Media v Evangelicals 2018 part 8

Mass media, the legacy media, you know, those “Lamestream” guys, are keeping me busy tracking their continued attempts to wedge Evangelical voters away from President Trump. One way they do this is to pound on the hypocrisy angle at every opportunity. Of course, Evangelicals continue to provide lots of opportunities.

Hence the #MeTooForChurch series of exposes to detail those Evangelical pastors who have been caught in sin. Particularly notable this summer was the philandering scandal at Willow Creek, which is an Evangelical megachurch with a network of associated churches. Pastor Bill Hybels and his leadership team are out and the church is reeling. Almost every mass media outlet covered it, but all the articles seemed to be derivative of reporting by the Chicago Tribune and Religion News Service. There wasn’t an anti-Trump hook to this story, so it played out in the press the way most church scandals do.

Russkies at the Prayer Breakfast

The New York Times wins the prize for this latest reporting period for an article about the National Prayer Breakfast. The article ran on July 27. The National Prayer Breakfast happened back in February. Why such a late-breaking article? Well, the obvious answer is Russians.

Yes, the NYT ran a hatchet job about the National Prayer Breakfast in which they noted that a couple of Russians were in attendance, including Maria Butina, which, according to them, taints the whole affair and confirms Trump colluded with the Russkies to derail her highness’s path to victory. Now, I would have been content to scoff them and mock them and call them “fake news,” but I saw that one of my favorite media critics, Julia Duin, took them seriously and provided a better response. Here is an excerpt from her post, which includes a quote from the NYT:

The bottom line: I’m just surprised it took the Russians this long to discover what everyone else knew – that the breakfast and its parent organization, the International Foundation, have been organizing “secret” meetings between foreign government leaders and U.S. politicians … for years.

Doesn’t the same sort of thing happen at Vatican embassies around the world? Is this news all that surprising? The key question is documenting the money involved.

What’s more, participants appear to see ultimate value in meetings and relationships seemingly irrespective of the motives of those present.

I would sub in “evangelistic value,” in that the motive behind the breakfast is to pave the way for the spread of the Gospel in foreign countries by inviting their government officials to the breakfast.

Remember, the folks at the breakfast – and the Foundation – are using this as an opportunity to reach the Russians (and others) just as much as the folks from overseas are using it as a way to reach influential Americans.

Well, yes, one of the original reasons for holding a prayer breakfast targeted to Washington politicians was to use it to reach out to leaders of non-Christian nations to persuade them to treat their Christians better, and possibly to persuade both American and foreign politicians of the truth of the Gospel.

Usual Stuff

Of some interest over the summer were media digs at Evangelicals in ways devised to emphasize that journalists think Evangelical Trump voters are all hypocrites. Salon ran an article, but since it is Salon, maybe they don’t qualify as news media. Their article excoriated Evangelicals for being hypocrites on account of Trump’s immorality, and then they paused to celebrate the general rise of sexual immoralities, and then they also celebrated the rise of people who have dropped out of traditional churches. Typical.

The only reason to mention Salon is because they get promoted in the feed at the Google News aggregator. Google promotes their catchy headline, and that is what puts them on my radar.   Their headline stayed in the Google News Spotlight for several days.

Mike Pence, Christianist monster

There was a spate of articles that seemed intended to wedge Mike Pence away from President Trump, or to simply portray Mike Pence as a monstrous theocrat. Since they were all simply rehashing stuff I have written about before, there is no need to give a blow-by-blow. SSDD.

Fundamentalist Racists

There was a more recent example. It was from an Alabama newspaper, but it also got featured prominently near the top of the default Google News page. This one was also intended to chide Evangelicals because they support immoral President Trump. They found a liberal Baptist history professor (he also has an MDiv but I don’t know if he was ever ordained). They quote him extensively saying the usual Leftist stuff:

There are broader issues at play, too, with Trump’s stand on Muslim immigration echoing past religious right alarms against non-Protestant immigrants changing the nation’s faith demographics.

“Trump is, at best, racially insensitive, if not racist,” said Leonard, a former religion professor at Samford University and retired divinity dean at Wake Forest University.

But many evangelicals like his style, Leonard said.

“Fundamentalists vest great power in the authoritarian leader who brooks no disagreement,” Leonard said. “They have an appreciation for Trump as an authoritarian figure.”

Baptists traditionally supported the separation of church and state, but shifted with the rise of the Moral Majority in 1979 and the election of President Ronald Reagan in 1980. Despite being divorced, Reagan was the choice of evangelicals over Jimmy Carter, a born-again believer and Baptist Sunday school teacher who did not agree with the religious right on many issues.

That is pitiful dreck through and through. “Trump’s stand on Muslim immigration echoing past religious right alarms against non-Protestant immigrants changing the nation’s faith demographics.” This assumes the Leftists’ worst construction of “religious right alarms” about Muslim immigration, insinuating that the concern is with all “non-Protestant immigrants” and alleging that the problem with Muslim immigrants is demographic, which of course is code for racist. I am calling B.S. on Dean Leonard and AL.com and the reporter, Greg Garrison.

I think Dean Leonard has slandered Fundamentalists as well as President Trump.

I recall debates among traditionalist Christians regarding the difficult choice between irreligious divorcee California actor Reagan versus Baptist Georgia farmer Carter. We voted for Reagan. I don’t recall anyone being called “immoral” for making that choice. But I have been called immoral for voting for President Trump, and in fact, I saw that “immoral” smear tossed around again just this week by NeverTrumpers.

And I resent Dean Leonard’s slander that “Baptists traditionally supported the separation of church and state, but shifted with the rise of the Moral Majority….” Did Baptists stop supporting the separation of church and state? He alleges in that article that Baptists want to use the power of the state to re-establish their dominant political position. He is wrong. Baptists are appealing to government to stop coercing Christians into forced speech that celebrates the sins of the protected classes. Baptists and other traditionalist Christians are appealing to government to stop meddling in local bathrooms. The key for Baptists and other Evangelicals is that Team Obama was using the federal government to elevate non-traditional religion over traditionalist religions; we simply wanted the State to cease establishing Leftist religion.

Evangelicals, whether Baptist or not (I am not a Baptist), are politically active because we are defending ourselves against the attacks of the Left, who have been using the power of government, as has been discussed here at Ratburger.org on previous occasions. Leftists may cry “theocrat” but the truth is that they are the ones on offense and we are the ones on defense, and it has been this way ever since the Reagan Administration.

I will close this time with an opinion column that ran at The Atlantic. It was by Peter Beinart, a professor of journalism at CUNY. It was more of the ‘Evangelicals are racists’ stuff that I have been writing about all year. This one seemed to pivot; Beinard did not address himself to Evangelicals and gave no indication that he expected to have any Evangelical readers. He was not trying to wedge Evangelicals away from President Trump. He was giving Leftists permission to consider Evangelicals to be horrible racist, sexist, homophobic, mean persons, as a way to encourage Leftist political activisms. He wrote on the topic of corruption, brushing off all allegations of corruption by Hillary, and focusing on the corruption of Trump. He wrote that Evangelicals were more concerned about people of color corrupting the complexion of America than about Trump’s political corruption.

I think we will see less of the media attempts to wedge Evangelicals away from President Trump.   We have seen a number of pundits and journalists wailing about how, for all their attacks, articles, shows, editorials, histrionics and shouting, the needle has not moved; Evangelicals who support President Trump have remained unmoved.

I will put links in the comments.

4+
avataravataravataravatar

30 thoughts on “Media v Evangelicals 2018 part 8”

  1. Peter Beinart’s column at The Atlantic:
    https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/08/what-trumps-supporters-think-of-corruption/568147/

    Read it and consider what those CUNY students in his journalism classes are learning.

    My favorite media critics response
    https://www.getreligion.org/getreligion/2018/8/24/thinking-sort-of-about-trumps-base-what-does-corruption-mean-to-his-true-loyalists

    What the essay fails to do is wrestle with why many Americans truly believed that Trump was corrupt, but were convinced that his form of corruption was less dangerous – in the long run – than that of Clinton.

    0

  2. Good analysis.

    Today I uninstalled Microsoft’s News app from my new Windows 10 PC, and then tweeted that there is now less hate in the world, cuz I installed it.  But yes, that’s the sort of story they like to promote.

    BTW, way back in 1964 one of my high school teachers in rural Minnesota was heard (not by me) to publicly decry how any Lutheran pastor could support Goldwater. The assumption was that the teacher was speaking of my father. Dad didn’t talk about the campaign in public, and for that matter didn’t say much in private, either, but his son was an outspoken Goldwater supporter and the assumption that the father supported him, too, was correct.  So calling religious people immoral for supporting candidate X has been going on for a long time. I think I could find examples from the 1850s, too, but I’m not old enough to remember those personally.

    But the intensity of the current smear media campaign is unprecedented, I think.

    2+
    avataravatar
  3. I have gained respect for evangelicals for supporting Trump. One of the great things about Christianity is they forgive. Everyone is redeemable. They are moral, or trying their best to be moral, but they don’t moralize ( the Trump supporting contingent). They recognize and accept we are all flawed. They recognize that people can change over time and remake themselves.

    Trump is politically moral. Other politicians are politically immoral and present themselves as loyal family man and upstanding citizen as cover.

    We care about a politician’s morals and ethics as a barometer on how they will keep their promises politically. Are these Presidents really supposed to be superior beings that we want to worship? Yeah… worship… religious people have a God… agnostics, cynics and atheists have to worship something – being human – so it’s tennis stars singers and Presidents that fills that void.

    Of course, these people have no idea how evangelicals think or what they believe or how they live. Evangelicals are an abstraction, a rumor they heard. I don’t know anything about evangelicals either, but I find myself sympathetic.

    4+
    avataravataravataravatar
  4. Franco:
    Yeah… worship… religious people have a God… agnostics, cynics and atheists have to worship something – being human – so it’s tennis stars singers and Presidents that fills that void.

    Please allow me to interfere with a slightly off-topic note : I don’t know anything about the “evangelicals” this post is about, but I do know cynics and atheists (I won’t take agnostics into account, for they are *ordinarily* atheists who hesitate performing the very last step towards what I call lucidity), being one of them : if you filter out so-called reason *believers* (don’t laugh !) such as too many randites and  most masons, from what I know, the majority of these evil cynics and atheists are not cultists and they do not “have to” worship anyone or anything (whether well-known or not, by the way). However, they can, *at times*, admire people worth esteem and respect because these people are clever and coherent (doing what they say and not practicing doublespeak) — “aspirational” as a friend says.

    By Crom and by Cthulhu, this is very different ! 😉

    P.S. : Sorry, for this is a French book, but you could see this wisdom (not being sorry to live in an indifferent universe and not thinking it necessary to worship anything except by esthetism) in Pierre Gripari’s *L’Evangile du Rien* (a very well-composed anthology of cynical, atheist and skeptical texts chosen in all literatures of the world).

    P.P.S. : Contrarily to what a few may think, no offense here against believers who can do, feel and think what they like provided they leave us, cynics and atheists, alone : the real Golden Rule should be Indifference. 😉

    0

  5. Blumroch, how can the Golden Rule be Indifference? How can a rule that says “do” be made into a rule that says “don’t”?

    I agree in theory with your ideas but usually the Atheist Left is too into “You have the freedom to think our way.” The French Revolution couldn’t allow Notre Dame to be a church. The Russian Revolution made Christians second class citizens.

    Don’t you find it amazing the need for people to worship. If there are no churches the leader becomes a “god”. The country is filled with images. Cuba-Castro China-Mao USSR-Lenin Iraq-Saddam Hussein The Party becomes the place to get indoctrinated.

    2+
    avataravatar
  6. Blumroch, what worries me about Atheists of a certain stripe is their ability to kill millions for the “good” of society. Where there is mass death there is usually a person doing things for “the higher good”.

    1+
    avatar
  7. 10 Cents:
    Blumroch, how can the Golden Rule be Indifference? How can a rule that says “do” be made into a rule that says “don’t”?

    I agree in theory with your ideas but usually the Atheist Left is too into “You have the freedom to think our way.” The French Revolution couldn’t allow Notre Dame to be a church. The Russian Revolution made Christians second class citizens.

    Don’t you find it amazing the need for people to worship. If there are no churches the leader becomes a “god”. The country is filled with images. Cuba-Castro China-Mao USSR-Lenin Iraq-Saddam Hussein The Party becomes the place to get indoctrinated.

    I prefer negative theology. 😉 You may find a few sentences similar to my Golden Rule of Indifference in Heinlein’s *Glory Road* and in *The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress*.

    Atheists of interest have a decent I.Q. and they don’t think they’re entitled to force others to follow their orders and ideas. This filters out the madmen of the French “revolution” who were merely bloodthirsty morons, whether atheists or worshippers of the mysterious Supreme Being (a parody of religion which they feel they needed as to *control* people). As I know you can read French, try and find *Deux idoles sanguinaires* by Léon Daudet and even more *La Révolution française* by Pierre Gaxotte : as far as I know, there are no better books about this period. The second one was published in the 1930s and no one has been able to do better (even leftists honest historians have to admit it). This book is akin to Jacques Bainville’s *Les conséquences politiques de la paix* which, just using an immense knowledge of history and very bright reasoning skills, had forecast all the consequences of the Versailles Treatee.

    Personally, I cannot understand anyone worshipping anyone. I may not be great enough to be a master, but I’m not weak enough to be a disciple. The key word is, I guess, unconditional. This, no one should be. An example : though I’ve read better, more clever people than RAH, I still revere him, even though I’ll never say all his books are on the same level. Even worse, “thanks” to the net and a few books, I know his life better, and I found it, well, not always honourable. This does not prevent me from saying he was influent for confirming a few of my evil ideas. 😉 I know Rand, I can quote a few of her best lines and speeches, but I cannot be an unconditional randite.

    Most people are afraid to think by themselves, hence the need for someone to guide them, give them orders, tell them what to think and what *not* to think, what to worship and what to execrate.

    Most men are sheep in disguise.

    P.S. : No relation, but as I no longer post, I must seize the occasion : Bruce Schneier has just published a book whose title is : *Click here to kill everybody*. Now, that’s what *even* I call *evil* ! 😉

    1+
    avatar
  8. Blumroch, why do people who care and make things generally better come from believers? The slave trade ended from religious people. The Red Cross is not the Red Book. People who actually help the poor or not the Indifferent ones. The hospitals and schools came from the church and now the Left is out to destroy those.

    Is someone controlled by the beauty of a mountain or a person? Yes, but in a good way. It can humble as it ennobles.

    1+
    avatar
  9. 10 Cents:
    Blumroch, what worries me about Atheists of a certain stripe is their ability to kill millions for the “good” of society. Where there is mass death there is usually a person doing things for “the higher good”.

    As I wrote it in another post, I’d prefer the best (1, 2 or 3 out of 10, the exact statistics does not really matter here) to leave this messy planet and go to the stars. It’s in *The Prisoner*, when Number Two says he wants the world to be an immense Village. Number Six, when asked about what he wanted, just replies : “I’d like to be the first man on Mars” (or on the Moon : I begin to be tired). Now, this is SF.

    I still think the masses of morons have no justification ouf of their merely *existing*. This is we call in French “le fait accompli”, when we are asked to accept *anything* because it already existed or exists now. The government passes a law in its favor and in our defavor : we have to accept it ; they impose silly TV programs : we have to accept it ; they decide contemporary non-art is art : we have to accept it ; they decide what is Good or Evil : we have to accept it ; etc.

    Morons are a nuisance for the few who have a brain (however small as mine, *even* as mine) and who would just would like the “crétins” to be *very* far from them — which does not seem achievable.

    Anyway, there’s a difference with all the madmen who exterminated (or wanted to exterminate) millions of men : it was in order to gain or assert power, and according to criteria I disapprove of.

    Think of the world as a sinking ship or submarine. You *cannot* save everyone. You have few ressources to allow (emergency boats, food, etc.). You *have* to make a *choice*, a *difficult* choice : you must decide who is to live and who is to die. What do you do ? In my way of thinking, you select by I.Q. (perfectly knowing all high I.Q. are not necessarily decent people, hence Jacques Bergier wishing two gifts at birth : a high I.Q. *and* a strong character) *or* by a random draw. Once this is done, incidentally, *then* you (and those who have helped you making the selection) *stay* with the ones who will be drowned, as the right price to pay for having been *forced* to chose not for an hypothetical “higher good” but for survival. This was/is *not* the Pol Pot, Stalin, Tamerlan, YouNameIt way, and this is not for the same reasons either. They had/have a political project of power and *this* is what I would call *evil* (or irrational).

    This is really not a question of “higher good” : this is a question of *neighborhood*. I’d like my neighbours to be quiet, peaceful, erudite, clever people ; *not* barbarians watching TV and believing every lie their government says to them ; not barbarians dreaming of slicing everyone’s throat in favor of a bloodthirsty god and absurd dogmas.

    Why have I the strange feeling I’m replaying *Groundhog Day* here ? 😉

    1+
    avatar
  10. Franco:
    I have gained respect for evangelicals for supporting Trump. One of the great things about Christianity is they forgive. Everyone is redeemable. They are moral, or trying their best to be moral, but they don’t moralize ( the Trump supporting contingent). They recognize and accept we are all flawed. They recognize that people can change over time and remake themselves.

    Trump is politically moral. Other politicians are politically immoral and present themselves as loyal family man and upstanding citizen as cover.

    There are some problem Evangelical cases, like when Falwell Jr. said that Trump was a reformed character and had become “born again.”   There is no evidence, aside from Falwell Jr.’s testimony, that Trump is, in fact, a reformed character.  And there is evidence to the contrary, beginning with Trump’s statement that he felt no need of forgiveness.

    There are also the Leftist Evangelicals, who are ‘Christian in name only,’ and occasionally, when cornered, they admit to being Universalists.

    Otherwise, the mainstream of Evangelicalism in America saw the choice of 2016, recognized the situation, and voted for D.J. Trump.

    We had a narrow escape.

    1+
    avatar
  11. Atheism is a religion.

    While over two thirds of Evangelicals voted for Donald Trump, over three quarters of Atheists did not vote for Donald Trump.

    I am happy to make a common political alliance with Atheists, to the extent that we could find common cause, but there are very few Atheists who are interested in such an alliance.

    1+
    avatar
  12. Blumroch:

    10 Cents:
    Blumroch, what worries me about Atheists of a certain stripe is their ability to kill millions for the “good” of society. Where there is mass death there is usually a person doing things for “the higher good”.

    As I wrote it in another post, I’d prefer the best (1, 2 or 3 out of 10, the exact statistics does not really matter here) to leave this messy planet and go to the stars. It’s in *The Prisoner*, when Number Two says he wants the world to be an immense Village. Number Six, when asked about what he wanted, just replies : “I’d like to be the first man on Mars”. Now, this is SF.

    I still think the masses of morons have no justification ouf of their merely *existing*. This is we call in French “le fait accompli”, when we are asked to accept *anything* because it already existed or exists now. The government passes a law in its favor and in our defavor : we have to accept it ; they impose silly TV programs : we have to accept it ; they decide contemporary non-art is art : we have to accept it ; they decide what is Good or Evil : we have to accept it ; etc.

    Morons are a nuisance for the few who have a brain (however small as mine, *even* as mine) and who would just would like the “crétins” to be *very* far from them — which does not seem achievable.

    Anyway, there’s a difference with all the madmen who exterminated (or wanted to exterminate) millions of men : it was in order to gain or assert power, and according to criteria I disapprove of.

    Think of the world as a sinking ship or submarine. You *cannot* save everyone. You have few ressources to allow (emergency boats, food, etc.). You *have* to make a *choice*, a *difficult* choice : you must decide who is to live and who is to die. What do you do ? In my way of thinking, you select by I.Q. (perfectly knowing all high I.Q. are not necessarily decent people, hence Jacques Bergier wishing two gifts at birth : a high I.Q. *and* a strong character) *or* by a random draw. Once this is done, incidentally, *then* you (and those who have helped you making the selection) *stay* with the ones who will be drowned, as the right price to pay for having been *forced* to chose not for an hypothetical “higher good” but for survival. This was/is *not* the Pol Pot, Stalin, Tamerlan, YouNameIt way, and this is not for the same reasons either. They had/have a political project of power and *this* is what I would call *evil* (or irrational).

    This is really not a question of “higher good” : this is a question of *neighborhood*. I’d like my neighbours to be quiet, peaceful, erudite, clever people ; *not* barbarians watching TV and believing every lie their government says to them ; not barbarians dreaming of slicing everyone’s throat in favor of a bloodthirsty god and absurd dogmas.

    Why have I the strange feeling I’m replaying *Groundhog Day* here ? 😉

    You pose the “lifeboat” question. You can’t save everyone so who do you choose? This is another way of saying you pick for the “higher good”.  If you think IQ is the higher good you pick for that. If you think physical strength is the higher good you pick for that. If you think ideology is the higher good? Race? Sex? They all have been used. If they pick the wrong thing they are evil or morons.

    This is an interesting discussion. By the way, will you save me, Blumroch, or let me drown? 🙂

    1+
    avatar
  13. 10 Cents:
    Blumroch, why do people who care and make things generally better come from believers? The slave trade ended from religious people. The Red Cross is not the Red Book. People who actually help the poor or not the Indifferent ones. The hospitals and schools came from the church and now the Left is out to destroy those.

    Is someone controlled by the beauty of a mountain or a person? Yes, but in a good way. It can humble as it ennobles.

    Hey, you’re already taxing my poor writing and reasoning abilities to the max, and now I should try and answer a question requiring a full book ? I’m a mere *evil* little Frenchman, not an *intellectuel* ! 😉

    Slightly more seriously : possibly because the character does not entirely depend upon beliefs or non-beliefs. If I wanted to play sophistry, I could find examples for both hypotheses, but this would not be fair. May I note, anyway (I’m a cynic) there’s still some kind of *power* in helping people who cannot or do not want help themselves ? Does not the almighty State seem benevolent while it’s just asserting its absolute power on our lives, out of the belief it knows better than us what is good for us ?

    (Reminds me of a clever quote by Eric Raymond : “There’s a truism that the road to Hell is often paved with good intentions. The corollary is that evil is best known not by its motives but by its *methods*.” — you could replace “motives” with “beliefs”)

    Allow me for a digression, yet linked to your question. You know the splendid ending of Patrick Henry’s famous speech : “Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!” — once, I commented it was well said, if not well thought, for liberty must be *conquered* and not “given” by anyone except *oneself*, whatever the good (or less good) reasons. There no need for believers or non-believers or unbelievers to help people if these people are not able to help themselves alone. There’s a wonderful short story by Poul Anderson about that point — I think the title is something like *Helping hand*.

    Wow, I thought posts were exhausting, but answers to comments are too. 😉

    1+
    avatar
  14. 10 Cents:
    This is an interesting discussion. By the way, will you save me, Blumroch, or let me drown? 🙂

    I’m sure you can swim ! 😉

    0

  15. 10 Cents:
    Get some sleep, Blumroch! Thank you for your responses. Mata. ( This is “ciao” in Japanese. The French word is too long) 🙂

    I was about to do so. If I’m crucified in next comments, both of us will know why !

    Just another thought (though I know we could argue a long time about it) : the old Chinese society was almost an atheist one, with any “real” god (just fighting elementary principles seeking for a balance) nor real “religion” as we define it in Western civilization. *Broadly* speaking, the cult of ancestors and of wisdom was enough to ensure a stable, quiet, literate society (yes, I know, *slightly* static too), where the past, the traditions and the parents were revered, without sacrifying them to the “future” and to any kind of “progress” (whether convenient or not) or deviance. It’s *partly* the kind of society we’d like, I think, where things do not change on a whim because someone wants to force us to buy things *ad vitam aeternam*, where the past and the talents are respected. In a way, this is a Luddite’s dream such as the one by Ted Kaczynski in his *Manifesto*, a *book* which is not so far from situationists’ books (no wonder he was published in France by the *Editions de l’Encyclopédie des Nuisances*).

    Well, now, I’ll be accused of making us all “go back to the trees”. 😉 It’s fortunate I don’t care. 😉

    Next debate will be held in French, so *you* see how difficult it is for a normal brain to discuss difficult topics in an alien language. 😉

    P.S. : In modern frenglish (for French is now a dead language), we (well… they) say “Bye!” 😉

    1+
    avatar
  16. Blumroch:
    Think of the world as a sinking ship or submarine. You *cannot* save everyone. You have few ressources to allow (emergency boats, food, etc.).

    How do you know that you cannot save everyone?

    I very distinctly recall the neo-Malthusians of the 1970s touting The Population Bomb as an undisputable prophecy.   With the global population crossing over 4.5 billion, they claimed that the limit of the earth’s ability to support human life would be exceeded before the global population reached 6 billion, and predicted famines and plagues that would kill people by the hundreds of millions before the end of the 20th Century.

    So now we have reached 7 billion, still growing, and the average human is better nourished than in 1980.

    I reject your insistence that we have to prepare for doomsday by preparing a way to choose who to kill on a massive scale.   And, Atheists are the very last people who should be discussing such a prospect.

    0

  17. @Mr 10 Cents : Out of civility, good manners and peaceful atmosphere, is there a *polite* way to say a few people they will be ignored and will get no answer, in the hope they’ll ignore me as I’m decided to ignore them ? Or have I to also stop commenting ? An “Please don’t expect any answer” button would be an idea. Even in good society, no one is forced to talked to everyone. 😉

    P.S. : T’was a pleasure to talk and discuss with *you* in a civil tone, it seemed to me. Vale viveque !

    0

  18. Blumroch:
    This is really not a question of “higher good” : this is a question of *neighborhood*. I’d like my neighbours to be quiet, peaceful, erudite, clever people ; *not* barbarians watching TV and believing every lie their government says to them ; not barbarians dreaming of slicing everyone’s throat in favor of a bloodthirsty god and absurd dogmas.

    What is so dreadfully wrong about watching TV and believing government lies that you think they deserve death?

    How does an Atheist decide what is wrong or not wrong?   Is this a moral issue?

    I agree that I do not want neighbors who dream of slicing everyone’s throat, but it appears that you are the only Ratburgher who harbors such thoughts.

    And what makes you want to attribute bloodthirstiness to religious people ?   It seems you are “projecting.”

    0

  19. Blumroch:
    @Mr 10 Cents : Out of civility, good manners and peaceful atmosphere, is there a *polite* way to say a few people they will be ignored and will get no answer, in the hope they’ll ignore me as I’m decided to ignore them ? Or have I to also stop commenting ? An “Please don’t expect any answer” button would be an idea. Even in good society, no one is forced to talked to everyone. 😉

    Monsieur Blumroch,

    You may log out and get some sleep; there is no need to reply to today’s challenges today.   But when you set forth a provocation, you should expect a robust reply.   That is the Ratburgher way.

    – Bubba

    0

  20. Blumroch:
    @Mr 10 Cents : Out of civility, good manners and peaceful atmosphere, is there a *polite* way to say a few people they will be ignored and will get no answer, in the hope they’ll ignore me as I’m decided to ignore them ? Or have I to also stop commenting ? An “Please don’t expect any answer” button would be an idea. Even in good society, no one is forced to talked to everyone. 😉

    I think a polite, “I don’t think it would be beneficial to respond.”

    0

Leave a Reply