Church-Burning Video Used to Promote Atheist Event

_{GilDodgen
January 27, 2012

Atheism

2}_{Categories
Atheism}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Here’s another delightful offering from the compassionate, tolerant, inclusive, diversity-promoting atheist community. As usual, it includes a plug for “evolution.”

…the lineup includes atheist speakers, a rapper who raps about evolution and a “kiddy pool” where boys and girls will be able to scientifically walk on water.

There will also be a number of bands performing – the most famous of which is Aiden. They are featured in a video on the “Rocky Beyond Belief” website that includes images of burning churches and bloody crosses.

Among the lyrics: “Love how the [sic] burn your synagogues, love how they torch your holy books.

The group is no stranger to strong lyrics. Another of their songs says, “F*** your God, F*** your faith in the end. There’s no religion.

From a link in the link above:

The band Aiden has announced it will be playing the atheist festival “Rock Beyond Belief” at Fort Bragg in March 2012, as the lead-in act to Richard Dawkins, the main attraction at the “concert.”

As we all know, Christian believers are mysteriously the primary targets of denigration and vilification on the part of militant atheists (always, of course, in the name of the high virtues they proclaim: tolerance, diversity, etc. — yawn).

I have a modest proposal for the band Aiden:

Why not be a little more specific in your lyrics and see what happens? How about:

“F*** Jesus, F*** the Bible, F*** Christians”
“F*** Mohammed, F*** the Koran, F*** Muslims”

The results of this experiment would be interesting to observe.

Comments

Elizabeth: "Clearly Gil, you were an unhappy and miserable atheist, and have found joy and meaning in Christianity." That's not the impression I get from what Gil has written on this blog. He has a long paper trail in the Hang Gliding community and he edited "Hang Gliding" magazine for years. His articles and reviews were a joy to read. http://www.willswing.com/reviews/review.asp?reqReviewIdx=falcon or just google gil dodge hang gliding He was also an excellent programmer and pianist. His works used to be a joy to read. He certainly never slandered anybody. Then he found Jesus and look at what he writes today. It's very Conservative Christian.dmullenix_{February 2, 2012
February
02
Feb
2
02
2012
03:30 AM
3
03
30
AM
PDT}

Onlookers: I see the sadly revealing spin and distraction games by evolutionary materialists continued overnight. Let's underscore a few points -- I will leave it to the astute onlooker to understand why the materialists continue to be reduced to shooting at the messenger: 1 --> At no point above, have evolutionary materialist advocates shown a foundational IS in their view that can objectively ground OUGHT. It is thus inherently amoral, which reveals it to be false as it is inescapable that we are under the government of ought. (So telling is this, that we have seen the repeated attempt to suggest that the proponents of just this view cannot recognise it from descriptions, examples and adequate definitions from 2350 years ago to current times. Telling.) 2 --> Of course, given the implanted inner light of conscience guided reason, all men are capable of reasoning and acting morally. But, as was equally pointed out and ignored int eh rush to falsely accuse me of libel, we are finite, fallible, fallen and struggling, too often ill-willed. That means that a worldview such as evolutionary materialism -- one that is inherently amoral -- is liable to blind minds and dull consciences, making it not only false but dangerous. And so say the ghosts of 100 million victims of regimes deeply influenced by evo mat thought over the past 100 years. 3 --> The result of the institutional dominance of such evo mat dressed up in the holy lab coat, is that the moral consensus of our civilisation has been sharply eroded over the past several generations, and is rapidly reaching the point where the nihilistic tendencies of such a system, will be quite evident: might and manipulation make 'right,' so if perceptions and feelings can be manipulated, that is all there is to morality. 4 --> This evil, demonically manipulative music group Aiden, is a case in point. 5 --> Of course, it is not going to be very persuasive if evil comes in blatant form, before it is strong enough to throw off masks and disguises. 6 --> So, we are to EXPECT manipulation [remember, Herr Schicklegruber was an economic and nationalist saviour, and Lenin and Stalin et al as well as Mao et al were leaders of progress and rescue of the downtrodden workers and peasants . . . ), and the tactics of turnabout false accusation that seeks to discredit voices that challenge a rising tide of nihilism backed by an amoral worldview. 7 --> In particular, as George Orwell exposed in his 1984 and Animal Farm novels of warning, we must expect doubletalk and the tactics of the onion: multilayered meaning, that becomes progressively plain to the initiates into ever deeper inner circles, where the price of progress is always the next bit of your conscience; and the isolation from old contexts, alienation from them, lead to unfreezing, to be fitted into new moulds as desired by the manipulators. This, BTW, is the self-same Schein model brainwashing tactic of the more destructive cults, as I had to expose 25 years ago. 8 --> Ironically, this is a counterfeit of genuine repentance and reformation. The key issue is always going to be the integrity and transparency of the process. if you are being led by the truth in love and purity, even in the midst of painful correction, that is a good sign. If your conscience is being benumbed, and hostility is being subtly cultivated, watch out. 9 --> A key is to ask if someone is telling you the straight truth, or is tickling your itching ears with what s/he secretly thinks you want to hear. if you are not being led to self-examination and turning from the wrong, that is a bad sign. So is the putting of darkness for light, and light for darkness, bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter, calling good evil and evil good. this comes from Isa 5 for those who don't recognise the cite. 10 --> Once we can pick up attitudinal patterns, the second key to interpreting multi-layer, onion, inner circle manipulative, wedge apart communications, is to find plain text anchor points that serve as keys to decoding the more veiled messages. 11 --> In this case, that is not hard to do. When confronted with the gospel Aiden responds by smearing verbal filth across it. That is a blatant wedge tactic, and it shows that the driving force is a hard-hearted, endarkened and conscience benumbed disrespectful hostility that is driven by enmity, not truth or fairness. 12 --> Notice, the response to that, above, from defenders of evo mat thought [who are ever so quick to shoot at the messenger who contradicts them, accusing falsely of hypocrisy, libel and so forth]: quietly tip-toeing around it, or at most barely acknowledging that something is very, very, very wrong and well beyond the pale of civil discussion here. 13 --> All the angels are on our "scientific" and "progressive" side and all and only the devils are on your side, in short. Classic Saul Alinsky rules for radicals tactics, and already, we see consciences being benumbed and minds endarkened. We are on the road to nihilism here. (And, ask yourself some pointed questions on views on several more of the hot button issues that were tossed into the pool to further poison the context of discussion.) 14 --> Now, turn to the case of the video that is at the focus of this thread. IT BEGINS WITH A VAMPIRE-CLERGYMAN, DECORATED WITH THE CHRISTIAN CROSS. Already a demonising, stereotyping, hostility stirring caricature. (Notice, how this is never properly responded to above whenever I have pointed it out? No prizes for guessing why.) 15 --> So, let us start with onion layer 1. Here is the devil-stereotype singing and saying -- with images of burning churches and religious houses -- love the way they burn your synagogues and holy books. Soon, we progress to coffers of blood money, coffins filled with war mongered dead, protecting war criminals, promoting genocide. 16 --> Blend in a little context -- this sort of manipulative communication is always high context, to exploit perceptions, attitudes and feelings -- where we did have people who nominally adhered to the Christian faith doing racist things, which betrayed them as being in fundamental error. This, was shown from foundational teachings, that have been on record for 2,000 years. 17 --> To that, of course, there is no serious response. No, we have to demonise. And, nowhere do we see the recongition of the eugenics movement and related "scientific" racism, Social Darwinism and how this is what led to major real genocides of the century past. That imbalance and refusal to acknowledge evident truth, is diagnostic. 18 --> So, on layer 1, we are seeing strawmannising, demonising, stereotyping,and scapegoating. This invites unbridled hostility and contempt, in a context that is not calling attention to the need for evolutionary materialists to face the nihilistic tendencies in their own worldview. 19 --> By telling contrast, let us clip another popular work, from H G Wells, in 1897, who warns in no uncertain -- and unfortunately prophetic -- terms, in the opening chapter (notice, how he uses his OPENING to warn his own side!) of his War of the Worlds:
No one would have believed in the last years of the nineteenth century that this world was being watched keenly and closely by intelligences greater than man's and yet as mortal as his own; that as men busied themselves about their various concerns they were scrutinised and studied, perhaps almost as narrowly as a man with a microscope might scrutinise the transient creatures that swarm and multiply in a drop of water . . . No one gave a thought to the older worlds of space as sources of human danger, or thought of them only to dismiss the idea of life upon them as impossible or improbable. It is curious to recall some of the mental habits of those departed days. At most terrestrial men fancied there might be other men upon Mars, perhaps inferior to themselves and ready to welcome a missionary enterprise. Yet across the gulf of space, minds that are to our minds as ours are to those of the beasts that perish, intellects vast and cool and unsympathetic, regarded this earth with envious eyes, and slowly and surely drew their plans against us . . . . looking across space with instruments, and intelligences such as we have scarcely dreamed of, they see, at its nearest distance only 35,000,000 of miles sunward of them, a morning star of hope, our own warmer planet, green with vegetation and grey with water, with a cloudy atmosphere eloquent of fertility, with glimpses through its drifting cloud wisps of broad stretches of populous country and narrow, navy-crowded seas. And we men, the creatures who inhabit this earth, must be to them at least as alien and lowly as are the monkeys and lemurs to us. The intellectual side of man already admits that life is an incessant struggle for existence, and it would seem that this too is the belief of the minds upon Mars. Their world is far gone in its cooling and this world is still crowded with life, but crowded only with what they regard as inferior animals. To carry warfare sunward is, indeed, their only escape from the destruction that, generation after generation, creeps upon them. And before we judge of them too harshly we must remember what ruthless and utter destruction our own species has wrought, not only upon animals, such as the vanished bison and the dodo, but upon its inferior races. The Tasmanians, in spite of their human likeness, were entirely swept out of existence in a war of extermination waged by European immigrants, in the space of fifty years. Are we such apostles of mercy as to complain if the Martians warred in the same spirit?
20 --> On layer two, we see the planting of the sequence of ideas: target -- the vampire clergy, response -- burn baby burn. And in case you didn't get the motives to justify violence: blood money, war mongering, protecting war criminals, genocide. In short, the retaliation is being invited, from the new atheist movement's lunatic fringe. 21 --> Now, too, Aiden is the warm-up act. So, what does the big ticket speaker have to say on the target? God Delusion (clip and response can be found here on in context, and there are onward links to responses as suggested in the clip):
Dawkins, The God Delusion: “The God of the Old Testament [= The God of Israel . . . ] is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully . . . ” [Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, Great Britain: Bantam Press, 2006, 31. Cf. Lennox- Dawkins debate, here. For a quick initial response to this sort of rhetoric, cf. CARM here and JPH of Tektonics here, here, here and here. Also cf. Vox Day's short book length critique of the new Atheists in a free to download format here. (Available from Amazon here.)]
22 --> Unbridled hostility, with implicit antisemitism. 23 --> That is onion layer 3. The context of the post 9/11 conflicts, led by a president of the US who happens to have been an Evangelical Christian of some adherence (and supported by a UK PM who was also an Evangelical at that point), coupled to the Evangelical support of Israel, multiplied by the perceptions of the Israel lobby, feed into some of the darkest forces on the loose in our civilisation. The vampires are further identified, and this ties into the vast pool of agit-prop that set out to demonise Bush, Blair, the war effort in the ME etc. 24 --> Layer 4 lies in the broad-brush equation of "Fundies," so that Bible-believing Christians are implicitly identified with IslamIST terrorists, and are deemed to be right-wing, Fascistic [FYI, Fascism was an ideology of the LEFT!!!!! Just, not so far left as Stalin, who set about labelling it as Right-wing, successfully. To begin to see this consider that Nazism is really national Socialism . . . ], theocratic, terrorists and would be tyrants oppressing the progressive movement and attacking science. 25 --> For layer 5, let us look at the manipulators, and their agenda: who benefits by pushing the sort of stereotypes, slanders and polarisations just identified? 26 --> Ironically, fundamentally anti-democratic, deeply secularist and materialist, elitist, manipulative, nihilistic power-brokers who have taken science captive as the point man for an evolutionary materialist agenda. Notice the sneer that those who question or object are ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked. 27 --> The likes of Aiden probably don't begin to understand what they are fronting for, at the level of long term socio-cultural agendas. They too are simply filled with rage and are promoting somebody else's cleverly toxic talking points. I doubt that they understand the matches they are playing with, or the conflagration that could happen as a result. __________ But, dear onlooker, now you do. G'day. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{February 2, 2012
February
02
Feb
2
02
2012
03:20 AM
3
03
20
AM
PDT}

28 characters, four words. You're doing much better with the logorreah problem. Now try saying, “I’m sorry. I was wrong. Please forgive me.”dmullenix_{February 2, 2012
February
02
Feb
2
02
2012
03:07 AM
3
03
07
AM
PDT}

Mark is right, Gil. There are plenty of secular organisation that do great work. Mark has mentioned Great Ormond Street. I'd also mention Oxfam. Obviously these places were not founded in the name of atheism, because, as Mark says, atheist don't derive their morality from their atheism per se, any more than they derive it from their a-fairyism. Another example is United World Colleges, a most inspiring organisation. Not surprisingly, atheists don't form "churches" on the whole, although the Unitarian Universalist church, while having Christian roots, attracts a large number of atheists who value the aspects of religion that do not include belief in a Creator god. A dear online atheist friend of mine was a lifelong UU attender, singing in the choir each Sunday, and commemorated in a UU memorial service there after his death. Quakers, too, offer a haven to many atheists, and they are at the forefront of a great many important and charitable ventures. And that is to ignore more informal gatherings of atheists, mutual help communities who serve as "church" communities for their members. I've known astounding acts of generosity from these atheists, as well as moral, and indeed what you would call spiritual, support. Clearly Gil, you were an unhappy and miserable atheist, and have found joy and meaning in Christianity. I am very glad for you. But please do not assume that all atheists are unhappy and miserable, or that it is not possible to be an unhappy and miserable atheist and become a joyful, fulfilled atheist. I have known many (not myself, because I wasn't an unhappy or miserable Christian, nor am I an unhappy and miserable atheist!) Finding meaning in life is vital to happiness, but the assumption that for an atheist, life has no meaning, is a fallacious one. We do not require the belief that our lives serve the purpose of some divine being to know that our lives have purpose. We are purposeful organisms, and our natural inclination is to find meaning in the world we life in. And we find it, written in the very beauty of both its order and its chaos. And of course, in the goodness and generosity of our fellow human beings. Listen to Carl Sagan, or David Attenborough even, if you need evidence of that.Elizabeth Liddle_{February 2, 2012
February
02
Feb
2
02
2012
12:25 AM
12
12
25
AM
PDT}

Yet another day has passed with no retraction of Gil's and KF's false accusation:
5.1.1 champignon January 31, 2012 at 12:07 am kairosfocus wrote:
Gil: a serious and sobering point, given the above. I note that we see no serious response on your expose of promotion of synagogue and church burning. KF
Gil, kairosfocus, You have falsely accused Aiden of promoting synagogue and church burning. When will you retract your irresponsible accusation?
champignon_{February 1, 2012
February
02
Feb
1
01
2012
11:23 PM
11
11
23
PM
PDT}

At least GilDodgen is decent enough to keep quiet if he can’t find the courage to admit he screwed up.
So much for that.champignon_{February 1, 2012
February
02
Feb
1
01
2012
11:18 PM
11
11
18
PM
PDT}

Where are the atheist-inspired children’s hospitals?
Atheists derive their morality from sources other than theism. That doesn't mean we derive it from our lack of belief. That would be like deriving your morality from not believing in fairies. There are plenty of children's hospitals which have been created and funded by sources that are not religious - including the UK's largest and most famous, the Great Ormond Street. This is not done in the name of atheism. It is done in the name of helping children and that is sufficient without needing divine guidance.markf_{February 1, 2012
February
02
Feb
1
01
2012
10:56 PM
10
10
56
PM
PDT}

The Aiden church-burning thing was clearly meant to portray the inevitable evils of all religious belief, without distinction. The obvious implication is that if we could all become righteous materialistic atheists, no such atrocities would be perpetrated or even conceivable. But where would that righteousness come from? I have some questions: Where are the atheist-inspired children's hospitals? (By the way, as a former atheist turned evangelical Christian, I have a growing admiration of the charitable work of Catholics.) Where are the atheist "churches" where materialists congregate on a regular basis to be admonished to examine one's deficiencies, and attempt to overcome them on a day-to-day basis? I don't go to church to be told I'm OK, You're OK; I go to church to be reminded that I'm not OK, and must work diligently to overcome my obviously fallen nature (with the help of You Know Who). Where in the Aiden videos is there anything edifying, anything admirable, anything but depravity and a hideously bad excuse for "music" displayed? Does Richard Dawkins really want to be associated with these clowns in his crusade against Christianity? That's essentially his raison d'être, despite his protestations that he's defending science.GilDodgen_{February 1, 2012
February
02
Feb
1
01
2012
08:15 PM
8
08
15
PM
PDT}

In short, we have a clear view of the way manipulation and rage are repeatedly, even predictably, being used to polarise, instead of actually address serious matters on the merits.
Ironically this sums up your own attitude nicely: Ragefull, polarizing, manipulative, distracting - yet entirely predictable ;)GCUGreyArea_{February 1, 2012
February
02
Feb
1
01
2012
09:33 AM
9
09
33
AM
PDT}

kairosfocus writes:
Dr Liddle, you have done enough damage to yourself already...
And:
In short, we have a clear view of the way manipulation and rage are repeatedly, even predictably, being used to polarise, instead of actually address serious matters on the merits. If you are sick of such, so am I.
And yesterday:
For shame, Dr Liddle!
And on the 29th:
Dr Liddle: Pardon me, but I think it is you who have some explaining to do.
I suspect that visitors to the kairosfocus home are struck by the total absence of mirrors.champignon_{February 1, 2012
February
02
Feb
1
01
2012
09:16 AM
9
09
16
AM
PDT}

F/N 2: Finally, Dr Liddle, the false accusation: libel, is exceedingly inflammatory.
The "libel" in question, is in turn, a protest against your false accusation that "evolutionary materialism" that some of us espouse is immoral. If I were more inflammable than I am, I would be more inflamed :) I've already addressed this Hawthorne piece elsewhere, and I don't have time to go through it again now. It seems to me fallacious on a great many counts.Elizabeth Liddle_{February 1, 2012
February
02
Feb
1
01
2012
05:24 AM
5
05
24
AM
PDT}

F/N: I should note on the strawman, a caricature divine command theory. The good is not good because it is commanded by the ultimately powerful and could be this way as well as that. Nope, we deal with the inherently good who will command the good, but also, we will SEE that this is good, on the reasonableness principles outlined by Hooker etc. Observe, Hooker is drawing not only on Paul, Jesus and Moshe, but on Aristotle, and highlights thereby just how reasonable the principles are” we wish to be well-treated by our equals in nature and so patently ought to do the same to our equals, equally made in the image of God and equally valuable. Observe, how consistently this is missed by those who object to the presentation of an IS which indeed can objectively ground OUGHT. The service of him who is Reason himself, is reasonable. The service of him who is Love himself is loving. The service of him who is The Good himself, is good.
In that case you do not differ fundamentally from any person who is able to derive ethical principles without recourse to a god. In which case, you can drop your criticism of "evolutionary materialism" that it cannot form the basis for ethical principles. If I have a staw man here, I am delighted. But in that case so do you. Let's burn them both and be done.Elizabeth Liddle_{February 1, 2012
February
02
Feb
1
01
2012
05:14 AM
5
05
14
AM
PDT}

F/N 2: Finally, Dr Liddle, the false accusation: libel, is exceedingly inflammatory. By contrast, kindly explain to us what is inflammatory, as opposed to a carrying out of a reductio, step by logical step in, say, this from Hawthorne:
Assume (per impossibile) that atheistic naturalism [[= evolutionary materialism] is true. Assume, furthermore, that one can't infer an 'ought' from an 'is' [[the 'is' being in this context physicalist: matter-energy, space- time, chance and mechanical forces]. (Richard Dawkins and many other atheists should grant both of these assumptions.) Given our second assumption, there is no description of anything in the natural world from which we can infer an 'ought'. And given our first assumption, there is nothing that exists over and above the natural world; the natural world is all that there is. It follows logically that, for any action you care to pick, there's no description of anything in the natural world from which we can infer that one ought to refrain from performing that action. Add a further uncontroversial assumption: an action is permissible if and only if it's not the case that one ought to refrain from performing that action . . . [[We see] therefore, for any action you care to pick, it's permissible to perform that action. If you'd like, you can take this as the meat behind the slogan 'if atheism is true, all things are permitted'. For example if atheism is true, every action Hitler performed was permissible. Many atheists don't like this consequence of their worldview. But they cannot escape it and insist that they are being logical at the same time. Now, we all know that at least some actions are really not permissible (for example, racist actions). Since the conclusion of the argument denies this, there must be a problem somewhere in the argument. Could the argument be invalid? No. The argument has not violated a single rule of logic and all inferences were made explicit. Thus we are forced to deny the truth of one of the assumptions we started out with. That means we either deny atheistic naturalism or (the more intuitively appealing) principle that one can't infer 'ought' from [[a material] 'is'.
kairosfocus_{February 1, 2012
February
02
Feb
1
01
2012
05:10 AM
5
05
10
AM
PDT}

kf, at no time have I alleged that you do not separate a worldview from its adherents. What you are nonetheless doing, is accusing its adherents of promoting a worldview that you consider is amoral and nihilistic. Whether or not you consider those adherents themselves of being amoral and nihilistic does not alter that. And indeed right there, in your post, you say: "though the views may well hamper their ability to do the right by light of conscience and evident truth". No, those views do not so hamper us, and I have explained exactly why. You have argued in favour of Divine Command Theory, which I, and many others, including apparently the band Aiden, reject, not because we are nihilistic or amoral, but because, ironically, we find your approach amoral. If we are drawn to God it is because we recognise in God what we know to be good. We do not identify as good that which we deem to be commanded by some arbitrary god. We have chosen the other horn of the Euthyphro dilemma. So no, I have not damaged myself. I have merely tried, in vain it seems, to help you understand that the worldview you find so alarming is not an amoral one, but one that can engender just the kind of passionate ethical conviction that you yourself display. And indeed, the same kind of angry indignation, except on our part, it is anger against such things as bigotry against gays, religious terrorism, sectarian murder and the imposition of religious laws on those who do not share those religious beliefs. But yes, I trust too that there will soon be another day when we can have a more reasonable discussion. LizzieElizabeth Liddle_{February 1, 2012
February
02
Feb
1
01
2012
05:09 AM
5
05
09
AM
PDT}

F/N: I should note on the strawman, a caricature divine command theory. The good is not good because it is commanded by the ultimately powerful and could be this way as well as that. Nope, we deal with the inherently good who will command the good, but also, we will SEE that this is good, on the reasonableness principles outlined by Hooker etc. Observe, Hooker is drawing not only on Paul, Jesus and Moshe, but on Aristotle, and highlights thereby just how reasonable the principles are" we wish to be well-treated by our equals in nature and so patently ought to do the same to our equals, equally made in the image of God and equally valuable. Observe, how consistently this is missed by those who object to the presentation of an IS which indeed can objectively ground OUGHT. The service of him who is Reason himself, is reasonable. The service of him who is Love himself is loving. The service of him who is The Good himself, is good.kairosfocus_{February 1, 2012
February
02
Feb
1
01
2012
05:05 AM
5
05
05
AM
PDT}

Dr Liddle, you have done enough damage to yourself already, so I will not further reply; having more than made the case already that a worldview is different from its adherents, though the views may well hamper their ability to do the right by light of conscience and evident truth. I ask you to think, seriously, about what you are saying, and I suggest that you take some time to see why Euthyphro's dilemma is irrelevant to the inherently good Creator God of theism -- it is a grand case of the strawman fallacy and how it is often quite persuasive though highly misleading. Finally, a sad point: if it is so hard to come to terms with something as simple as a definition with multiple examples before us that is also a dominant force in the intellectual sub-culture of our civilisation, then it should be no surprise that it has been all but impossible to make real progress on more abstract and abstruse matters for so many months. Good day, again; I trust that there will be another day -- hopefully soon -- when we can have a more reasonable discussion. KFkairosfocus_{February 1, 2012
February
02
Feb
1
01
2012
04:50 AM
4
04
50
AM
PDT}

JDFL: Silly, little unsophisticated you! Don't you know, Aiden is "really" just exposing the dangers of hooking up with a dead end brat of a boy friend? And, they are "really" just exposing the reality of that fellow with the beady eyes, cloven hooves and a red suit? Tut, tut! And silly me, indeed they have bridged the IS-OUGHT gap: we ought to do whatever we are strong enough or clever enough to get away with, especially if we can outsmart those silly ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked fundy rubes out there! See, Herr Schicklegruber said it all 86 years ago in Da Book, man, Da Book:
Any crossing of two beings not at exactly the same level produces a medium between the level of the two parents . . . Consequently, it will later succumb in the struggle against the higher level. Such mating is contrary to the will of Nature for a higher breeding of all life . . . The stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness. Only the born weakling can view this as cruel, but he after all is only a weak and limited man; for if this law did not prevail, any conceivable higher development of organic living beings would be unthinkable. The consequence of this racial purity, universally valid in Nature, is not only the sharp outward delimitation of the various races, but their uniform character in themselves. The fox is always a fox, the goose a goose, the tiger a tiger, etc., and the difference can lie at most in the varying measure of force, strength, intelligence, dexterity, endurance, etc., of the individual specimens. But you will never find a fox who in his inner attitude might, for example, show humanitarian tendencies toward geese, as similarly there is no cat with a friendly inclination toward mice . . . . In the struggle for daily bread all those who are weak and sickly or less determined succumb, while the struggle of the males for the female grants the right or opportunity to propagate only to the healthiest. [That is, Darwinian sexual selection.] And struggle is always a means for improving a species’ health and power of resistance and, therefore, a cause of its higher development. If the process were different, all further and higher development would cease and the opposite would occur. For, since the inferior always predominates numerically over the best [NB: this is a theme in Darwin's discussion of the Irish, the Scots and the English in Descent], if both had the same possibility of preserving life and propagating, the inferior would multiply so much more rapidly that in the end the best would inevitably be driven into the background, unless a correction of this state of affairs were undertaken. Nature does just this by subjecting the weaker part to such severe living conditions that by them alone the number is limited, and by not permitting the remainder to increase promiscuously, but making a new and ruthless choice according to strength and health . . .
And he got da backin' of da Beard mon, Da Beard hisself, in he second book, and chapter de sixth:
Man is liable to numerous, slight, and diversified variations, which are induced by the same general causes, are governed and transmitted in accordance with the same general laws, as in the lower animals. Man has multiplied so rapidly, that he has necessarily been exposed to struggle for existence, and consequently to natural selection. He has given rise to many races, some of which differ so much from each other, that they have often been ranked by naturalists as distinct species . . . . At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.
Silly, unsophisticated, blundering us who can't read anything straight that is more than plain and on the level of See Spot run, Dan is the man in the van! KFkairosfocus_{February 1, 2012
February
02
Feb
1
01
2012
04:41 AM
4
04
41
AM
PDT}

Dr Liddle, this is now knowingly false accusation. You KNOW or should know that I have pointed out the problem with a worldview and distinguished the people who may adhere to it. You know or should know that, echoing many since Plato, I have warned about a tendency. Instead of addressing the issue, you have turned to repeating an accusation that is false and that you know or should now is false.
Well, kf, your defence seems to be not that you are not accusing those of us who hold the worldview you describe of promoting amorality and nihilism, but that your accusation is justified. I disagree. I am saying it is not justified. Those of us who advocate that world view are not promoting amorality and nihilism.
Notice, to date, none of your ilk has been able to provide an objective warrant for OUGHT on a foundational IS of evolutionary materialism (which has been adequately explained, defined and exemplified so as to be instantly known as the institutionally dominant view in the intelligentsia of our time), which only leaves the principle: might or manipulation make ‘right.’
And I am saying this is false. In fact, I'm saying that the opposite is the case: a worldview (a system of OUGHTs, if you like) based on "Divine Command Theory" is, in fact, the principle that might makes right: that the Almighty makes the Alrighty. We don't think that. We don't think that might makes right. We think that ethical systems can be derived from our status as social animals, and or moral imperatives from the principles of social justice that are intrinsic to social living. "Might makes Right" is anathema to that principle; our social justice systems are designed, by collective human endeavour, to ensure that those who exercise power (through force, for example, or violence) are not rewarded, while those who contribute to the common weal are. This principle underlies democracy, for instance, which was a pagan invention, not a christian one, by the way. Moral philosophy need not be based on a theistic premise, though it can be.
i did not make that up, and it is an objective fact,
No, it is not an objective fact. It's your opinion, and you are entitled to it, but equally, I am entitled to mine, and I find it highly offensive and unjust. I probably find it as offensive as you find Aiden's lyrics.
I have pointed out, over and over, directly and though serious thinkers, that this principle comes up against the in-built moral compass we have, but can warp it.
Yes, I know you have. That doesn't mean you are correct. I agree that we have an "inbuilt moral compass" but I don't agree that it has anything to do with Divine Command. I think it evolved within us as social animals, and has developed through our cultural traditions. You disagree. Fine. But your opinion is not objective fact.
I have pointed out, on the testimony of 100 million ghosts, cases within living memory. You have chosen, not to respond tot he serious issue, but to shoot at the messenger.
I'm not shooting any messenger. I am not the one using inflammatory language here, you are. I am disagreeing with you, profoundly. That is not "shooting the messenger". It's disagreeing.
I am saddened to see that, but at least the plain situation is out in the open for all to see. I trust that one day, your eyes will be opened to see what is going on. Good day, madam. GEM of TKI
Well, yes, I think it is plain for people to see. I hope one day, we will both be able to see things from the same point of view. But right now, you have chosen one horn of Euthyphro's dilemma and I have chosen the other. I prefer mine - precisely because I do not believe that Might Makes Right. Peace. LizzieElizabeth Liddle_{February 1, 2012
February
02
Feb
1
01
2012
04:33 AM
4
04
33
AM
PDT}

Kf, How can I trust your interpretation of Biblical texts when you obviously are not able to parse a simple contemporary song?DiEb_{February 1, 2012
February
02
Feb
1
01
2012
04:31 AM
4
04
31
AM
PDT}

KF, "Notice, to date, none of your ilk has been able to provide an objective warrant for OUGHT on a foundational IS" This is patently untrue, KF, here we see AIDEN seamlessly closing the is ought gap with their classic hit: "Die, Die My Darling" Die, die, die my darling (die (tonight) die, die, die...) Die, die, die my darling (die (tonight) die, die, die...) Die, die, die my darling (die (tonight) die, die, die...) Die! Die, die, die my darling Don't utter a single word Die, die, die my darling Just shut your pretty mouth I'll be seeing you again I'll be seeing you in Hell Don't cry to me oh baby Your future's in an oblong box, yeah Don't cry to me oh baby Should have seen it a-comin' on Don't cry to me oh baby I don't know it was in your power Don't cry to me oh baby Dead-end girl for a dead-end guy Don't cry to me oh baby Now your life drains on the floor Don't cry to me oh baby Die, die, die my darling Don't utter a single word Die, die, die my darling Just shut your pretty mouth I'll be seeing you again I'll be seeing you in Hell Don't cry to me a baby Your future is in an oblong box Don't cry to me oh baby Should have seen the end a-comin' on, a-comin' Don't cry to me oh baby I don't know it was in your power Don't cry to me oh baby Dead-end girl for a dead-end guy Don't cry to me oh baby Now your life drains on the floor Don't cry to me oh baby Die, die, die my darling Don't utter a single word Die, die, die my darling Shut your pretty mouth I'll be seeing you again I'll be seeing you in Hell Don't cry to me oh baby Die, die, die my darling Don't cry to me oh baby Die, die, die my darling Die, die, die my darling Die, die, die my darling Shut your pretty mouth Die, die, die my darling Die, die, die my darling Die, die, die my darling Die, die, die, die, die, die....junkdnaforlife_{February 1, 2012
February
02
Feb
1
01
2012
02:58 AM
2
02
58
AM
PDT}

Dr Liddle, this is now knowingly false accusation. You KNOW or should know that I have pointed out the problem with a worldview and distinguished the people who may adhere to it. You know or should know that, echoing many since Plato, I have warned about a tendency. Instead of addressing the issue, you have turned to repeating an accusation that is false and that you know or should now is false. Notice, to date, none of your ilk has been able to provide an objective warrant for OUGHT on a foundational IS of evolutionary materialism (which has been adequately explained, defined and exemplified so as to be instantly known as the institutionally dominant view in the intelligentsia of our time), which only leaves the principle: might or manipulation make 'right.' i did not make that up, and it is an objective fact, I have pointed out, over and over, directly and though serious thinkers, that this principle comes up against the in-built moral compass we have, but can warp it. I have pointed out, on the testimony of 100 million ghosts, cases within living memory. You have chosen, not to respond tot he serious issue, but to shoot at the messenger. I am saddened to see that, but at least the plain situation is out in the open for all to see. I trust that one day, your eyes will be opened to see what is going on. Good day, madam. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{February 1, 2012
February
02
Feb
1
01
2012
02:50 AM
2
02
50
AM
PDT}

KF, its funny to watch all these educated people defend this band. "The Devil's Eye's" Aiden All hail the dark one All hail this night / I'll search the darkness Transform to the beast that I've become All hail the dark one All hail this light / I'll search the darkness Transform from a cell we have begun -- Anyone else hail the "dark one" lol?junkdnaforlife_{February 1, 2012
February
02
Feb
1
01
2012
02:46 AM
2
02
46
AM
PDT}

As predicted, the turnabout.kairosfocus_{February 1, 2012
February
02
Feb
1
01
2012
02:43 AM
2
02
43
AM
PDT}

Dr Liddle, there is no IF here, and this is a group that is not operating on reason but on manipulation of hate. The IF is all too revealing. For my wider response, kindly see below. And, there is a little matter on the table of a false accusation of libel on your part, to be explained and resolved. Good day. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{February 1, 2012
February
02
Feb
1
01
2012
02:27 AM
2
02
27
AM
PDT}

Ch: Kindly see below to see HOW that is being done, on an embedded layer of the video. All you have to do is see that in this case the spokesman presented is a target to be demonised. From that, think about the utterly unbalanced presentation, and the invitation issued to "retaliate" to the lunatic fringe enabled by the demonisaiton. And, that is on the relatively favourable reading. The more direct reading simply goes to the target and the response: Burn, baby, burn. This is a case where context -- a group that responds to the Christian gospel by smearing verbal filth across it, so it is obvious that the vampire clergy image projected is not by way of approval -- rules understanding, and it is obvious that this is not a protest ate generic wrongs, but a scapegoating and target-painting exercise. Details are below. I write here for record, not in expectation -- on track record -- that you will respond reasonably. Those who enable or excuse Aiden tell us far more than they intend, as is examined below. Good day. KFkairosfocus_{February 1, 2012
February
02
Feb
1
01
2012
02:24 AM
2
02
24
AM
PDT}

20,000 characters, 3,500 words. All to deny the simple truth: You screwed up. Try this: "I'm sorry. I was wrong. Please forgive me." 44 characters, 8 words. At least GilDodgen is decent enough to keep quiet if he can't find the courage to admit he screwed up.dmullenix_{February 1, 2012
February
02
Feb
1
01
2012
02:21 AM
2
02
21
AM
PDT}

Accusing people who you consider promote a particular worldview ("evolutionary materialism") of promoting amorality and nihilism is libellous, kf. It is false. Accusing Aiden of promoting churchburning when they are in fact condemning it is also libellous. It is false. Be the change you want to see, kairosfocus.Elizabeth Liddle_{February 1, 2012
February
02
Feb
1
01
2012
02:04 AM
2
02
04
AM
PDT}

Onlookers: It is now clear that we are not dealing with reason, but a rhetoric of accusation and invidious association of images, accusations,stereotypes and scapegoating. Dialogue with such is impossible and will not be attempted. I will simply expose, for record. And, I will note that -- predictably and habitually -- such will proceed to drag red herrings across the track of truth, towards convenient strawman distortions laced with ad hominems and set alight with snidely or overtly incendiary rhetoric. So, do not allow yourselves to be pulled into the myth that where there is smoke, there is fire, other than that of burning slanderously smeared strawmen. (It is particularly disappointing to see that after almost a day, in which she has been busy here and elsewhere, Dr Liddle has not withdrawn the false accusation of libel she made and which I took time to correct.) All of this is sad, but we must face the objective reality of what we are plainly dealing with. Note also, that at no point in the attempted discussion has there been any show of a serious attempt to ground morality on evolutionary materialist premises. We can take it that the amorality of this view stands exposed, and the consequence for adherents follows as night follows day: for such, might and manipulation make 'right' . . . Indeed, there has been a pretence that this morally bankrupt view -- the dominant view in key institutions that likes to dress itself up in a lab coat and call itself science -- is unrecognisable when described, exemplified and defined, and so needs not be defended. But the implication of this is that morality is merely a matter of moral feelings and/or perceptions of advantage, so if feelings and related perceptions can be manipulated, morality will change. Not merely, moral perceptions, but that there is nothing beyond perceptions there so to change perceptions is enough. But, while in politics and propaganda perceptions drive choices, it is reality that governs consequences. So, if our perceptions have been manipulated away from the real by those who play clever games, we will make destructive choices. When it comes to a group like Aiden, no-one of any shred of decency should ever be springing to the defence of a group that publicly responds to the gospel by smearing verbal filth across it. Period. That is beyond the pale of civil conduct, and those who do this or enable it have crossed a line that should never be crossed. There is no excuse for such. Observe, onlookers: right from the beginning, and all along this thread, there has been an open invitation to actually deal with the issue of the warrant for the Christian faith that Aiden etc would dismiss. Has it been taken up? Obviously not. What does that tell you about the real balance of the matter on the merits? The same pattern we saw last October when the champion of the New Atheists was invited to defend his assertions in the book The God Delusion and responded by trying to smear and dismiss. And of course the talking points were trotted out to create a faux outrage, driven by distractions, distortions and demonisation of those who dared oppose the evolutionary materialist agenda. In short, we have a clear view of the way manipulation and rage are repeatedly, even predictably, being used to polarise, instead of actually address serious matters on the merits. If you are sick of such, so am I. And, what happens here at UD is only the enabling for what is happening elsewhere, where there are no limits, in the fever swamp hate sites. All of this, of course, is exactly what Plato warned about, 2350 years ago. It is happening in front of our eyes, and yet we stand aside and look. Instead, let us be clear that we are dealing with polarising, destructive, rage-driven irresponsible factions, that substitute smears for reason, and rage-warped perceptions for moral suasion on well-grounded principles. notice, onlookers, how there has been no answer to the question of Hume's IS-OUGHT gap? Or, the premise argued by Hooker and cited by Locke, that as equally made in God's image and equally valuable, the principle of neighbour love applies as the core of morality? or Locke's own point that there is a candle set up in us that shines brightly enough to guide us to duty? One, that,sadly, we may willfully endarken? To all this, we see silence on the merits, and false accusations redoubled. For the evolutionary materialist talking point pushers know that if they can stir up a faux outrage, they can often drown out the voice and light of reason and reasonableness. That is the context in which we should understand what Aiden has been doing. Now, we can see why their response to the gospel is to smear verbal filth across it and try to associate the spoke3smen for the gospel with the images of outrageous wrongdoing, on the presumption that they have the propaganda talking points that will lead the indoctrinated to cheer such smear tactics, slanderous stereotyping and scapegoating on. Imagine, they encourage people to download such filth as ring tones for their phones! Think about what is happening to the hearts and minds of those who immerse themselves in regular baths in such filth. Instead, we should make it clear that those who celebrate, attempt to justify or enable that sort of behaviour have shown themselves utterly morally and intellectually bankrupt and uncivil. Which is, plainly, the precise state of today's ~~new~~ [village] atheist movement. Yes, I know, the image of the silly, usually half-drunk village atheist thundering out ill-founded, unbalances smears is a harsh one. Sadly, it is plainly well merited here. Going on, we need to parse the deliberate ambiguity -- one message to the in-group, another to the out-group, a la 1984's double-speak -- being used by groups like Aiden (and moreso by those who so artfully indoctrinated them into the New Atheist sub-culture . . . ) to manipulate moral sensibilities and drive in wedges that polarise and manipulate. For instance, of course they project anger at say burning churches and synagogues; BUT the key trick is that, first, they use images and context to invidiously associate this with specifically Christian clergy projected as vampires, and so invite "retaliation" from the lunatic fringe whose rage they have stoked. Ask yourself: does the Christian Faith per normative texts and expressions, and taken as a whole, advocate or excuse church burnings of black churches, or burnings of synagogues, or are the offerings of churches by and large blood money, or are the churches by and large encouraging genocide or war crimes? In so doing, let us not ever forget: the group representative targetted by the song in the form of the music video as the chief example of "hysteria" is the vampire clergyman. So, this is not outrage at generic mass hysteria and where it can lead [and the moans of a hundred million ghosts from the century just past tell us about some very different forms of mass hysteria that have held destructive power within living memory and have wreaked havoc . . . often, while flying the banners of "science" . . . ], this is a stirring up of self-righteous hostility and -- yes -- hysterical rage against the Christian faith and those who stand up for it. Herr Schicklegruber taught by example, long ago, that the best way to get the target group to swallow a big lie was by turnabout false accusations that make one's actions seem to be a "justified" defense against the evil outsiders. And, silly talking points about Godwin's law are no answer to the living case before us of just this form of vicious manipulation. If we don't learn from relevant history, we will be doomed to repeat it. So, let me be direct: Bible-believing Christians are now plainly the projected vampire demons targetted by the New Atheist spinmeisters. After all, we are ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked, aren't we. Don't you see the bigotry in that attitude promoted by the champion of the new atheists? And if such dare to protest, they can always be handily further tarred as hypocrites and/or as too stupid to see what is going on. As we can see just above in this thread. Sorry, once we see the verbal filth smeared across the core Christian gospel message instead of a reasoned response, we know what we are dealing with. If the objectors in this thread cannot frankly acknowledge the rage-driven incivility that Aiden represents by doing that, then we know that we are dealing with enablers. Back to our main question. The answer is quite obvious: Not at all, and indeed the premise of Christian morality in society has long since been stated by Paul, in his form of the Golden Rule:
Rom 13:8 . . . he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law. 9 The commandments, “Do not commit adultery,” “Do not murder,” “Do not steal,” “Do not covet,”[a] and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”[b] 10 Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. 11 And do this, understanding the present time. The hour has come for you to wake up from your slumber, because our salvation is nearer now than when we first believed. 12 The night is nearly over; the day is almost here. So let us put aside the deeds of darkness and put on the armor of light. 13 Let us behave decently, as in the daytime, not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and debauchery, not in dissension and jealousy. 14 Rather, clothe yourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ, and do not think about how to gratify the desires of the sinful nature.
Well, what about racism? (That great, and not quite dead, sin of Christendom.) Paul was plain in his paradigmatic address to the Athenians, in AD 50; which was of course a cross-race, cross-culture context in which the Apostle to the Nations, explained the principles of the Christian Faith to the representative leading lights of our civilisation, in the midst of the altars and statues that bespoke the pagan sentiments of the time:
Acts 17:22 Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: “Men of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. 23 For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you. 24 “The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. 25 And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else. 26 From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. 27 God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. 28 ‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’ As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’ 29 “Therefore since we are God’s offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by man’s design and skill. 30 In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. 31 For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead. [Of course, with 500 eyewitnesses, none of whom could be broken, not even in the teeth of fire, sword and cross. But, that was 15 years in the future at that point.]”
Going further, Paul speaks to the Galatians concerning our common status in Christ:
Gal 3: 6 Consider Abraham: “He believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”[a] 7 Understand, then, that those who believe are children of Abraham. 8 The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: “All nations will be blessed through you.”[b] 9 So those who have faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith . . . . 14 [Christ] redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit . . . . 26 You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
These are crystal clear, longstanding and normative. Anything that cuts across such is aberration. Sadly, given the many and notorious sins of Christendom across the centuries, aberrations there have been, but such do not trace to the foundation, but to the common moral challenge we all face: we are finite, fallible, morally fallen and struggling, and too often ill-willed. EVERY civilisation, and every ideology or worldview faces that same basic challenge; once it moves off the pages of a book and beyond a narrow circle of the devoted. So, the challenge once we move beyond a small circle -- and don't forget that right there in the circle of the twelve there was a traitor and thief -- will always be to call the collective back to reformation through recognition of wrongs that have crept in and our need for repentance. Indeed, that is the very reason why the attempts to read the NT as antisemitic fail, for they somehow fail or refuse to see them through the lens of the prophetic tradition that had for many centuries been calling for repentance and reformation of Israel, from within. In that context, the Christian Faith's foundational self-understanding is that those who are in Christ, as well as in Adam, are doubly of one. So, the call is to recognise how far we have fallen, thence repentance and reformation, so that we may be renewed in the blessing of God. It is in that context that I again (second time in this thread) cite and endorse the remarks of the great -- and BTW, Jewish -- historian of the Middle East, Bernard Lewis; in his epochal essay on The Roots of Muslim rage:
. . . The accusations are familiar. We of the West are accused of sexism, racism, and imperialism, institutionalized in patriarchy and slavery, tyranny and exploitation. To these charges, and to others as heinous, we have no option but to plead guilty -- not as Americans, nor yet as Westerners, but simply as human beings, as members of the human race. In none of these sins are we the only sinners, and in some of them we are very far from being the worst. The treatment of women in the Western world, and more generally in Christendom, has always been unequal and often oppressive, but even at its worst it was rather better than the rule of polygamy and concubinage that has otherwise been the almost universal lot of womankind on this planet . . . . In having practiced sexism, racism, and imperialism, the West was merely following the common practice of mankind through the millennia of recorded history. Where it is distinct from all other civilizations is in having recognized, named, and tried, not entirely without success, to remedy these historic diseases. And that is surely a matter for congratulation, not condemnation. We do not hold Western medical science in general, or Dr. Parkinson and Dr. Alzheimer in particular, responsible for the diseases they diagnosed and to which they gave their names.
A responsible, soundly informed, reasonable and balanced response to the situations would start from something like that. But, that is exactly what we have not seen. And, that is exactly what I have pointed out as needing correction. Then, of course, the pretence can be made that no, no no, Aiden and the like are simply expressing outrage at different forms of "hysteria"! Sorry, we were not born yesterday, and we know just what we are dealing with, once we see their plain text dismissal of the gospel and their chosen target case of hysteria: the vampire clergy of their imagination. How do they address the gospel? Do they try to address its historical foundations? Not a chance, they smear verbal filth across it, in the form of an imagined Roman spokesman, to express rage, hostility and contempt, amounting to hate. So, we need to ask again, just who are the hysterics that are being targetted. Obvious, as long since pointed out: especially, through the telling image of the imagined vampire clergy. In that context, the invidious associations become slanderously accusatory, especially where some extremist somewhere can be found to characterise the Christian faith and its leadership as vampires, hunting blood money and profiting from war, protecting war criminals and promot5ing genocide. At no point do we ever see a sound counterbalance, something that would give a fair view. On the next level, the same lyrics and images appeal to the lunatic fringe on the other side of the wedge, who now feel justified in smearing and dismissing the demonised. And, indeed, the haunting lines call out to the demented, to act out the burning images seen. Something that is well known from all too many cases in point. (Do you remember how for instance there was pretended high dudgeon about the use of the fairly common verbal image of targetting, once a lunatic acting if I recall right, on a twisted notion on grammar, had shot up a meeting of a Congresswoman in Arizona? Take that and now ask what is the effect of presenting the clergy as vampires seeking blood and blood money, coddling and protecting war criminals and promoting genocide, then superpose the image of burning religious houses. Enter, stage, left, the lunatic fringe, with the lines echoing in their heads, love the way they burn . . . [See what I mean about destructive layered meanings and appeals?]) To point this sort of thing out, I am tagged a hypocrite or a liar or a libeller, etc etc. Or at minimum, as too stupid to see what it "really" means. Sorry, what it really means is so plain that it cannot be whitewashed. So, plainly, we are at a watershed moment in the life of this blog. Dr Liddle, I appeal to you as a responsible and educated person. Please, please, please, look again at what is really going on. Ask yourself, what you are enabling. As for others, who seem only too eager to try to smear by trotting out ill-founded turnabout rhetoric talking points, I will only say that such are the living proof of the concerns I have laid out. Onlookers, next time such come by with the intent to manipulate moral sensibilities, ask them to ground moral feelings and assertions on the grounding IS of their worldview, so that we can see on what basis they appeal to OUGHT. Let the silence in the thread above tell us the truth: they have no foundation for OUGHT, they only are able to try to manipulate perceptions and feelings. Which is exactly what Plato warned against 2350 years ago, with the memory of the havoc wreaked by Alcibiades and co indelibly etched in his memory. If we refuse to learn from grim history ancient and within living memory, who but ourselves will be to blame when we see our communities reliving some of the worst chapters of history? But then, one of the saddest lessons of history, is that, too often, we refuse to learn from it. Let us not make that avoidable blunder yet again. I have but little doubt,t hat we will be treated to further rounds of turnabout talking points, so I simply ask you to look and see if the fundamental issues are being soundly addressed, on warrant. Or, is it that the tactic of invidious association and the further tactic of red herrings, led away to ad hominemn soaked strawmen set alight through the destructive power of rhetoric, will again be repeated. An excellent test is, can we find the objectors clearly acknowledging the inexcusable irresponsibility of and wrong done by Aiden? If not, then we know just what we are dealing with. Good day GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{February 1, 2012
February
02
Feb
1
01
2012
01:56 AM
1
01
56
AM
PDT}

Another full day has passed, and neither Gil nor kairosfocus has retracted the false accusation against Aiden:
5.1.1 champignon January 31, 2012 at 12:07 am kairosfocus wrote:
Gil: a serious and sobering point, given the above. I note that we see no serious response on your expose of promotion of synagogue and church burning. KF
Gil, kairosfocus, You have falsely accused Aiden of promoting synagogue and church burning. When will you retract your irresponsible accusation?
champignon_{January 31, 2012
January
01
Jan
31
31
2012
11:24 PM
11
11
24
PM
PDT}

kairosfocus hypocritically complains about purported quotemining:
Why don’t you contrast say how I have cited and annotated Lewontin saying what he says with say how various fever swamp sites are trying to snip bits and pieces from what I have said out of context to paint a willfully false picture, the better to demonise and ridicule. (Not to mention to paint targets on my back and those of my family.) The pattern of poison-tongued, spitefully slanderous and obviously hateful village atheistical behaviour that has played out in the fever swamps especially in recent months leaves me disgusted, and it is rapidly driving me to the conclusion that Alcibiades has risen and stalks among us as a latterday vampire spreading his venom in those fever swamps. ...Do you seriously think that those who act like that or tolerate and excuse or enable such behaviour can safely be trusted with any more serious responsibilities, given how blatantly they abuse the little bit of power given them by web forums?
Motes and beams, KF. I repeat my question:
kairosfocus wrote:
Gil: a serious and sobering point, given the above. I note that we see no serious response on your expose of promotion of synagogue and church burning. KF
Gil, kairosfocus, You have falsely accused Aiden of promoting synagogue and church burning. When will you retract your irresponsible accusation?
champignon_{January 31, 2012
January
01
Jan
31
31
2012
12:31 PM
12
12
31
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply