Even setting aside the level of bigotry, arrogance, maliciousness of Arch Bishop Liberati, his statements regarding both Muslims and atheist are horrendous. The basic premise presented in Christian Today's "In 10 Years, Italy 'Will All Be Muslims Because of Atheism, a Weak Church, and Stupidity,' Archbishop Warns" is incredibly stupid. The extent to which it defies logic and reason is impressive even coming from a very conservative Christian. How a complete lack of religious belief can lead even a small fraction of the Italians to a specific set of religious beliefs is a mystery that no one in this shitty little piece ever bothers to examine.
Liberati, of course, never once concedes that Italians might being leaving the Catholic Church for reasons directly related to said church's doctrines, policies, and practices. Maybe, some Italians are leaving because of the terrible example right-wing assholes like Liberati are, and have been, setting. It just might be that on top of realizing how political and self centered the church is they also have come to realize that demonizing and denigrating other Italians who are not Catholic is unethical and immoral.
Showing posts with label Bigotry. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bigotry. Show all posts
Sunday, January 29, 2017
Sunday, February 22, 2015
Psalmist Lecrae
I won't pretend to know much about Lecrae's music but I don't really need to. Claudia May's Patheos piece "Lecrae: A Modern-Day Psalmist Voices the Messiness of Humanity Through Hip-Hop" is as much about him as an individual as it is about his music. I have seen interviews with Lecrae and based on his own presentation of himself I can say I am not impressed. I am pretty sure that by "psalmist" May does not mean self-righteous deceitful hypocritical asshole. If she did I'd have to completely agree with her since he is a self-deluded pompous ass. I have previously pointed out why I have such a low opinion of Lecrae.
My prior critique can be found here:
"Lecrae: neither humble nor honest" (October 19, 2014)
My prior critique can be found here:
"Lecrae: neither humble nor honest" (October 19, 2014)
Sunday, October 19, 2014
Lecrae: neither humble nor honest
The Blaze's "The Simple Question This Famed Christian Rapper Has for Atheists Like Richard Dawkins" is a rather laughable attempt to pass off a blatantly propagandist puff piece as an actual news story. Both the author of the written part and the interviewer in the embedded video all but stick their tongues up Lecrae Moore's self-righteous ass. And, he is quite self-righteous.
The pretense that he is sincere, humble, and honest is ludicrous. He constantly contradicts his own supposed message/points. He doesn't actually want to ask questions or interact with atheists at all. He wants to insist on his own views while denigrating and belittling others. In fact, he does look down on atheists and does view the world in an us-vs-them mentality despite claiming the opposite. Throughout the video he speaks in a manner that is dismissive and confrontational. His claim to having been an atheist is just as disingenuous as the rest of his act. Lacking interest in religion and having a lack of morals is not part of the basic definition of an atheist.
Any one with a functioning brain should be able to see through this pathetic charade.
The pretense that he is sincere, humble, and honest is ludicrous. He constantly contradicts his own supposed message/points. He doesn't actually want to ask questions or interact with atheists at all. He wants to insist on his own views while denigrating and belittling others. In fact, he does look down on atheists and does view the world in an us-vs-them mentality despite claiming the opposite. Throughout the video he speaks in a manner that is dismissive and confrontational. His claim to having been an atheist is just as disingenuous as the rest of his act. Lacking interest in religion and having a lack of morals is not part of the basic definition of an atheist.
Any one with a functioning brain should be able to see through this pathetic charade.
Saturday, June 7, 2014
Is that "hope" I just stepped in?
Call me crazy but I don't find the whiny petty ramblings of an ignorant self-righteous asshole to be a good example of hope. Reverend Richard L. Shaw could let an atheist express their views on personal beliefs without going on the offensive. It doesn't matter that all his assertions are completely unsupported. Not once does he actually explain how "Christianity promises hope; atheism has empty message" is any thing other than a pathetic rehashed bout of mudslinging. It really is just a series of schoolyard style taunts.
Just because an atheist had the nerve to write in a newspaper that they find positive messages/purpose within their own beliefs the good reverend found the need to pen such ridiculous complaints as; "Thinking it a virtue that atheists don’t leave copies of Madalyn Murray O’Hair’s book in hotel and motel rooms, and that atheists don’t proselytize door to door, actually underscores the emptiness of that position. Of course they don’t!"
Or, maybe we don't find the need to peddle our views door-to-door or otherwise hound people when they want to be left alone. Not finding the need to get in peoples faces when it isn't necessary does not say anything about a persons beliefs/belief system. Oh, wait, it does. It says we are not the rude arrogant assholes that some theists like to project.
Shaw keeps going in the same direction with other little gems including;
"Whoever was saved from a contemplated suicide by reading O’Hair’s book, or was freed from a life of addiction, or whose marriage was rescued from failure, or at last found a life of meaning and purpose after wandering in ennui for years?"
and
"It’s not surprising that atheists don’t proselytize — or leave empty books for others to read. That itself speaks volumes for an inane philosophy, compared to the irrefutable proof for Christianity."
Umm, I wasn't aware that implied anecdotes were so easily converted into proof? This dipshit can't even take the time to jot down a few specific anecdotes. Perhaps deep down he realizes that he is full of crap. he certainly wouldn't be able to explain why suicide rates are far higher among theists than non-theists or why it is that atheists and the "nones" have the lowest rates of domestic abuse and divorce. I haven't met any atheists who lack meaning or purpose. Not yet anyway. As for Christianity being irrefutable, I pretty sure there are little over 5 billion people who would dispute that claim. You know, all those non-Christians currently drawing breath all over the world.
All of this spewed nonsense because an atheist wanted to share their views the same way countless theists do on a regular basis. What a fucking dick.
Just because an atheist had the nerve to write in a newspaper that they find positive messages/purpose within their own beliefs the good reverend found the need to pen such ridiculous complaints as; "Thinking it a virtue that atheists don’t leave copies of Madalyn Murray O’Hair’s book in hotel and motel rooms, and that atheists don’t proselytize door to door, actually underscores the emptiness of that position. Of course they don’t!"
Or, maybe we don't find the need to peddle our views door-to-door or otherwise hound people when they want to be left alone. Not finding the need to get in peoples faces when it isn't necessary does not say anything about a persons beliefs/belief system. Oh, wait, it does. It says we are not the rude arrogant assholes that some theists like to project.
Shaw keeps going in the same direction with other little gems including;
"Whoever was saved from a contemplated suicide by reading O’Hair’s book, or was freed from a life of addiction, or whose marriage was rescued from failure, or at last found a life of meaning and purpose after wandering in ennui for years?"
and
"It’s not surprising that atheists don’t proselytize — or leave empty books for others to read. That itself speaks volumes for an inane philosophy, compared to the irrefutable proof for Christianity."
Umm, I wasn't aware that implied anecdotes were so easily converted into proof? This dipshit can't even take the time to jot down a few specific anecdotes. Perhaps deep down he realizes that he is full of crap. he certainly wouldn't be able to explain why suicide rates are far higher among theists than non-theists or why it is that atheists and the "nones" have the lowest rates of domestic abuse and divorce. I haven't met any atheists who lack meaning or purpose. Not yet anyway. As for Christianity being irrefutable, I pretty sure there are little over 5 billion people who would dispute that claim. You know, all those non-Christians currently drawing breath all over the world.
All of this spewed nonsense because an atheist wanted to share their views the same way countless theists do on a regular basis. What a fucking dick.
Sunday, May 4, 2014
Rationalizing Bigotry
John Ragosta's April 23rd post to Religious News Service, "Can there be a rational compromise on the Pledge of Allegiance?", confused the shit out me. He seems to understand both the political issues involved as well as the historical precedents. Towards the middle of his piece he writes:
"Jefferson understood that the government had no business promoting religion or even suggesting that those who did not believe in God, or some other particular of religion, were somehow less patriotic or less committed citizens. (This is even truer with schoolchildren.)
In the Jeffersonian tradition, we should not force any citizen, much less a child, to choose between making a religious declaration and appearing to be unpatriotic and facing the negative opinion of his or her peers."
Ragosta seems sincere in his sympathy regarding atheists being singled out and harassed. This apparent attitude does not seem to match the title of the piece. Unfortunately shorty after displaying some understanding he starts to turn to mush. It is almost as if he wants to find a way to accommodate discrimination.
"Jefferson understood that the government had no business promoting religion or even suggesting that those who did not believe in God, or some other particular of religion, were somehow less patriotic or less committed citizens. (This is even truer with schoolchildren.)
In the Jeffersonian tradition, we should not force any citizen, much less a child, to choose between making a religious declaration and appearing to be unpatriotic and facing the negative opinion of his or her peers."
Ragosta seems sincere in his sympathy regarding atheists being singled out and harassed. This apparent attitude does not seem to match the title of the piece. Unfortunately shorty after displaying some understanding he starts to turn to mush. It is almost as if he wants to find a way to accommodate discrimination.
"At the same time, as a lawyer, historian, parent and citizen, I wonder whether a lawsuit is the best way to resolve these disputes. In addition to wasting enormous amounts of tax dollars and time, the litigation risks further dividing Americans, forcing us to “choose sides” against one another."
Huh? I admit it is unpleasant and unfortunate that this is the route we have often had to take when defending or establishing the rights of specific groups of our citizens. That does not make it any less necessary or open the door to "compromise". It also seems to escape him that it is not, in fact, the litigation that is "dividing Americans." The Pledge as it is currently written already divides Americans. The phrase "one nation under God" is pretty clear in its meaning. If you don't believe in God you are not part of the "one nation." It doesn't get any more divisive than that. As for wasting tax dollars, I have a problem with that statement for two vary simple reasons. 1. Since when is defending basic human/civil rights a "waste"? 2. The government is itself forcing such "waste" by continuing to support the use of such divisive ploys as inserting religion into public policy.
As an atheist, how can you compromise with something that insists by its very nature that being an atheist is un-American. And how can any decent theistic American put up with such an affront to the very ideals our country claims to stand for? There is NO "rational compromise" on discrimination and bigotry. It seems rather straightforward and simple to me. Either you support equality or you don't. If you support the current configuration of the Pledge then you have just confirmed that you are a bigot.
Sunday, April 6, 2014
It's Not Always About Legality
Mark Osler's March 31st HuffPo piece fails to live up to its title, "Bigotry or Belief? A Test", in a few rather obvious ways. The first mistake he makes is in conflating whether something is legal or not with whether it amounts to bigotry. This is somewhat understandable since he is a law professor and therefore may think primarily in legalistic terms. However, his "test" only determines whether an individual or group can legally get away with a specific set of behaviors/actions. It says nothing about whether those behaviors are biased and/or bigoted. It is quite possible to be an upright law-abiding citizen and still be a narrow minded bigot.
The other blatant flaw is his reliance on scripture. The manner in which he uses it does not come close to determining whether a belief is bigotry. The best his "test" can do is come up with a relative sense of how sincerely an individual holds a specific belief and whether they attempt to apply that belief universally. In one sense that may mean they do not apply their beliefs in a hypocritical manner but that does not justify the belief itself and does not mean that the belief itself is by its nature not biased. It is also rather problematic to come to a conclusion at all based on scripture. As I have often pointed out, scripture tends to alternate between incoherent and contradictory.
The other blatant flaw is his reliance on scripture. The manner in which he uses it does not come close to determining whether a belief is bigotry. The best his "test" can do is come up with a relative sense of how sincerely an individual holds a specific belief and whether they attempt to apply that belief universally. In one sense that may mean they do not apply their beliefs in a hypocritical manner but that does not justify the belief itself and does not mean that the belief itself is by its nature not biased. It is also rather problematic to come to a conclusion at all based on scripture. As I have often pointed out, scripture tends to alternate between incoherent and contradictory.
Sunday, March 23, 2014
Turning the Table on Bill Donohue
Donohue has always been a hypocritical, hateful, pompous wind-bag. So, it's particularly entertaining to see one of his slimy ploys backfire on him. A recent piece on Gawker, "Homophobe Won't March In Gay Pride Parade Because He's Welcome To", is a nice example of how full-of-shit he is. Basically, he applied to march in a gay pride parade assuming the organizers were assholes like himself. He wanted to be turned down so he could then accuse them of bigotry. To his dismay and surprise they approved his application. He will not be marching. He never intended to march. Then again, he has never had an interest in actually talking with or interacting in any way with homosexuals or any other group he enjoys demonizing.
Sunday, March 16, 2014
What is up with Jonathan Haidt?
I've heard a few interviews with Jonathan Haidt in which he generally comes across as a reasonable person. That is until he starts talking about the "New Atheists." Suddenly, his brain turns off and he starts acting like a self-righteous deceitful and willfully ignorant dumb-ass.
His most recent bullshit laden diatribe* focuses on the idea that the so-called new atheists are more certain (implying arrogance among other mythical smears) than religious extremists. It has been reported in some places that this conclusion is based on a "study." It isn't. It is Haidt's opinion. He claims to have support for this view since he used a third party algorithm to count a specific set of words in a specific set of works by "new atheist" authors. There is a bit of a problem with this approach. It is completely inaccurate. It does not account for context or even attempt to control for modifiers (adjectives and adverbs). It simply finds and counts each word completely apart from the sentence in which they exist. Some of these word are themselves modifiers but they still are not cross-referenced with the other listed words. His words include; Always, Never, Certainly, Every, and Undeniable.
Consider this sentence:
Eve though it is undeniable that science is an excellent method of determining what is factual, I am certainly not claiming that it is always without errors.
According to Haidt's method this sentence would be proof that the speaker is completely certain of his claim and therefore more arrogant and self-deluded than a religious extremist. It contains three of the target words. See the problem? The point of the sentence is to express and embrace uncertainty which is the exact opposite of Haidt's claim. He can only make that assertion by completely separating the individuals word and imposing rather dubious means of interpretation.
Perhaps, deep down he realizes his opinion of the "new atheists" is baseless but just can't seem to help himself. He doesn't like them so he has to find a way to justify his antipathy. There's no real evidence so he resorts to fabricating it in a way he can sort of claim is scientific. Either way, when it comes to his fellow atheists Haidt's ability to reason seems to completely disappear. I don't get. I wished he'd either come up with reasons he can back up or just shut the fuck up about it.
*Haidt's piece has been noted and summarized by a handful of bloggers (both atheists and theists) but the original can be found on This View of Life website titled "Why Sam Harris is Unlikely to Change his Mind.
" Sam Harris has responded to this type of shit from Haidt before. An example can Be found on the Edge website, "Sam Harris Response to Jonathan Haidt."
His most recent bullshit laden diatribe* focuses on the idea that the so-called new atheists are more certain (implying arrogance among other mythical smears) than religious extremists. It has been reported in some places that this conclusion is based on a "study." It isn't. It is Haidt's opinion. He claims to have support for this view since he used a third party algorithm to count a specific set of words in a specific set of works by "new atheist" authors. There is a bit of a problem with this approach. It is completely inaccurate. It does not account for context or even attempt to control for modifiers (adjectives and adverbs). It simply finds and counts each word completely apart from the sentence in which they exist. Some of these word are themselves modifiers but they still are not cross-referenced with the other listed words. His words include; Always, Never, Certainly, Every, and Undeniable.
Consider this sentence:
Eve though it is undeniable that science is an excellent method of determining what is factual, I am certainly not claiming that it is always without errors.
According to Haidt's method this sentence would be proof that the speaker is completely certain of his claim and therefore more arrogant and self-deluded than a religious extremist. It contains three of the target words. See the problem? The point of the sentence is to express and embrace uncertainty which is the exact opposite of Haidt's claim. He can only make that assertion by completely separating the individuals word and imposing rather dubious means of interpretation.
Perhaps, deep down he realizes his opinion of the "new atheists" is baseless but just can't seem to help himself. He doesn't like them so he has to find a way to justify his antipathy. There's no real evidence so he resorts to fabricating it in a way he can sort of claim is scientific. Either way, when it comes to his fellow atheists Haidt's ability to reason seems to completely disappear. I don't get. I wished he'd either come up with reasons he can back up or just shut the fuck up about it.
*Haidt's piece has been noted and summarized by a handful of bloggers (both atheists and theists) but the original can be found on This View of Life website titled "Why Sam Harris is Unlikely to Change his Mind.
" Sam Harris has responded to this type of shit from Haidt before. An example can Be found on the Edge website, "Sam Harris Response to Jonathan Haidt."
Sunday, February 23, 2014
Deceitful Self-Righteous Assholes on Facebook
Anyone with a functional brain should have long ago figured out that Facebook is not well suited for anything resembling in-depth conversations. It is good for quick simple exchanges. Hopefully, when serious topics are introduced such exchanges can lead to further discussion and thought elsewhere. Some individuals not only don't seem to understand that they seem to thrive on it for the purposes of harassment and disinformation.
A "letter to the editor" piece in Harlingen,Texas' Valley Morning Star seems to illustrate this type of use pretty well. An asshole named Matthew Schoonover made some rather biased ignorant comments and then got all pissy when others called him out on it. I honestly don't care that much about what he said. You can throw around whatever malicious lies you want. What irritates me is when dip-shits like Schoonover get ridiculed for their stupidity then turn around and whine about it.
Apparently he posted that old canard, "If God doesn’t exist, then everything is OK and there is no such thing as evil." After getting criticised for it he then wrote "Clarifying a Facebook comment" for the Valley Morning Star. It is nothing but a series of half-assed excuses, bullshit, and, interestingly, further attacks on atheists.
In his short screed the most revealing paragraph is probably the third one.
"What surprised me was that atheists seemed to take offense at this. They were outraged that I’d say they don’t know right from wrong (I didn’t), or that they weren’t moral (I hadn’t — yet). It was here I pointed out the difference between morals and ethics. Morals deal with God and sin; ethics deal with society and taboos. For them to claim morals would be stealing from the religious camp. The two terms are not synonymous. Things can be legal and still be immoral, and vice versa — think Rosa Parks in the front of the bus. It didn’t seem to help."
Though it is true he did not directly accuse atheist of being immoral he certainly implies it rather strongly. Of course, a moron like Schoonover wouldn't register the importance of such a distinction. He is self-deluded and self-righteous to the point that even the most basic definition of terms cease to exist. Notice how he defines moral? I, out of curiosity, tried to find a basic definition for moral that included God or religion. I couldn't find one. There were no such references in the Penguin English Dictionary, Webster's, Oxford's, or Chambers 21st Century.
The Chambers 21st Century Dictionary was probably the most comprehensive and a good summary of the other three as well.
"Moral
adjective
1. belonging or relating to the principles of good and evil, or right and wrong.
2. conforming to what is considered by society to be good, right or proper; ethical.
3. adhering to or based on conscience or a knowledge of what is right a moral obligation.
4. having a psychological rather than a practical effect moral support.
5. considered in terms of psychological effect, rather than outward appearance a moral victory.
6. said of a person: capable of distinguishing between right and wrong.
7. supported by reason or probability, though not provable a moral certainty.
noun
1. a principle or practical lesson that can be learned from a story or event.
2. (morals) a sense of right and wrong, or a standard of behaviour based on this, especially in relation to sexual conduct loose morals.
Derivative
morally adverb.
[14c: from Latin moralis, from mores, plural of mos a custom.]"
Basically, he got called out for being a dumb-ass piece of shit and couldn't handle it. If you can't deal with criticism you shouldn't start messing with others.
A "letter to the editor" piece in Harlingen,Texas' Valley Morning Star seems to illustrate this type of use pretty well. An asshole named Matthew Schoonover made some rather biased ignorant comments and then got all pissy when others called him out on it. I honestly don't care that much about what he said. You can throw around whatever malicious lies you want. What irritates me is when dip-shits like Schoonover get ridiculed for their stupidity then turn around and whine about it.
Apparently he posted that old canard, "If God doesn’t exist, then everything is OK and there is no such thing as evil." After getting criticised for it he then wrote "Clarifying a Facebook comment" for the Valley Morning Star. It is nothing but a series of half-assed excuses, bullshit, and, interestingly, further attacks on atheists.
In his short screed the most revealing paragraph is probably the third one.
"What surprised me was that atheists seemed to take offense at this. They were outraged that I’d say they don’t know right from wrong (I didn’t), or that they weren’t moral (I hadn’t — yet). It was here I pointed out the difference between morals and ethics. Morals deal with God and sin; ethics deal with society and taboos. For them to claim morals would be stealing from the religious camp. The two terms are not synonymous. Things can be legal and still be immoral, and vice versa — think Rosa Parks in the front of the bus. It didn’t seem to help."
Though it is true he did not directly accuse atheist of being immoral he certainly implies it rather strongly. Of course, a moron like Schoonover wouldn't register the importance of such a distinction. He is self-deluded and self-righteous to the point that even the most basic definition of terms cease to exist. Notice how he defines moral? I, out of curiosity, tried to find a basic definition for moral that included God or religion. I couldn't find one. There were no such references in the Penguin English Dictionary, Webster's, Oxford's, or Chambers 21st Century.
The Chambers 21st Century Dictionary was probably the most comprehensive and a good summary of the other three as well.
"Moral
adjective
1. belonging or relating to the principles of good and evil, or right and wrong.
2. conforming to what is considered by society to be good, right or proper; ethical.
3. adhering to or based on conscience or a knowledge of what is right a moral obligation.
4. having a psychological rather than a practical effect moral support.
5. considered in terms of psychological effect, rather than outward appearance a moral victory.
6. said of a person: capable of distinguishing between right and wrong.
7. supported by reason or probability, though not provable a moral certainty.
noun
1. a principle or practical lesson that can be learned from a story or event.
2. (morals) a sense of right and wrong, or a standard of behaviour based on this, especially in relation to sexual conduct loose morals.
Derivative
morally adverb.
[14c: from Latin moralis, from mores, plural of mos a custom.]"
Basically, he got called out for being a dumb-ass piece of shit and couldn't handle it. If you can't deal with criticism you shouldn't start messing with others.
Sunday, January 19, 2014
Anger and Hate not Required
I have no reason to doubt that Michael and Jenet Erickson are generally nice people with no malicious intent. However, it does not make them any less ignorant, self-deluded, or bigoted. This couples opinion piece, "Michael and Jenet Erickson: Being for traditional marriage does not mean being against anyone", would be laughable if it did not represent such a prevalent mindset.
There are two blatant fallacies that dominate the whole thing. There is no universally accepted definition of "traditional marriage" and never has been one. Scripture are full of examples of acceptable marriage practices that would horrify the likes of Michael and Jenet. Even if that were not the case it does not matter in regard to US law. Legislating anything based solely on highly subjective religious interpretations is flat-out unconstitutional.
The second problem is that you cannot claim you are not "against anyone" when you are in fact actively seeking to deny the rights of others. You can believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman but when you seek to deny the rights of others you have gone beyond just believing something. Denying other people the same rights you yourself enjoy is harmful and, yes, it is also bigotry.
There are two blatant fallacies that dominate the whole thing. There is no universally accepted definition of "traditional marriage" and never has been one. Scripture are full of examples of acceptable marriage practices that would horrify the likes of Michael and Jenet. Even if that were not the case it does not matter in regard to US law. Legislating anything based solely on highly subjective religious interpretations is flat-out unconstitutional.
The second problem is that you cannot claim you are not "against anyone" when you are in fact actively seeking to deny the rights of others. You can believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman but when you seek to deny the rights of others you have gone beyond just believing something. Denying other people the same rights you yourself enjoy is harmful and, yes, it is also bigotry.
Sunday, January 12, 2014
"Forced to bake a cake"
A recent legal decision that was handed down in Colorado has caused some to throw a hissy fit. That a privately owned business does not have a right to discriminate is not a new idea. The precedent that Barry Fagin writes about in his ridiculously named "Forced to bake a cake" commentary was established quite some time ago. What is most disturbing about his writing is that he is not necessarily a far-right firebrand or a religious conservative. So why does he write: "To some, it's freedom of conscience. To me, it's freedom of bigotry. But we agree that someone's freedom was lost last Friday, at the hands of the Colorado judiciary."
His view of "freedom" seems to be a rather childish one. Throughout the piece he seems to imply that freedom is an absolute to the point that it comes across as a supernatural force rather than a human social construction. Even if we existed in a pure state of anarchy, which is also not possible, you still would not be able to do precisely whatever you wanted the moment you wanted. There are all sorts of practical reasons that this type of "freedom" does not and cannot exist. It does not take much thought to reach the conclusion that either Fagin is clueless or disingenuous. After all, would he argue that every American should have the right to kill anyone they choose to? By the same standards aren't government prohibitions against murder also limitations to our freedom?
It is not just his basic premise that is flawed. He continues:
"Does anyone seriously believe that forcing a private business to provide a product or service to a gay couple is even remotely progressive? That it will help promote tolerance and acceptance? And why would a gay couple choose to do business with someone under those circumstances? Are the political points scored really worth it?"
First, no one is "forcing" Jack Phillips to do anything. He still has a choice to make. He can continue to refuse to serve homosexuals and face fines, or he can comply with the law (which already exists and is simply being enforced). This passage makes me think that Fagin is both clueless and disingenuous. How do you simply gloss over things like the Civil Rights Movement? All you have to do to see this as utter bullshit is swap "gay" for "African American." Should I or anyone have the right to refuse service to women just because they are women? When such discrimination is found the government has a duty to put a stop to it. We live in a civil society governed by law. Does enforcing the law always "promote tolerance and acceptance" among every individual and group in the country? How do you make progress without action?
Fagin may have reached the right conclusion that Phillips is a bigot but his route to that decision is dangerously flawed and loans credence to ideas and perceptions that do not deserve any respect.
His view of "freedom" seems to be a rather childish one. Throughout the piece he seems to imply that freedom is an absolute to the point that it comes across as a supernatural force rather than a human social construction. Even if we existed in a pure state of anarchy, which is also not possible, you still would not be able to do precisely whatever you wanted the moment you wanted. There are all sorts of practical reasons that this type of "freedom" does not and cannot exist. It does not take much thought to reach the conclusion that either Fagin is clueless or disingenuous. After all, would he argue that every American should have the right to kill anyone they choose to? By the same standards aren't government prohibitions against murder also limitations to our freedom?
It is not just his basic premise that is flawed. He continues:
"Does anyone seriously believe that forcing a private business to provide a product or service to a gay couple is even remotely progressive? That it will help promote tolerance and acceptance? And why would a gay couple choose to do business with someone under those circumstances? Are the political points scored really worth it?"
First, no one is "forcing" Jack Phillips to do anything. He still has a choice to make. He can continue to refuse to serve homosexuals and face fines, or he can comply with the law (which already exists and is simply being enforced). This passage makes me think that Fagin is both clueless and disingenuous. How do you simply gloss over things like the Civil Rights Movement? All you have to do to see this as utter bullshit is swap "gay" for "African American." Should I or anyone have the right to refuse service to women just because they are women? When such discrimination is found the government has a duty to put a stop to it. We live in a civil society governed by law. Does enforcing the law always "promote tolerance and acceptance" among every individual and group in the country? How do you make progress without action?
Fagin may have reached the right conclusion that Phillips is a bigot but his route to that decision is dangerously flawed and loans credence to ideas and perceptions that do not deserve any respect.
Sunday, November 17, 2013
Neither Charitable or Compassionate
The Kansas City Rescue Mission has revealed itself to be at least as bigoted as it it claims to be charitable. Unfortunately, incidences like the one reported recently in the Kansas City Star, "Atheist volunteers turned away by Kansas City Rescue Mission," are not that uncommon. The Kansas City Atheist Coalition was interested in helping distribute Thanksgiving meals to the poor and elderly. Knowing that a particular Christian group already had such a program they thought it made sense to offer their aid rather than start a similar program from scratch. It makes perfect sense if your main goal is to help people. The so-called "Rescue Mission" wouldn't have it. Instead they revealed themselves to be selfish hypocrites far more concerned with recruiting members and perpetuating myths and slurs about atheists than actually helping their fellow human beings. They are by no means representative of all Christians or religious people but there are still way too many such self-righteous malicious assholes around.
Sunday, November 10, 2013
Ignorance and Bigotry love Company
It never ceases to amaze me how truly ignorant people are when it comes to atheists/atheism. Unfortunately, many of these clueless individuals find the need to write/talk incessantly about atheists. Two recent, but by no means unique, examples annoyed me quite a bit. Both the Allergic Pagan's (Patheos) "Being an atheist just ain’t what it used to be" and HuffPo John Carlson's "Remembering Albert Camus and Longing for the Old Atheism" are chock-full of bullshit and bigotry.
John Halstead of Allergic Pagan is the more disturbing since the piece is largely about his own son coming out as an atheist and that he himself comments on sometimes identifying as an atheist. He clearly does not get it. Being an atheist is not like picking which outfit you want to wear that day. You believe or you don't. You are an atheist or you are not. Though, that is a minor point in comparison with some of the other ridiculous things he comes up with. Halstead is disturbed that his son will accept "...materialism that bleeds the world of beauty and meaning and everything that makes life an interesting adventure." Does this dipshit not ever pay attention to the news? Didn't we just go through this bullshit with that bitch Oprah? Big hint, moron, there is NO beauty or wonder without materialism. What are you marveling at if you can't sense it in any way. All those feelings and emotions are produced by the brain. The brain is a physical/material organ. His piece is loaded with all sorts of similarly ill-informed biased myths and stereotypes as well as a multitude of logical fallacies.
Carlson was not quite as annoying since the title made it pretty clear what I was in for. It is yet another piece that has picked up on a fairly recent tactic being used by critics of atheists/atheism. They want to seem reasonable and civil by "praising" or "respecting" the "Old Atheism" while denigrating or dismissing the "New Atheism." It is a crock of shit from start to finish. First it creates a blatantly false dichotomy. The ideas and arguments of atheists haven't really changed that much. The only verifiable distinction between the "old" and "new" has to do with media. The mainstream media, though still rather biased, is willing to talk/write about atheists more than they ever have in the past. It is also now possible for atheist to get published by large publishing houses. Not that long ago only small niche publishers would touch the works of an atheist. That is the only noticeable difference, assuming you actually pay attention to what atheist say and write rather than pretending you do. I have a sneaking suspicion that many who claim to have read the works of this or that atheist have not actually done so.
The second major problem with this contemporary canard of theists is that it is often grossly inaccurate. To be honest, I'm not that familiar with Camus so I do not know whether Carlson is misrepresenting him or not. I do know that other critics have used long-dead atheists to similar ends. One I am familiar with is Nietzche. Numerous critics have presented very opinionated and flimsy interpretations of Nietzche's work for the sole purpose of attacking contemporary atheists by contrast. It's an odd tactic but seems to be growing in popularity among certain circles. It is not an example of sound literary criticism or any intellectual endeavor. It is simply bigotry dressed up.
Why these assholes find the need to go on about things they clearly do not understand or have any interest in understanding is both confusing and annoying. If you want to engage in discussion and debate or just learn about an unfamiliar demographic that would be one thing. Doing that involves real inquiry not making up shit based on what you prefer to believe.
John Halstead of Allergic Pagan is the more disturbing since the piece is largely about his own son coming out as an atheist and that he himself comments on sometimes identifying as an atheist. He clearly does not get it. Being an atheist is not like picking which outfit you want to wear that day. You believe or you don't. You are an atheist or you are not. Though, that is a minor point in comparison with some of the other ridiculous things he comes up with. Halstead is disturbed that his son will accept "...materialism that bleeds the world of beauty and meaning and everything that makes life an interesting adventure." Does this dipshit not ever pay attention to the news? Didn't we just go through this bullshit with that bitch Oprah? Big hint, moron, there is NO beauty or wonder without materialism. What are you marveling at if you can't sense it in any way. All those feelings and emotions are produced by the brain. The brain is a physical/material organ. His piece is loaded with all sorts of similarly ill-informed biased myths and stereotypes as well as a multitude of logical fallacies.
Carlson was not quite as annoying since the title made it pretty clear what I was in for. It is yet another piece that has picked up on a fairly recent tactic being used by critics of atheists/atheism. They want to seem reasonable and civil by "praising" or "respecting" the "Old Atheism" while denigrating or dismissing the "New Atheism." It is a crock of shit from start to finish. First it creates a blatantly false dichotomy. The ideas and arguments of atheists haven't really changed that much. The only verifiable distinction between the "old" and "new" has to do with media. The mainstream media, though still rather biased, is willing to talk/write about atheists more than they ever have in the past. It is also now possible for atheist to get published by large publishing houses. Not that long ago only small niche publishers would touch the works of an atheist. That is the only noticeable difference, assuming you actually pay attention to what atheist say and write rather than pretending you do. I have a sneaking suspicion that many who claim to have read the works of this or that atheist have not actually done so.
The second major problem with this contemporary canard of theists is that it is often grossly inaccurate. To be honest, I'm not that familiar with Camus so I do not know whether Carlson is misrepresenting him or not. I do know that other critics have used long-dead atheists to similar ends. One I am familiar with is Nietzche. Numerous critics have presented very opinionated and flimsy interpretations of Nietzche's work for the sole purpose of attacking contemporary atheists by contrast. It's an odd tactic but seems to be growing in popularity among certain circles. It is not an example of sound literary criticism or any intellectual endeavor. It is simply bigotry dressed up.
Why these assholes find the need to go on about things they clearly do not understand or have any interest in understanding is both confusing and annoying. If you want to engage in discussion and debate or just learn about an unfamiliar demographic that would be one thing. Doing that involves real inquiry not making up shit based on what you prefer to believe.
Sunday, October 27, 2013
Debating from Ignorance
The repercussions from Oprah's recent televised stupidity involving the distance swimmer Nyad may end up leading to some positive discussions but that does not mean that she is herself a legitimate partner in such discussions/debates. She is, in fact, one of the worst possible candidates for such an exchange. I feel it necessary to clarify a little. I am biased when it comes to Oprah. I have for quite some time considered her to be a vile, ignorant, and arrogant media-whore.
My first impression of her from watching her talk show a few times in the 80s has not changed much. My soon to be sister-in-law convinced me to watch a few episodes with her. The first one I saw outright infuriated me. There were a few women she had brought on stage supposedly to speak out about rape. Both were rape victims themselves. When Oprah didn't get the answers she wanted as quickly as she wanted she badgered them until they broke down in hysterical sobs. The second show wasn't much better. A woman who suffered from chronic intense migraines was brought on to talk about the condition. Oprah did the same thing. The woman had just explained she was having trouble focusing on the questions because her meds weren't working very well. Rather than give her a moment to collect herself Oprah chose to viciously verbally attack her. For years after that I refused to pay any attention to her rising career.
After college a friend of mine convinced me that she had changed and was doing a lot of great things in regard to promoting history and literature I gave her a another shot. As it turns out nothing had really changed. Most of what she was peddling was not real history. Her episode on the then recent release of the movie Amistad was an excellent example. She was promoting the idea that all Americans of African ancestry were descendants of slaves. Though I agree that slavery is a shameful aspect of our history that should never be forgotten or excused I DO NOT agree with promoting false history to achieve it. Any one with an interest in history could easily discover that her claim was a blatant lie. For example the first African-Americans to end up in Virginia were indentured servants not slaves. There is nothing in the historical record that indicates they were treated any differently than the "white" indentured servants. Granted, such servants were treated like shit but it doesn't seem to have had anything to do with their ethnicity (authority and economics mattered). What of those individuals who migrated before and after the end of slavery? Were they ot real Americans? She has since established a rather terrible track record for promoting all sorts of faux-history and pseudo-science.
However, she is not the only one guilty of being an ignorant ass in the various comments and arguments that have sprung up around her exchange with Nyad. A recent piece on the International Business Times website, "Can Atheists Still Be Spiritual? Oprah Prompts Debate", is a pretty good example of how much of the "debate" is a bunch of drivel. It all seems to hinge on being completely ignorant of even the most basic terms and concepts involved. The big one, of course, is the idea being associated with "Spirituality." The simple answer is that atheists probably can't be "spiritual." The problem with pointing that out stems from the fact that the term is being misused and pressed into perpetuating a number of myths and biases. Spirituality is a religious term that cannot be separated from its supernatural underpinnings. Nyad screws up by accepting the term. Awe and wonder are not really synonymous. You can find wonder and beauty around the world without accepting any supernatural bullshit. There shouldn't really be a reason to debate the point that atheists are human beings. That is what assholes like Oprah seem to be trying to do. They want to make us seem less than human by insisting we can't have feelings and emotions like theists. So long as "debates" are set up this way there is no real point in engaging such blindly ignorant bigoted morons.
My first impression of her from watching her talk show a few times in the 80s has not changed much. My soon to be sister-in-law convinced me to watch a few episodes with her. The first one I saw outright infuriated me. There were a few women she had brought on stage supposedly to speak out about rape. Both were rape victims themselves. When Oprah didn't get the answers she wanted as quickly as she wanted she badgered them until they broke down in hysterical sobs. The second show wasn't much better. A woman who suffered from chronic intense migraines was brought on to talk about the condition. Oprah did the same thing. The woman had just explained she was having trouble focusing on the questions because her meds weren't working very well. Rather than give her a moment to collect herself Oprah chose to viciously verbally attack her. For years after that I refused to pay any attention to her rising career.
After college a friend of mine convinced me that she had changed and was doing a lot of great things in regard to promoting history and literature I gave her a another shot. As it turns out nothing had really changed. Most of what she was peddling was not real history. Her episode on the then recent release of the movie Amistad was an excellent example. She was promoting the idea that all Americans of African ancestry were descendants of slaves. Though I agree that slavery is a shameful aspect of our history that should never be forgotten or excused I DO NOT agree with promoting false history to achieve it. Any one with an interest in history could easily discover that her claim was a blatant lie. For example the first African-Americans to end up in Virginia were indentured servants not slaves. There is nothing in the historical record that indicates they were treated any differently than the "white" indentured servants. Granted, such servants were treated like shit but it doesn't seem to have had anything to do with their ethnicity (authority and economics mattered). What of those individuals who migrated before and after the end of slavery? Were they ot real Americans? She has since established a rather terrible track record for promoting all sorts of faux-history and pseudo-science.
However, she is not the only one guilty of being an ignorant ass in the various comments and arguments that have sprung up around her exchange with Nyad. A recent piece on the International Business Times website, "Can Atheists Still Be Spiritual? Oprah Prompts Debate", is a pretty good example of how much of the "debate" is a bunch of drivel. It all seems to hinge on being completely ignorant of even the most basic terms and concepts involved. The big one, of course, is the idea being associated with "Spirituality." The simple answer is that atheists probably can't be "spiritual." The problem with pointing that out stems from the fact that the term is being misused and pressed into perpetuating a number of myths and biases. Spirituality is a religious term that cannot be separated from its supernatural underpinnings. Nyad screws up by accepting the term. Awe and wonder are not really synonymous. You can find wonder and beauty around the world without accepting any supernatural bullshit. There shouldn't really be a reason to debate the point that atheists are human beings. That is what assholes like Oprah seem to be trying to do. They want to make us seem less than human by insisting we can't have feelings and emotions like theists. So long as "debates" are set up this way there is no real point in engaging such blindly ignorant bigoted morons.
Sunday, September 15, 2013
A Predictable Loss
Reading about Michael Newdow's most recent legal set back was not at all surprising. It was also not surprising to see the biases in a variety of short news and blog pieces on the loss. HuffPo's, "Atheists Lose Battle To Have 'In God We Trust' Removed From U.S. Currency", is one of the better pieces. I have to admit that actually did surprise me. The tone is slightly dismissive but not nearly as contemptuous as many similar posts that have appeared on the site over the years.
In the end, no matter how it gets reported it is still very telling as to how bigoted and unethical our court system tends to be toward atheists. There is only one reason these cases continue to be quashed; blind ideological bigotry.
"But in dismissing the suit, U.S. District Judge Harold Baer, Jr., wrote that 'the Supreme Court has repeatedly assumed the motto's secular purpose and effect,' according to the Associated Press. Baer also ruled that the federal appeals courts 'have found no constitutional violation in the motto's inclusion on currency,' and that the placement of the phrase didn't constitute a 'substantial burden' on atheists."
Seriously?! "God" is an expressly religious concept with no secular purpose or application. Use it in national symbols is an official government endorsement. How is that not a violation of the 1st Amendments separation clause? It in effect says that believers are more important than non-believers. It contributes to an attitude and atmosphere that accepts the denigration of non believers. How is that not a burden?
I also take issue with those who try claiming it is an insignificant aspect that is a waste of the courts time. Symbols do matter. I would love to hear them mouth off about how silly it is if the government started officially using phrases and mottoes that belittled them on a daily basis.
In the end, no matter how it gets reported it is still very telling as to how bigoted and unethical our court system tends to be toward atheists. There is only one reason these cases continue to be quashed; blind ideological bigotry.
"But in dismissing the suit, U.S. District Judge Harold Baer, Jr., wrote that 'the Supreme Court has repeatedly assumed the motto's secular purpose and effect,' according to the Associated Press. Baer also ruled that the federal appeals courts 'have found no constitutional violation in the motto's inclusion on currency,' and that the placement of the phrase didn't constitute a 'substantial burden' on atheists."
Seriously?! "God" is an expressly religious concept with no secular purpose or application. Use it in national symbols is an official government endorsement. How is that not a violation of the 1st Amendments separation clause? It in effect says that believers are more important than non-believers. It contributes to an attitude and atmosphere that accepts the denigration of non believers. How is that not a burden?
I also take issue with those who try claiming it is an insignificant aspect that is a waste of the courts time. Symbols do matter. I would love to hear them mouth off about how silly it is if the government started officially using phrases and mottoes that belittled them on a daily basis.
Sunday, September 8, 2013
Shoe on the other Foot
The issue of having "under God" in the Pledge of
Allegiance comes up routinely and it is downplayed and or ridiculed
without any real thought. Another court case has come up and I have
little doubt it will fail. Few, if any, will pay any attention despite
its blatant prejudice and violation of our nation's principles. If even
a fraction of theists made an attempt to put themselves in place of
non-believers there might be some hope. How would theists feel if a
commonly used oath associated with patriotism stated there is "no God"?
It may not seem so trivial to them if their belief was linked to being
un-patriotic or if they were routinely told their lives as citizens did
not count the same as those who agree with that one phrase in the oath.
Sunday, August 11, 2013
Foolishness all around
Rebecca Hamilton's August 3rd blog post, "A Non-Theistic Christian Now Running the Washington National Cathedral", is yet another example of writing that despite being brief is loaded with all sorts of nonsense. Even the title is ludicrous. By the loosest definition a self-professed "Christian" is a theist. Any one who seeks to follow the example/teachings of the Christ figure, regardless of specific interpretations and perceptions, is living by a "theism." A few sentences from the first full paragraph seems to reveal her real issues with Reverend Gary Hall, "He isn’t too keen on the idea of life-long commitment or fidelity in marriage, either. But he’s in the bag for gay marriage and has personally assured Dr Richard Dawkins that he also “doesn’t believe in the God” that Dr Dawkins doesn’t believe in."
That first sentence is basically just a biased opinion with little to no foundation. I have not read much on Hall but what little I have does not seem to support the idea that he has no respect for marriage. This seems to be a conflation. Somehow if you're not a prude or willing to tell others who they can love and how, you must be anti-marriage. Hamilton seems to think that only heterosexual relationships count and that you must publicly insist on a strict "conservative" view of sex for your beliefs about marriage to matter. This blatantly narrow minded approach should not surprise anyone who's read more than a few posts from her on the "Public Catholic" blog. In my experience the Catholics, and theists in general, who are the most in-your-face about their faith also tend to be the most narrow minded, hypocritical, and bigoted.
As the title of this post implies, it is not just Hamilton who is full of shit. Hall himself is also a bit of a fool. He has actually commented on Dawkins in the way Hamilton quotes him. Despite claims to the contrary, Dawkins does not criticism only one version of the God concept. It is true that he tends to focus more attention on the personal/scriptural version but he has pointed out flaws in the more abstract variation. Basically both of them are rather clueless and have no idea what they are talking about. If it were just another spat between to competing Christian interpretations I wouldn't care that much. Unfortunately, competing theists tend to drag in and abuse everyone around them. The Dawkins related quotation was meant as a slur.The piece does further various biased misrepresentations of atheists and non-theists in general.
That first sentence is basically just a biased opinion with little to no foundation. I have not read much on Hall but what little I have does not seem to support the idea that he has no respect for marriage. This seems to be a conflation. Somehow if you're not a prude or willing to tell others who they can love and how, you must be anti-marriage. Hamilton seems to think that only heterosexual relationships count and that you must publicly insist on a strict "conservative" view of sex for your beliefs about marriage to matter. This blatantly narrow minded approach should not surprise anyone who's read more than a few posts from her on the "Public Catholic" blog. In my experience the Catholics, and theists in general, who are the most in-your-face about their faith also tend to be the most narrow minded, hypocritical, and bigoted.
As the title of this post implies, it is not just Hamilton who is full of shit. Hall himself is also a bit of a fool. He has actually commented on Dawkins in the way Hamilton quotes him. Despite claims to the contrary, Dawkins does not criticism only one version of the God concept. It is true that he tends to focus more attention on the personal/scriptural version but he has pointed out flaws in the more abstract variation. Basically both of them are rather clueless and have no idea what they are talking about. If it were just another spat between to competing Christian interpretations I wouldn't care that much. Unfortunately, competing theists tend to drag in and abuse everyone around them. The Dawkins related quotation was meant as a slur.The piece does further various biased misrepresentations of atheists and non-theists in general.
Saturday, July 27, 2013
Non-Religious Soldiers Are Second-Class Citizens
I have mixed feelings about Congress' recent rejection of humanist chaplains. One one hand, the term is an oxymoron that could easily be used to maintain and further push a variety of myths and stereotypes about non-believers. However, I find the mind-set among legislators that caused the rejection even worse.
“'The amendment holds the military to its current standards on endorsing agencies, which must be recognized religious and faith-based organizations,' said Fleming’s spokesman, Doug Sachtleben."
As reported in Religious News Service's "House rejects call to allow nonreligious military chaplains."
Since military chaplains serve the role of advisors and counselors, this view is blatantly bigoted and discriminatory. It says, in effect, that the non-religious do not deserve similar services. So long as religious soldiers are afforded faith based counseling services on the public dime there is absolutely no justification for denying non-religious soldiers the same.
“'The amendment holds the military to its current standards on endorsing agencies, which must be recognized religious and faith-based organizations,' said Fleming’s spokesman, Doug Sachtleben."
As reported in Religious News Service's "House rejects call to allow nonreligious military chaplains."
Since military chaplains serve the role of advisors and counselors, this view is blatantly bigoted and discriminatory. It says, in effect, that the non-religious do not deserve similar services. So long as religious soldiers are afforded faith based counseling services on the public dime there is absolutely no justification for denying non-religious soldiers the same.
Saturday, June 29, 2013
An Indirect Religious Argument for Gun Control
Actually this isn't an argument so much as an example or demonstration. Religious News Service had this short piece, "Pork-laced bullets designed to send Muslims straight ‘to hell’" The title pretty much says it all. As far as I can tell this is not meant as a joke. These dumb-ass twisted assholes are serious. Even if you were to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they really are not that incredibly stupid it is still an amazingly crude ignorance laden spiteful gesture.
In any case this just seems to scream to be used as an example of why gun control is really a good idea. I am not opposed to the basic idea of gun ownership but I do think some common sense restrictions and regulations are in order. Little things like admitting that for the purpose of hunting or sport shooting fully automatic assault rifles and armor piercing bullets are completely unnecessary. I also find it a good rule of thumb to keep any and all weapons out of the hands of assholes like those behind things like "pork-laced bullets." If you're that fucking stupid and vicious you should not be allowed near fire arms let alone have the legal right to stock-pile them..
In any case this just seems to scream to be used as an example of why gun control is really a good idea. I am not opposed to the basic idea of gun ownership but I do think some common sense restrictions and regulations are in order. Little things like admitting that for the purpose of hunting or sport shooting fully automatic assault rifles and armor piercing bullets are completely unnecessary. I also find it a good rule of thumb to keep any and all weapons out of the hands of assholes like those behind things like "pork-laced bullets." If you're that fucking stupid and vicious you should not be allowed near fire arms let alone have the legal right to stock-pile them..
Saturday, June 2, 2012
Sorry, Buffalo
It may seem a little silly to apologize to an entire city especially over something I had no say in. However, I feel really bad for Buffalo, New York. They will be inheriting a truly horrible individual. Bishop Richard Malone has been reassigned to that unfortunate city. Being the meddling asshole that he is it does not matter whether you're Catholic or not he will be a pain in the ass regardless of your faith or lack of faith. He on occasion will pay lip service to social issues that are deserving of attention but he will NOT devote any time, effort, or resources to them. He will, however, routinely interfere in local and state politics and public policy. He will continue to oppose what should be seen as basic human rights. He will actively oppose, with tax free church funds, reproductive rights, women's rights, and homosexual rights. As for the poor, they're not going away so why waste time on them. Pedophilia? Malone never met a depraved child rapist he wouldn't defend and coddle.
Sorry, Buffalo. Though I'm glad this lying, hypocritical bastard will be leaving my state I do feel for you. Who knows, maybe the Catholics of your city will grow a collective spine and/or conscience and put put this piece of shit behind bars where he belongs.
Like most mainstream media the pieces below are rather sugar-coated but they do at least acknowledge that he was not universally liked and admired. You do have to read through quite a bit to find the brief references to his critics/criticism.
New England Cable News "End of an era in Maine, Bishop Malone leaves for NY"
Bangor Daily News "Maine Catholic Bishop Richard Malone appointed bishop of Buffalo"
Sorry, Buffalo. Though I'm glad this lying, hypocritical bastard will be leaving my state I do feel for you. Who knows, maybe the Catholics of your city will grow a collective spine and/or conscience and put put this piece of shit behind bars where he belongs.
Like most mainstream media the pieces below are rather sugar-coated but they do at least acknowledge that he was not universally liked and admired. You do have to read through quite a bit to find the brief references to his critics/criticism.
New England Cable News "End of an era in Maine, Bishop Malone leaves for NY"
Bangor Daily News "Maine Catholic Bishop Richard Malone appointed bishop of Buffalo"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)