes to South Park. They're much better at it.
Because Blow is African-American, I think the therapeutic mindset will say that he was expressing justifiable rage at the Church of LDS's white supremacist history, and thus excuse it if he agrees to attend an anger management class. His Twitter account will be taken away from him for 30 days.
The ESPN writer can't point to Chinese oppression of his ethnic group, so he's out of luck.
If God doesn't have a sense of humor, then there is no such thing as salvation or heaven.
Would the New York Times find it acceptable if one of their columnists chose to mock Muslim religious practices? Jewish faith practices?
No; yes.
I'm guessing that a "yamaka" is a thing that can't make up its mind whether it's a skullcap or a motorcycle.
Here's more of the story...
Don't always agree with the Crack Emcee but he generally knock's it outta the park. Gotta respect him for that.
I just saw the wedding picture of Elizabeth Smart. She looked poised and beautiful. She had a truly horrendous experience and seems to have survived with all her good qualities intact. She's a devout, practicing Mormon. Apparently some of the silly beliefs and practices of the Mormons can foster sanity as well as madness.
Love listening to the Lefties like Hatman and Roesch go all bigoted telling everybody how the Mormons are bigoted, but not them.
Will there ever come a time when nothing, nothing is sacred or beyond satire, and will that be a good thing? We are getting close. Only leftist values are out of bounds now. Basically it seems limited to an amorphous taboo regarding race somehow, sometimes, and like a bad joke, someone has to explain it to you, so you know why you should be outraged, and I often still don't understand it.
Until recently, I lived in a heavily Mormon neighborhood. Great place, peaceful, quiet, lovely neighbors, and none of them gave a hoot when I sat on my front porch with a Martini. If a bigot like Charles Blow moved in, they would be nice to him.
But that's probably not what would happen if Mr. Blow made disparaging remarks about Islam, then moved to a Muslim neighborhood. Being both bigot and coward, he reserves his scorn for Mormons.
Only leftist values are out of bounds now.
Reminds me of another one of my favorite South Park episodes -- The Museum of Tolerance!
The problem is the double standard.
Leftwing bigots are praised for their "forthright speech" or for "speaking truth to power", when they are just as close minded, bigoted and hateful as any racist redneck Klanner. It's just that their target is approved for attack because he opposes their politics.
Like white heterosexual males, Christians are open season for the bigots of the left. Jews are too, for opposing Muslim fascism in the Middle East.
Leftwing tropes about how societies should be run are in the realm of religion; they require no empirical proof to believe as fact or truth.
You can tell by their denunciations of critics as some sort of heathens or sub-humans, rather than address the negative trade-offs of implementing leftoid government policies.
the Church of LDS's white supremacist history
The only problem with this argument is that no such white supremacist history exists.
It is one of the great public relations tricks of American history for southern churches (e.g. Baptist and Methodists) whose ancestors owned slaves and enacted Jim Crow laws to label Mormons as the great black oppressors.
Get your facts straight, then you'll be able to think clearly on this topic.
Ed please point to the post where I claimed Mormons are bigoted. In this country I think we have the freedom to satirize aspects of religion whether they be strict Nuns who teach grade school, or cartoons of Mohammed as a bomber-- so stick that in your Turban.
If you follow the link, the most relevant material starts around 1842.
Two notable items from that material are a letter by Joseph Smith to the newspaper in Nauvoo Illinois in March of 1842"
"I have just been perusing your correspondence with Doctor Dyer, on the subject of American slavery, and the students of the Quincy Mission Institute, and it makes my blood boil within me to reflect upon the injustice, cruelty, and oppression of the rulers of the people. When will these things cease to be, and the Constitution and the laws again bear rule? I fear for my beloved country mob violence, injustice and cruelty appear to be the darling attributes of Missouri, and no man taketh it to heart! O tempora! O mores! What think you should be done?"
Your friend,
JOSEPH SMITH"
The other is an incident reported where "as the Mayor of Nauvoo, Illinois [Joseph Smith] was told of a black man in Nauvoo named Anthony who had sold liquor on Sunday; which was a violation of the Nauvoo City Code. Mormon writer Mary Frost Adams tells us what happened:"
"While he was acting as mayor of the city, a colored man named Anthony was arrested for selling liquor on Sunday, contrary to law. He pleased that the reason he had done so was that he might raise the money to purchase the liberty of a dear child held as a slave in a Southern State. He had been able to purchase the liberty of himself and his wife and now wished to bring his little child to their new home. Joseph said, ‘I am sorry, Anthony, but the law must be observed and we will have to impose a fine.’"
"The next day Brother Joseph presented Anthony with a fine horse, directing him to sell it, and use the money obtained for the purchase of the child." (Young Woman’s Journal, p.538)
[The horse was Joseph’s and was worth about $500. With the money from the sale, Anthony was able to purchase his child out of slavery.]
Look I'm not saying Mormons didn't struggle with aspects of the issue, as did everyone else at the time.
What I am saying is that Mormons are not even close or remotely related to the most culpable in American history.
Oh, I'm sure God has a sense of humor, bagoh. How else do you explain Garage?
roesch/voltaire said...
Ed please point to the post where I claimed Mormons are bigoted. In this country I think we have the freedom to satirize aspects of religion whether they be strict Nuns who teach grade school, or cartoons of Mohammed as a bomber-- so stick that in your Turban.
Ooooh, attitude.
while the special underwear, or temple garment, worn by those who have taken part of the Endowment ceremony, is factual and a matter of pride but can be made fun of just as the Yamaka
And if we make fun of the Moslems with their headgear, that's OK, too?
I know Roesch is allowed because he knows the secret handshake and his intentions are good, but anybody else making fun of a minority's religious gear - especially if they're a protected Lefty minority - that would be raaaacisst.
Hiding behind the double standard don't cut it.
So stick it in yours.
And I don't mean your headgear.
PS It's yarmulke.
And finally, on the issue of Blow's justified or not justified antagonism to Mormons because they are "racists", here's one of my favorite events in the history of black Mormons:
"former Black Panther leader, Eldridge Cleaver, was baptized [a Mormon] on December 11, 1983 in Oakland, California.
Looks like ol' Chuckles has "apologized:"
"Btw, the comment I made about Mormonism during Wed's debate was inappropriate, and I regret it. I'm willing to admit that with no caveats."
As they noted over at Ace's - that's mighty white of you, Charles.
Quayle:
While you obviously missed my somewhat facetious tone in the fury of your response, the fact is that while Smith was a racial progressive, his successor Brigham Young was not:
"Following the death of Joseph Smith, Jr., Mormon leaders beginning with Brigham Young instituted a policy of excluding most people of black African descent (regardless of actual skin color) from Priesthood ordination and from participation in temple ceremonies. These practices continued in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) until September 30, 1978, when the highest bodies of church leadership lifted the ban after stating they had received a revelation."
Granted, the above is from Wikipedia because I don't have time to go dig up primary sources. But if it's wrong, why did the LDS leadership have to go through the messy process of having a well-timed revelation?
It is interesting that they chose the path of exclusion in the face of its abolitionist history.
To whatever extent the foregoing is true, I'm sure Charles M. Blow's view of it is much starker. So that's why, in his social group, he felt comfortable tweeting his obvious hatred of all Mormons.
former Black Panther leader, Eldridge Cleaver, was baptized [a Mormon] on December 11, 1983 in Oakland, California.
I didn't know that. No wonder he was shouted down by leftists when spoke on campus in Madison ca. 1982.
"Also, there is so much objectionable about Mormonism that magic underwear comments are lazy and irrelevant."
So, I guess, the problem is his bigotry wasn't creative enough for you?
No Ed I meant Yamaka-The Yamaka (यमक; Pali for "pairs") is part of the Pali Canon, the scriptures of Theravada Buddhism.. just to pass around the satire. And you claim "attitude" what a weak argument you make.
"Well "chink" is a pejorative description full of negative historical connotations, while the special underwear, or temple garment, worn by those who have taken part of the Endowment ceremony, is factual and a matter of pride but can be made fun of just as the Yamaka, or he wearing of he veil can be"
Imagine, if you will, a conservative columnist telling someone to "shove that in [his] turban" or "shove that in [her] burka."
Or, is that especially objectionable while insulting Mormons is not?
What AprilApple said.
And for what it's worth nothing of what Blow writes, at least what of it I have read, strikes me as Christian.
"Also, there is so much objectionable about Mormonism that magic underwear comments are lazy and irrelevant."
So, I guess, the problem is his bigotry wasn't creative enough for you?
I don't understand this attitude. Is the idea that I can't complain about anything the Mormon Church does or says or believes? Because they are a religion? If I criticize the Mormon church for some of their beliefs or practices that makes me a bigot?
It's this weird kind of moral relativism that says organizations can do whatever they want without anyone criticizing them.
While you obviously missed my somewhat facetious tone in the fury of your response, the fact is that while Smith was a racial progressive, his successor Brigham Young was not:
I'm always sorry when I under-detect goodness. My apologies.
I think Brigham Young was grateful to be out of the states during the civil war. He has a mixed record on the matter of whether slaves immediately had to be released, sometimes not pushing to make it clear slavery was absolutely not allowed, but then later amending the Utah constitution and even freeing some slaves that had been brought to Utah.
The only real issue for Mormons was whether the blacks could hold the priesthood. There was never a debate about slavery which was pretty much condemned.
And despite historical evidence of blacks having been given the priesthood by Joseph Smith, that issue becomes more muddled in the Mormon leadership around the time of the civil war, as some leaders claimed to have remembered Joseph Smith having said some things in favor of withholding the priesthood from blacks, and others others remembering the opposite.
And this muddle on the issue of holding the priesthood continues for about 100 years. And in that muddle, all kinds of speculations were unwisely voiced by idiots.
But it was always been clearly stated and reaffirmed by Mormon leaders throughout that time that in regard to their standing as souls on the earth and their opportunity for being saved into the highest reward in heaven, African Americans were equal to all as God's children.
If I criticize the Mormon church for some of their beliefs or practices that makes me a bigot?
It's this weird kind of moral relativism that says organizations can do whatever they want without anyone criticizing them.
Oh, please!
Isn't it obvious that the term "magic underwear" is a pejorative?
Mormons never use that phrase - it was coined by Mormon haters and critics.
If you want to talk about Mormons' religious rites, symbols, and religious garb, let's discuss.
But not in language that was invented specifically to make Mormons look stupid and silly.
Isn't it obvious that the term "magic underwear" is a pejorative?
Either I'm misunderstanding Matthew or you're misunderstanding me. My point was that I disagree with Blow's use of the "magic underwear" line because there are legitimate things to criticize about Mormonism and he shouldn't stoop to the underwear thing.
"
I don't understand this attitude. Is the idea that I can't complain about anything the Mormon Church does or says or believes? Because they are a religion? If I criticize the Mormon church for some of their beliefs or practices that makes me a bigot?
It's this weird kind of moral relativism that says organizations can do whatever they want without anyone criticizing them."
There's a difference between bigotry and disagreement. If you don't know the difference, I can't help you.
I forget who said it, but (paraphrased): I should respect your religion to the same extent that I respect your belief that your children are all good-looking and talented.
"My point was that I disagree with Blow's use of the "magic underwear" line because there are legitimate things to criticize about Mormonism and he shouldn't stoop to the underwear thing."
It is a shame when rank bigotry gets in the way of reasonable dialog. So, why does one side always stoop to it?
Case closed; apparently Blow admits his comment was inappropriate and regretful.
Now, will he lose his job? Or do only people at ESPN get fired for bigoted comments? At least the guy at ESPN maintains it was an accident (I don't know enough to say one or the other)! You'd think deliberately being a bigot would get some pretty harsh penalties.
Andy, you can mock all you want to, nobody said otherwise. Do. Mock away. Mock directly. Early and often.
The coyness about not understanding is cute too but brace yourself for a mocking of your mockery. It happens to me all the time. The term magic underwear is clearly mockery and you allude to much more available. Bring it! Don't just suggest the silliness to us and expect us to go, "ah yes, all of that." Please elaborate. I especially like pictures. Photoshopped pictures of Romney in presidential situations where LDS practices are described literally. That would be most excellent and the point you made way up there will be well received and cheered.
I think there's also a difference between good natured mocking, mature/comedic mocking -- and out right hateful spewing.
You can mock someone in a way that is beneficial, useful even.
Or, you can simply run to Twitter and tweet out expletives and slurs.
Most people accept intelligent mockery. Most people think if someone were to just spout of a few racist slurs on Twitter, that that was a Bad Thing(TM).
But, I think Andy knows that there's a difference between what Blow did and the kind of mockery most people approve of and tolerate.
I'll believe the left is anti-religion when they start mocking Mohammed.
If the NY Times fired Blow, he'll file a $1 billion racial discrimination lawsuit.
Andy R,
There is so much objectionable about homosexuality that comments about stereotypically queeny behavior are lazy and irrelevant.
Alex said...
If the NY Times fired Blow, he'll file a $1 billion racial discrimination lawsuit.
That would suck.
Most people accept intelligent mockery.
To me it is an honor to be mocked by Trey Parker and Matt Stone, and to enjoy their mocking of others in my turn.
(Hey! Am I now intelligent?)
And I think Joseph Smith got a huge kick out of having the Tony raised to him at the awards ceremony.
Winning the Tony beats getting shot by a mob any day, wouldn't you think?
Andy R: "because there are legitimate things to criticize about Mormonism and he shouldn't stoop to the underwear thing."
And what would those legitimate things be? And would there be legitimate things to criticize about Judiasm or the Rastafarians as well?
But, if I were you, I would start with legitimate criticisms of a religion that will chop your stupid head off if your legitimate criticisms offend. Because it is that religion that Charles Blow would not utter a word of mockery about, not in print.
You want the counter-argument? That we should mock religion? Nobody does it better than The Crack Emcee.
Thanks, Ann!
And I still don't know where this "bigotry" label is coming from:
If an acid head was about to leap from a building because he thought he could fly, The Macho Response would be to say, "I think you better try it from the ground first!"
Why is is different - or "bigotry" - to do so when faced with other "beliefs" that are just as nonsensical?
Michael,
If I were you, I would start with legitimate criticisms of a religion that will chop your stupid head off if your legitimate criticisms offend.
You mean like this?
Or like this?
Or Or this?like this?
I'll go there. Oh yes, you best believe I will:
Pick a religion or spiritual practice - I got 'em all!
Oh, I doubt he's really a bigot, per the dictionary definition. But, I had simply thought the word had a new meaning, since it had been so frequently used to merely mean someone who disagrees with a position I hold. I just assumed language was changing.
Crack thinks it's ok to be a bigot.
Blow is an African American. If the leading liberal paper fired him they'd have a lot of 'splainin' to do. It just is not going to happen.
All religion is crap and deserving of mockery. So much death and privation has been caused throughout history by those who have presumed that god has told them what is right and what is wrong.
The problem we have today is that the only religion that is consistently violent is Islam. By mistake a US contractor unintentionally burns some scraps of paper that contained some words from the Quran and ignorant goat herders all over Afghanistan riot and kill people, including a couple of American soldiers trying to save Afghanistan from the Taliban. Immediately, Obama writes an apology to Karzai.
That is why it is OK to mock any religion except Islam. Mock Islam and you might end up with your throat cut. Mock any other religion and you might with a Pulitzer.
Why are we in Afghanistan? Let those bastards kill each other off. Fuck them!
Making fun of religion is out of bounds and should not be tolerated.
Matthew,
Oh, I doubt he's really a bigot, per the dictionary definition. But, I had simply thought the word had a new meaning, since it had been so frequently used to merely mean someone who disagrees with a position I hold. I just assumed language was changing.
Bigot. Misogynist.
Nothing means what any of these people say anymore.
I don't know if it's ignorance or stupidity, but, man, it sure makes 'em feel good!
Crack - is nothing off limits to you? Do you know any decency SIR????
Alex,
Crack - is nothing off limits to you? Do you know any decency SIR????
Nope - I'm black and campaigned to keep "nigger" in circulation.
And "bitch," too.
And McCarthy was right!
Crack - you know what happened to the witches at Salem.
To those who say that there's something 'objectionable' about Mormonism: what, exactly? Mormons have their beliefs (some of which I find strange) but their beliefs don't affect me in any way whatsoever. All kinds of people have beliefs that I find odd, but so what: I just choose not to share them, and that's the end of it.
On the other hand, Mormon communities tend to have strong families, low crime rates, low rates of drug and alcohol usage, very little illegitimacy; so where's the objectionable part? Do Mormons have to think the same way you do in order to make these positive indicators legitimate?
There is the old joke: the papal nucio comes into the holy father's room and says there is good news and bad news. The pope asks what. The papal nucio says that Christ has returned to earth and has called the faithful; the pope says, whats the bad news? The Papal nucio says, he's calling from Salt Lake City.
Alex,
Crack - you know what happened to the witches at Salem.
Yeah - justice. (Tee-hee)
hawkeyedjb,
Mormons have their beliefs (some of which I find strange) but their beliefs don't affect me in any way whatsoever. All kinds of people have beliefs that I find odd, but so what: I just choose not to share them, and that's the end of it.
Whenever I read something like this, it reminds me how little others understand about cultism.
Going to extremes to make a point, the Manson cult had "beliefs that I find odd, but so what: I just choose not to share them, and that's the end of it."
The Nazis had "beliefs that I find odd, but so what: I just choose not to share them, and that's the end of it."
Really? Should it be? I start to wonder how much people really respect intelligence, or education, or even other people - especially the innocent with little protection from the delusional behavior of adults - when they're so willing to allow insanity to flourish under their noses without a care.
But of course, it's all bullshit, because when it's Catholics, or evangelical Christians, then they care SO MUCH and will do almost anything to stop them or let others know the danger. Movies and documentaries are released on them while all the others freely go about their manipulative dirty work with cover provided by the "open-minded." The victims families can beg, scream, demand someone - anyone - do something to save their loved one, or their fortune, or themselves, and all they hear is:
[Cults] have their beliefs (some of which I find strange) but their beliefs don't affect me in any way whatsoever. All kinds of people have beliefs that I find odd, but so what: I just choose not to share them, and that's the end of it.
You're truly a prince, hawkeyedjb - and a model citizen - for that one,...
Well, he IS a columnuist. And columnists are entitled to express their opionions; in fact, that's what they get paid to do.
Of course, I think we can be confident this is not an opinion he'd express in his column.
The only real story here is that, yet again, we find that the NYT's spectrum of political opinion runs all the way from alpha to beta.
Although it might be a good time to revisit the Liberal meme that Romney can't be elected because evangelicals will reject him for his Mormonism. Surely this is a case of psychological projecton?
So much death and privation has been caused throughout history by those who have presumed that god has told them what is right and what is wrong.
Really? Okay, so then you can own all the non-religious, atheist, "religion is the opiate of the masses therefore we're officially godless" over 100 million deaths caused in just the 20th century alone. Shoot. Stalin was just gettin started with his 30 million plus (and that's conservative in it's estimate) killings of his own people.
Oh yeah - religion is the bad belief system here.
Well, Crack, you may lump them together if you wish, but I find an objective difference between Mormons and Nazis. The beliefs of peaceful people don't worry me. Mormons, Buddhists and Libertarians all are willing to leave me alone, so they can think what they want.
Mass murderers are a different story.
Mormons, Buddhists and Libertarians all are willing to leave me alone
I guess you're not a gay person in California.
hawkeyedjb,
Well, Crack, you may lump them together if you wish, but I find an objective difference between Mormons and Nazis.
And I bet your knowledge of both is about as deep as your previous comments. I see the difference as the attainment of power. Haven't you ever realized that the most disturbing thing about the Nazis is they "normal"? All that made them different, in any way, is they - like the Mormons - held wackjob "beliefs." But nevermind. As long as it's not your neck on the block, right?
The beliefs of peaceful people don't worry me. Mormons, Buddhists and Libertarians all are willing to leave me alone, so they can think what they want.
Jesus, you are ignorant. Christopher Hitchens - and please note the word "ought":
"It ought to be possible for me to pursue my studies and researches in one house, and for the Buddhist to spin his wheel in another. But contempt for the intellect has a strange way of not being passive. One of two things may happen: those who are innocently credulous may become easy prey for those who are less scrupulous and who seek to 'lead' and 'inspire' them. Or those whose credulity has led their own society into stagnation may seek a solution, not in self-examination, but in blaming others for their backwardness,..
...A faith that despises the mind and the free individual, that preaches submission and resignation, and that regards life as a poor and transient thing, is ill-equipped for self-criticism. Those who become bored by conventional 'Bible' religions, and seek 'enlightenment' by way of the dissolution of their own critical faculties into nirvana in any form, had better take a warning."
Mass murderers are a different story.
Yes, but the problem with that attitude is you find out who they are until it's too late. As I wrote just days ago (in a post, unsurprising to me, about a mass murderer with "the beliefs of peaceful people") if laws against fraud were actually enforced, we could catch many of the world's killers and criminals, but - as I said - they're allowed to hide behind a shield that goes like this:
[Cults] have their beliefs (some of which I find strange) but their beliefs don't affect me in any way whatsoever. All kinds of people have beliefs that I find odd, but so what: I just choose not to share them, and that's the end of it.
"Mormons, Buddhists and Libertarians all are willing to leave me alone"
I guess you're not a gay person in California.
I still shudder in horror when I remember the victory of the homophobic Buddhist-Libertarian axis back in '08.
Okay, so then you can own all the non-religious, atheist, "religion is the opiate of the masses therefore we're officially godless" over 100 million deaths caused in just the 20th century alone.
There is certainly an -ism to blame for those deaths, but if you think it starts with "athe" I would suggest you do a teensy bit more investigating into some of the other belief systems involved. :)
Mormons have their beliefs (some of which I find strange) but their beliefs don't affect me in any way whatsoever.
Peoples' beliefs affect how they act, and how they act affects you.
Beliefs matter -- that's why free speech is important. If beliefs had no effect on the world it wouldn't matter if they were restricted or not.
"You want the counter-argument? That we should mock religion?"
That's the counter argument if you are a shallow thinker. Crack mocks ALL religions. The NYTs does not. Which is the point.
"If I criticize the Mormon church for some of their beliefs or practices that makes me a bigot?
It's this weird kind of moral relativism that says organizations can do whatever they want without anyone criticizing them."
Ah. So you want the power to criticize, but not to be criticized yourself. That is not terribly surprising.
""Mormons, Buddhists and Libertarians all are willing to leave me alone"
I guess you're not a gay person in California."
Black people in California tend to vote against gay marriage, but you seem to left them out, with the exception of the religious subset. The president said he was against gay marriage back when he first ran for president. I assume, to be intellectually consistent, you voted for someone else as (under your rules) he also discrimated and hates gay people.
I still shudder in horror when I remember the victory of the homophobic Buddhist-Libertarian axis back in '08.
Don't forget the black folks!
I saw on one of his blog posts from earlier this week that Crack likes to crack on Romney's magic undies but doesn't seem concerned about the biggest religious extremist in the race, Rick Santorum.
LoafingOaf,
I saw on one of his blog posts from earlier this week that Crack likes to crack on Romney's magic undies but doesn't seem concerned about the biggest religious extremist in the race, Rick Santorum.
And that's where the charge of bigot starts to break down. I also once supported Newt, who claims to be a reformed Catholic.
Santorum isn't a religious extremist. He's in the mainstream of American religious thought. It's only been in fairly recent history that anyone would question how he presents himself. How shocked or threatened you feel about him is determined by how embedded you are in what's called "secular" society - and how distanced you are from the majority.
Like, if you're a coastal city-dweller whose only real (or imagined) connection to the rest of the nation is through the TV, then Rick Santorum is probably going to sound pretty strange. But, if you're a citizen of, say, Lubbock, Texas, then Rick's the guy you've been waiting for because he's a lot like you and your neighbors, etc.
I'm not bothered or afraid of my country's true character - I want it to resume being itself again - and Rick Santorum's candidacy is a step in the right direction. He's got principles I share that are informed by beliefs I don't, which I can't say about the others. And, as a conservative atheist, I'm overjoyed to see the glass half full.
As far as Mitt goes, I can see through him like glass. Just like with Barack, the rest are admiring an image, and willingly deciding not to look deeply at the man's associations and beliefs - and that's wrong. It's wrong for the election process and it's wrong for the country - Obama's zippidee-do-dah election should've told you that.
I don't share Santorum's beliefs but I know them, warts and all, and can live with them in the White House. I also know Mittens', warts and all, and - because of them - I don't want him any closer to power than he is already.
We are electing the President of the United States, not the fulfillment of some fraud, charlatan, and rapist's delusional biblical con job.
If a Scientologist were running, I'd feel the same way, no matter how "nice" Tom Cruise "seems." Shit, that level of gullibility, alone - not to mention the duplicity involved - would be an automatic disqualifier.
If you're serious about your role as a citizen, the risk is just too great.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा