“Gimme one of those blue bags.” The Enlightened make you pay a dime for grocery bags in San Francisco, where yesterday I did some shopping.
“We also have pink. You don’t want a pink?” She gestured to the larger stack.
“Pink is for girls and blue is for boys.” I wasn’t actually quiet when I said this most witty joke.
“Oh, that doesn’t matter.”
“It does to me.”
“Many men like pink in San Francisco.”
“I’m not one of those men.” Again, not sotto voce. A man walking by looked like he just saw a Donald Trump ad. He hurried past.
And then something surprising happened. The cashier leaned in and whispered. “There are a lot of crazy people in San Francisco.” She hesitated. “It’s not right.” I agreed and she smiled.
In War As I Knew It, George Patton tells of an incident where his men were digging foxholes on a beach next to stacks of live ammunition. He berated them for their stupidity. And then…
About that time…two Hurricane Bombers came over and strafed the beach, and all the soldiers jumped right back into the same holes they had dug. I continued to walk up and down and soon shamed them into getting up.
Dying in a self-dug hole cowering in fear is an apt metaphor for our times. Yet so could be bravery and making a stand in the face of danger.
In reviewing Mary Eberstadt’s new book It’s Dangerous to Believe: Religious Freedom and Its Enemies (hat tip to Nick Land) David P. Goldman disagrees with Eberstadt that our enemies are engaged in a witch hunt, and argues persuasively that Liberals have formed instead an Inquisition, thus far an effective one. But he can smell the fear in the victors. “The liberal establishment lives in terror that the people will rise in revolt.”
Liberal intellectual life is a scam, a goof, a fraud, a hoax. There are no reasonable liberals to whom Christians might appeal in the name of fairness and free speech. There are only terrified, beleaguered, fanatical, and embittered liberals, painfully aware of the spreading discontent among the untutored masses. If they were not sure of it before 2016, Donald Trump has made it clear to them.
Goldman has no patience for the permanent retreat—a rout?—of the Benedict Option. Neither do I. And neither should you, dear reader.
Your alternative is to counterattack.
Ridicule your enemies. Expose their intellectual and moral bankruptcy. Assert the superiority of your own intellectual tradition…Target individuals; liberals are brave in a mob but cowards in a corner. Make fun of the employment prospects of gender- and ethnic-studies students…Aim for the brightest and most ambitious students on campus: If you convince them that their professors have feet of clay, you will have won half the battle.
The truth Patton knew and Goldman knows, and one you, dear reader, should screw to the sticking place, a truth lost on all “cuckservatives” and appeasers, is that “If you plead for mercy from your oppressors, your best young people will fall away, demoralized. If you ask for sacrifice, they will rally to you.” Would you follow Paul “We’re Giving In Because We Don’t Want To Upset Them” Ryan into battle?
Our allies are everywhere. Even somebody who signals left, as did the cashier because she thought she had to, could be a secret sister. We are still the majority. Yet you’d never know it if you followed the majority of the media, academia, Washington, big business. Their propaganda assures all that the Debate Is Over. It’s a lie. Stand and fight.
When the Apaches and other plains Indian tribes took prisoners they would often inflict hideous tortures on their victims. The doomed men did not beg for mercy but would instead make light of their pain, inviting their torturers to do worse. These men knew they were going to die and they wanted to die like men and not mewling cowards. In this way they earned the respect of their enemies
Our prayer therefore on this Day of Independence is this: Lord, do not let me die like a coward.
I wouldn’t follow Speaker of the House Judas into a department store, let alone a battle. Get real.
It’s from a TV show, but applicable, when on NCIS Abby said she worked on too many people who used “duck and hide” as a method of dealing with an attacker. She was not going to die hiding under a desk.
It has always fascinated me that TV portrays captives begging for their lives. If the person you’re begging had any compassion or humanity at all, you wouldn’t be about to die. Why is one pleading with a monster? It’s insane.
It’s true, these wimps fear laughter and ridicule most. These are the most effective weapons. But you can’t laugh if you are afraid. So, fear not – and laugh!
A Harley Biker is riding by the zoo in Washington,
DC when he sees a little girl leaning into the lion’s cage. Suddenly, the lion grabs her by the collar of her jacket and tries to pull her inside to slaughter her, under the eyes of her screaming parents.
The biker jumps off his Harley, runs to the cage and hits the lion square on the nose with a powerful punch.
Whimpering from the pain the lion jumps back letting go of the girl, and the biker brings the girl to her terrified parents, who thank him endlessly. A reporter has watched the whole event.
The reporter addressing the Harley rider says, ‘Sir, this was the most gallant and bravest thing I’ve seen a man do in my whole life.’ The Harley rider replies, ‘Why, it was nothing, really. The lion was behind bars. I just saw this little kid in danger, and acted as I felt right.’ The reporter says, ‘Well, I’ll make sure this won’t go unnoticed. I’m a journalist, you know, and tomorrow’s paper will have this story on the front page. So, what do you do for a living, and what political affiliation do you have?’ The biker replies
“I’m a U.S. Marine, and a Republican”.
The journalist leaves.
The following morning the biker buys the paper to see if it indeed brings news of his actions, and reads, on the front page:
U.S. MARINE ASSAULTS AFRICAN IMMIGRANT AND STEALS HIS LUNCH
They let you ride a motorcycle in the Washington DC zoo?!
I have always wondered why people can be convinced to dig their own graves. Obviously, I don’t understand the situation.
Doggone. This is fantastic.
How distressing it is to witness an abuse of language. How did Americans corrupt the word “liberal”? I’m conservative but I’m still liberal – or so I hope. If by “liberal”, Americans mean “left-wing”, why not say so?
“About that time…two Hurricane Bombers came over and strafed the beach,”
The Hawker Hurricane depending on mark being a fighter or fighter-bomber not a bomber and not being on charge with either the Luftwaffe or the Reggia Aeronautica; one wonders why the RAF was bombing Patton other than his winning personality…..
Perhaps he meant the Caproni 309 to 316 “Desert Wind” and “West Wind” models
ISIS mocks US troops and spreads propaganda against their enemies. Strong convictions precede their actions. Violence oftentimes has a verbal start and a brutal, physical end.
I heard that bloggers will sooner or later find themselves in good company. It seems true. So, Mr. Briggs, thou shalt not die alone.
Given your affection for progressives, I thought you might enjoy this:
Here’s the abstract: Ethical Humanism honors the individual and is the basis of classical liberalism, modern libertarianism. Progressives advertise their program as humanely compassionate, asserting compatibility with Humanism. However, Progressives allied themselves to every single totalitarian state of the 20th century, including Nazi Germany. They have moralized mass murder on the grounds of utopian necessity. Progressive intellectuals such as Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn have falsified history and assassinated character to compose politically expedient morality tales. Progressivism’s social justice has censored speech and its educational justice has produced uneducated children and a nation-wide scandal of cheating teachers. Progressive law imposes secular purity, and its economic justice is enforced egalitarianism. These programs are no more than disguised attacks on individual freedom, the eradication of which is primary and necessary to Progressive communal ideology. Its polemics lubricate the slide into tyranny by making unfreedom seem normal and desirable. The belief that Progressivism is compatible with Humanism is a conceptual aberration that grants a soothing delusion of personal virtue while enabling a murderous ideology. Progressivism is mortally hostile to Humanism
Pat Frank: A very enlightening piece. Now, if only we could get people not to flaunt the very thing they are objecting to, we’d have it made. I had difficulty getting to the end as the writer more and more embraced his own version of what he stated he objected to in both religion and progressivism.
Briggs for the win.
Sheri, I objected to willful self-delusion and use of lies in service to a lust for power. By what evidence do you say I “more and more” embraced that as you got toward the end? Be specific.
“So, religious ideology entails a corrosive morality that invents and then demonizes enemies.” To not be guilty of what you are objecting to in progressives, “some religious ideology” would have the accurate statement. Not all religion is corrosive. However, I often believe that all religion is irritating to atheists to a degree that is quite remarkable. Atheism seems to require that one deride religion, mock it and call it all kinds of names. Why? Yes, some religious people mock atheists, but by and large, I see religious people simply standing up for what they believe—which should fall under the rights of human beings, should it not? Or if one disagrees with humanism, one gives up those rights? It’s not really clear—it seems one either agrees with you or they are bad people or foolish or very, very wrong. Yet you object to that characterization when the religious person uses it to describe you.
Example of Mr. Mecklin: In writing, you chose to characterize religion as being represented by Creationists. Yet in reading this blog, you must know full well that many here do not believe in the Creationist theory and do not dispute the theory. You overlook that the originator of the “big bang” theory was a person who believed in God. This seems to be doing precisely what you are criticizing Meckling for—misrepresenting something to make your point seem stronger.
“In a free society, advocating reorganization around religious justice is just a self-delusional masquerade for the doctrinaire believer. It is a diversional romance that distracts advocates from their dream of power; allowing them to feel personally righteous while promoting tyranny. Every single religious polity has been intolerant and murderous. Religious justice means enslavement to an ideal of equal piety; enslavement of adults through ecclesiastical terror and of children through traumatizing indoctrination.” The same can be said of advocating reorganization around ANY ideal, including those of humanism. There are arguments that atheism removes any reason to behave morally, since the hear and now is all there is. Also, many people do not consider religion to be terrorizing children, though atheists see it that way. You are denying any good in the system presumable because it is not to your liking. Which makes you the same as the religious person as far as I can see. The only system where people are not subject to these ideas is anarchy. Otherwise, someone makes the rules. That someone generally thinks they are smartest and most righteous, be they religious, progressive or atheist. There is no way around this. None. You seem blind to the fact that you are arguing for the same thing you are arguing against and that your argument really ignores the nature of human beings.
One could argue that atheism is willful self-delusion and used to obtain power over religions couldn’t they? It’s all depends on what one believes to be the boogey man in mix.
Sheri, in my essay, I objected to using lies and self-delusion in service to a lust for power.
None of your examples support your charge that I “flaunt the very thing [I am] objecting to” or “embraced [my] own version of what [I] objected to.”
Taking your three examples in turn: In the first you objected to the idea that religious ideology imposes a corrosive morality, saying I should have written “some religious ideology.”
Which religion does not privilege its adherents as morally superior to all others? Where moral superiority is asserted, moral inferiority is an accusation of wrong-doing.
Here, for example, is a 10-point discussion of the wonderful liberality within Wicca, perhaps a popular choice to exemplify a non-ideological religion. The attributes as given are all very lovely and open and free-wheeling and eclectic. And then …
… in point 9, we have, “Wicca came about … as a reaction to the Industrial Revolution and the continuing alienation of humans from the natural world; equally, it has gained much of its vigor from a dissatisfaction with the patriarchal traditions of the Abrahamic religions.”
Followed by, “modern life has alienated humanity from the world and forced us into unhealthy and unjust relationships with one another … Wicca seeks to restore the connections that are central to the well-being of both the planet and ourselves … this process may be as simple on a personal level as making time to meditate outdoors; for others, it’s a grand critique of life under global capitalism.”
So, Wicca says that Wiccans are morally superior to outsiders who alienate themselves and others by embracing technology and industry. Wiccans are morally superior to people who embrace ‘patriarchal Abrahamic religions,’ those who embrace “modern life,” because it imposes ill-health and injustice, and, oh, yes, morally superior to capitalists.
We can infer, therefore, that Wiccans in power in a Wiccan state would legislate against all those bad, bad things, and criminalize all those bad, bad people who embrace them (let’s notice, too, that ‘modern industrial life’ has demonstrably improved human health, life span, and civility).
Freedom of conscience in a Wiccan state? It seems unlikely, doesn’t it.
Other religions follow the same program. Every single religion creates a moral hierarchy, just as Wicca does, and necessarily creates a category of morally bad people. And those people are bad, not because of what they do, but because of what they think.
All religions are ideological. All of them are morally corrosive, because they all impose a prescriptive morality that creates an evil-doing out-group — one consisting of people who think their own thoughts.
Next post: your second example.
Pat: I objected to the use of the word “corrosive” which implies all religion is bad.
You say morality imposed by religion is wrong, but you did not address the reality that morality is defined by someone, unless you are advocating anarchy? Are you advocating anarchy?
As far as I can see, your claim is atheists are morally superior. Belief in God is based on weakness and you are not weak. See—the same objection you have against religion and progressives. I don’t know if you classify weakness as evil-doing, but it certainly creates an out-group, which you seem to vilify just as much as Wiccans vilify others. By putting atheists as the most correct thinkers, you automatically exclude all others. There is simply no way around this.
Example 2, starting with an aside: my essay did not criticize Mr. Mecklin. Instead it exposed Mr. Noam Chmosky’s use of lies to assassinate Mr. Mecklin’s character.
You wrote, “In writing, you chose to characterize religion as being represented by Creationists.
Not quite. I characterized creationism as a religious ideology; a far more limited formula than your representation allows.
I don’t know any secular creationisms, do you?
After writing that, it seemed like a good idea to google “secular creationism.” The search turned up a tendentious 2011 essay” at SciAm blog supposing it possible that our universe was produced (not created) by error-prone exo-light-cone space aliens. Hardly compelling.
The second, amusingly, was a 2004 polemical essay by Ken Ham, a well-known young-earth creationist, whose point is to dismiss “Intelligent Design” theory as a creationism that rejects Biblical authority. Even less compelling.
So, it appears there are no secular creationisms (unless you can provide an example?). That leaves religious creationism; once again a valid analogy to progressivism, in that both -isms are ideological, are Manichean in expression, and within which believers lie opportunistically to get their way.
You wrote, “Yet in reading this blog, you must know full well that many here do not believe in the Creationist theory and do not dispute the theory.”
But my essay was not written with this blog or its denizens in mind. So, your point is lost.
Given that you described people here, including presumably yourself, as accepting evolutionary theory, you ought to have had no problem accepting the argument concerning creationism. But apparently you do have, though I suspect your true concern is elsewhere.
You wrote, “You overlook that the originator of the “big bang” theory was a person who believed in God.” but the point is creationism, not god.
According to Wiki, Lemaître apparently advised Pius XII to stay away from creationism. Lemaître’s physics had no material connection to a belief in god. Let’s also notice that whereas all creationists believe in god, not all god-believers are creationists (overlooking the multifarious meanings attached to “god”).
Your conclusion that I am “misrepresenting something to make your point seem stronger.” is unsupported by the evidence you presented.
Your argument does not demonstrate that I misrepresented anything.
Third point: note the definition of Humanism given in my essay. “the philosophical outcome of the inherent right to personal freedom. [3, 4] Corliss Lamont provides perhaps the most accessible definition of Humanism as, “a human-centered theory of life.”  It is informed by inquiry “into the major branches of the natural sciences, such as chemistry, astronomy, and biology, and likewise of the social sciences, such as history, economics, and politics.””
Notice that Humanism is not an ideal in the sense we are using — that of a prescriptive morality. Humanism is a methodological philosophy that can only operate with freedom of thought and conscience.
The United States Constitution is organized around Humanism. It cannot be as you said, therefore, that a society based in Humanism will enslave “adults through ecclesiastical terror and of children through traumatizing indoctrination.”
Neither of those programs are consistent with Humanism, neither in principle nor in the history of Humanism-based societies (the Anglophone world, mostly).
The ideological principles of religion and progressivism inhere moralizing dictates that demand such programs, however, and their social history is replete with them.
You wrote, “There are arguments that atheism removes any reason to behave morally, since the hear and now is all there is.”
Lots to say here. 🙂
First, if one behaves in a moral-like fashion merely because of a there and then, then one’s behavior is coerced by anticipation of some future. Coercion-based behavior is not an expression of morals, i.e., of behavioral choice. Coercion-based behavior is necessarily mindless and rote. It has no space for morals.
So, your argument carries an implicit repudiation that morals reside in religious belief.
Second, atheism exists only in the context of religion. It is a label religious people assigned to others who have no god-belief. That non-believers have taken up the atheism label is no testament to its existence as a discrete philosophy.
There are no a-this-or-that-isms categorizing people who have no belief in other empty systems (e.g., a-unicornism). That non-god-believers are chosen out to be so-labeled is a testament only to the adamantine determination of god-believers to require that the whole world color itself with their beliefs.
Third, atheism allows people to think for themselves and to choose their behavior and guiding principles for themselves. Therefore atheism is the only position that actually allows truly moral behavior.
The fact that those progressives who are also atheists choose to lionize sadistic murderers such as Che Guevara, and choose to commit mass-murder to enforce their politics, only shows that they have chosen a morality of evil.
You wrote, “You are denying any good in the system presumable because it is not to your liking.”
Not quite. 🙂 I’m denying any good in the (religious) system because there is nothing uniquely religious that produces any good, and plenty that produces evil.
Ask yourself whether any good done in the name of religion could not have just as well been done for secularly humane reasons. I can’t think of any, and so will look forward to your list.
On the other hand, the list of evils committed in the name of religion or progressivism is pretty much endless, the former including terrorizing children with threats and images of eternal torture.
“Which makes you the same as the religious person as far as I can see.” Look further.
You wrote, “[Apart from anarchy] someone makes the rules. … There is no way around this. None.”
Have you ever read the Constitution of the U.S., Sheri? It is the expression of a philosophy that specifically argues that no one person can make the rules for everyone else.
There is a way around your conclusion. It is trivially easy to navigate. It is merely to recognize that each human necessarily has equal rights. The necessity comes from the fact that there is no known hierarchy of humanness. Knowing that, no one person can ever have dictatorial rights over others.
My argument is grounded exactly in the nature of human beings, in that the philosophical argument derives from the natural history of humans. It is entirely consistent with evolutionary theory, and the culturally obligate conditioning of humans.
Finally, what is delusional about not believing in a “god” of which term there are no observables? To illustrate, is a-potrezebie-ism willfully self-delusional? Are there any potrezebie observables that I am willfully deluding myself about?
Likewise, are there any god-observables am I willfully deluding myself about? Not likely. 🙂 I claim there are no observables that can be unambiguously assigned to “god.” God is as empty a set as potrezebie. It’s up to you to substantiate any claimed difference.
All non-believers desire, Sheri, is to be free of religious coercion. That’s not power over religions. That’s power over one’s own life.
My opposition to progressivism is of the same sort. They’re clearly determined to impose themselves on every iotum of my life. I oppose the progressive urge to tyranny.
“Yet in reading this blog, you must know full well that many here do not believe in the Creationist theory and do not dispute the theory.” That does not apply since your writing was not for this blog. So you write different “facts” for different audiences?
I think I’m seeing the Missed the Point Completely fallacy here……
Your definition of coerced is interesting in that it excludes anything you do not want and includes whatever you do. Again, you are completely blind to your own behavior.
Ask yourself what was done in the name of atheism.
You fascinate me in your use of such terms as terrorizing, etc. Honestly, you have a very warped view of religion, as do many who simply don’t like what religion teaches. Religion hurt your feelings and you lash out at everyone. Atheists hurt my feelings, but I don’t call them terrorists and horrible people. Again, you do exactly what you accuse others of.
Okay, no one person can make the rules. Some group does—the one with the most votes, the most corrupt or the most powerful. You deride religion for this, yet you praise the founding fathers doing precisely the same thing. Nonsensical.
If you do not believe in things that are not observables, then you cannot believe in love, etc. Love is a chemical reaction, no more significant than the need to eliminate waste from the body. Pleasure is nothing more than chemicals—drugs, sex, whatever. There are many things which are not observable. Technically, evolution is not an observable. It’s a cobbling together of ideas that can never be verified, yet you accept it as absolute truth, or seem to. You’re quite selective in what you do and don’t believe in.
You seriously believe that atheism does not impose itself? That is the biggest self-delusion out there, sir. The biggest.
I would note, lastly, that you stated the article was on progressivism. Technically, it was. Like technically Obama did want to fundamentally change America. However, your comment was addressed to a Catholic whose religion you repeatedly bashed in the article. I would call that “deception” of the same magnitude as Obama. You did address progressivism, but you also shredded religion, called religious people terrorizing, bad people and failed to include any of that in your comment indicating Briggs might like your post. Deception.
Sheri, your objection was that I “flaunt[ed] the very thing they are objecting to.” “Corrosive” only entered on your follow-up.
I provided evidence that religion is indeed corrosive, showing its appearance in Wicca chosen freely as the least likely to offend. If you’d like a more extensive treatment, I suggest Christopher Hitchens’ “God is not Great. How religion poisons everything.” If you can find a religion that does not require a moral hierarchy among people, I’ll change my view.
Your counter is just denial, without evidence.
You wrote, “You say morality imposed by religion is wrong, …”
That wasn’t my argument. My argument is that religion is not a source of morality at all, because it coerces behavior by use of threats, and by use of force when it attains police-power.
You continued, “… but you did not address the reality that morality is defined by someone, unless you are advocating anarchy? Are you advocating anarchy?”
Morality is just the normative standard of acceptable behavior in a society, by which people feel virtuous. It varies with the society. The constructive alternative is not anarchy. The constructive alternative is ethics — behavior governed by principle (such as Humanism), rather than by custom.
You wrote, “As far as I can see, your claim is atheists are morally superior.”
No, I’m just saying that atheists are in fact moral because their ethical behavior is not coerced.
“Belief in God is based on weakness and you are not weak” Your words, not mine.
“…an out-group, which you seem to vilify just as much as Wiccans vilify others.” Show me a single instance of me vilifying any group in any of my posts. I maintain that you cannot.
You wrote, “By putting atheists as the most correct thinkers, you automatically exclude all others. There is simply no way around this.”
There is an easy way around that. The position most consistent with observed reality is atheism, one therfore deduces that god conclusions are insupportable.
See, the way around it is that my position addresses the argument, not the people.
No one is excluded. Just the opposite. Anyone can make their argument. No one is vilified, no one is excluded, there is no category of other. Come one, come all. There is only the content of the argument, and what can be supported and what cannot be so.
Respect accorded to all as people. Respect only by the merits for arguments.
That’s the Humanist way, Sheri. But history shows it’s not the way of religion (or of progressivism).
Sheri, you wrote, ““Yet in reading this blog, you must know full well that many here do not believe in the Creationist theory and do not dispute the theory.” That does not apply since your writing was not for this blog. So you write different “facts” for different audiences?”
Your original point was that my essay characterized religion as represented by creationists. But it didn’t. It characterized creationism as supported by opportunistic lies.
You went on to object to the essay because some readers of this blog are not creationists. So, I pointed out it wasn’t written for this blog. That negates your argument. It does not imply anything about alternative writings.
One after the other, Sheri, your posts misconstrue mine.
You wrote, “I think I’m seeing the Missed the Point Completely fallacy here……” Rather, you’re inventing meanings that are not in my posts. And then waxing indignant about them.
You wrote, “Your definition of coerced is interesting in that it excludes anything you do not want and includes whatever you do.”
Not correct. It’s pretty clear from context that my definition of coerced is ‘imposed by threat or by force.’
You’re inventing things again.
You wrote, “Ask yourself what was done in the name of atheism.” OK. Tell me Pat, what was done in the name of atheism? Waiting. . . . Nope, can’t think of anything.
Apologies if I’m reading into your question incorrectly here, but let’s not bring up communism or Nazism, Sheri. They both murdered for their communalist ideology, not for non-belief in gods.
Where did I call any religious people terrorists or horrible people? I merely pointed out the truism that religions terrorize children by threat of eternal punishment. How is that false?
The Founding Fathers didn’t make any rules. They established a principled method. The rules came later. But the legitimacy of the rules is measured against the set of principles. That makes principle the ultimate arbiter of rules, and not the person.
Your view of “some group does” is therefore wrong.
You wrote, “If you do not believe in things that are not observables, then you cannot believe in love, etc.”
Love has observable consequences, does it not? QED, my side, then.
You wrote, “There are many things which are not observable. Technically, evolution is not an observable. It’s a cobbling together of ideas that can never be verified, …”
Not correct. Evolutionary Theory is descent with variation plus natural selection. Both processes have been enormously well-verified. Both have been shown to operate on genes.
The entire connection of bacteria and viruses to disease finds its only explanation in evolutionary theory.
For details and evolutionary observables see the Talk.Origins archive, here.
You wrote, “You seriously believe that atheism does not impose itself? That is the biggest self-delusion out there, sir. The biggest.”
One trend since the last quarter of the 20th century has been to actively prevent religion from imposing itself into the public weal. The US Constitution specifically excludes a religious test from political office and makes no allowance for, or mention of, god.
You are misconstruing positive adherence to the Constitution as imposing atheism.
Let’s also notice that religious believers are among the greatest beneficiaries of an a-religious public weal. After all, the worst persecutions of religious people of one stripe have been by people of religions of another stripe.
Unfortunately, another trend since the last quarter of the 20th century has been progressives imposing themselves on the public weal, especially in education and especially in grammar schools. I bitterly oppose that, too.
Sheri, You wrote, “I would note, lastly, that you stated the article was on progressivism.”
True, and so it was, in part.
“Technically, it was. Like technically Obama did want to fundamentally change America.”
A forced analogy, not supported by anything in evidence.
Mr. Obama, by the way, can accept some central responsibility for the recent shootings of police. He’s been nothing but a race-baiter; he and the progressive louts among his followers have created an atmosphere where murder of police is acceptable. That’s been Mr. Obama’s fundamental change to America, and it is hard to distinguish from high crimes and misdemeanors.
“However, your comment was addressed to a Catholic whose religion you repeatedly bashed in the article. ”
Catholicism is not once mentioned in the article. Nor is any other sect. Christianity is mentioned, as is Islam. But only in the context of creationism as an outgrowth of each.
You may not know this, and I didn’t mention it there, but there’s also a Hindu brand of creationism. That’s a complete religious bat-around for creationism.
Also, I addressed the comment to Mr. Briggs, of whose religious beliefs I am entirely ignorant. So, not only did I not bash Catholicism, but could not have knowingly bashed Mr. Briggs’ beliefs, either. I very much doubt he is either a creationist or a progressive.
“I would call that “deception” of the same magnitude as Obama.”
An equation without content, regret to say.
“You did address progressivism, but you also shredded religion, …” No I didn’t. I shredded creationism. … “… called religious people terrorizing …” No I didn’t. I wrote that religion terrorized children by threats of eternal punishment. Religious people themselves may or may not do that, depending upon their personal choices. But I mentioned no people. “… [called religious people] bad people…” Did not. 🙂 Or show me where. “… and failed to include any of that in your comment indicating Briggs might like your post.” Considering none of that was in my essay, there would have been no reason to include any of it in my post to Mr. Briggs.
“Deception.” Complete invention. You’ve offered no evidence to back up any of it, and I maintain there is none.