I've found it's much harder to type with a baby on your lap than a cat. Coupled with a just plain awful Vikings season, I haven't been blogging much. I'm sure that won't change, even when I'm staying home with The Spinoff.
On the other hand, the Internet is so full of mockable idiocy.
Like Jim Hoft, who says President Obama made up dead muslims in an attack on a christian church in Egypt. Of course, what Obama actually said was there were muslims who were "victims" of the attack. Which, since 8 muslims were injured, is true, unless Hoft thinks you have to be killed by a bomb to be a victim of it.
It takes 50 comments on Hoft's site before someone mentions that muslims may possibly have been injured, mostly because everyone is busy calling Obama a muslim, a terrorist sympathiser and a "towelhead" (which makes no sense because even if he were a secret muslim, everyone knows Obama was born in Kenya, and they aren't necessarily known for towel wearing). Of course pointing out the injured muslims makes no difference to the folks in the comment section, because to them all muslims are terrorists and it's good if they get hurt.
As we all know, Yahweh is awesome because if you believe in him, you don't have to be bothered with pesky stuff like facts and science, as this Facebook believer so aptly demonstrates.She says, "Fact- if the earth was 10 ft closer to the sun we would all burn up and if it was 10 ft further we would freeze to death... God is amazing!" (Note: Nothing in that quote is a fact) Someone responds, rather politely explaining how the Earth's orbit actually varies by quite a lot more than 10 feet on a regular basis. So the original poster thanks the guy for correcting her mistake, right? Not quite. Instead, she comes back with, "Okay thats cool and alll but dont ever comment on my status telling me that i am wrong everrrr again. I didnt ask you did i? Answer: NO" How dare someone try and correct her mistake! If she says god did something, then none of your liberal "scientific knowledge" and "facts" are needed, mister. Go back to your ivory tower!
I keep hearing right-wingers talk of anti-Christian bigotry that is rampant in America. If correcting statements that are just plain wrong is anti-Christian bigotry, then I can see where they're coming from.
And with that, I have a baby to feed. Good Night, reader.
Your Facts-Schmacts leader.
21 comments:
Hmm. You take the misconception of one less than bright person on face book and extrapolate it in general to "right-wingers talk of anti-Christian bigotry".
There's a word for that. I'm trying to remember. I think it starts with "B". Maybe "H". I'll have to mull it over.
Please do mull.
Keep in mind that this isn't a singular event, just another example of a trend of people who want to ignore science because it doesn't agree with someones idea of a god.
Done mulling, Stoo. Your thought processes are two-dimensional. I'll go with "B". I don't think you're up to "H".
"B" or "H?"
Anyone?
Bigot
Hypocrite
Like I said, I don't think you are up to the latter (that's the second one).
You have to love it when a bigot accuses others of bigotry. The irony is ripe.
Ah-ha; I'm a bigot because I'm not smart enough to be a hypocrite. Well played.
I'll bite - What did I say that was either bigoted, or, if maybe I'm smarter than you think, hypocritical.
Also, where did I accuse anyone of bigotry?
If correcting statements that are just plain wrong is anti-Christian bigotry, then I can see where they're coming from.
When you applied the statement of one individual to an entire group you stepped into bigotry writ large. And no, I don't think you are smarter than I think you are.
When you applied the statement of one individual to an entire group you stepped into bigotry writ large.
You never call this bigotry at SiTD, when Mitch and others do this with liberal bloggers.
Def: Bigot: one who regards or treats the members of a group with hatred and intolerance
My statement could be considered prejudicial, perhaps, but I certainly didn't show any hatred. I would have to show hatred to at least 90% of my friends and 100% of my family for this to be the case.
Except
if: on condition that
The correct response would be that I am mistaken in my suggested condition. Perhaps a counter of some actual anti-christian bigotry would have been helpful.
I used an example of a trend I've seen, where being told that science disagrees with religion is equated with bigotry.
There are clearly people who hate christians. I just don't see it being a widespread issue in a country where 3/4 of the people are chrsitians. Putting "God is not great" on a bus ad isn't my idea of dangerous speech.
As a christian, perhaps you are being kept down in your life. You should share this experience, as it may help me change my mind.
Oh come on dude.
As we all know, Yahweh is awesome because if you believe in him, you don't have to be bothered with pesky stuff like facts and science.
You are a bigot. Embrace your true nature. Pretend you're Bill Maher.
Just don't claim to be objective. You pushed that boat off the dock.
Maybe it's just a "trend I've seen". At least you have the definition of bigot. Try some introspection.
Oh come on dude.
I make fun of people for having what I believe are dumb beliefs. I don't hate them. I don't think they are bad people. I don't see them as "mongrels," or "thugs," or "hamsters" or "demonrats."
I didn't claim to be objective when it comes to religious beliefs. I think religious belief is foolish. I feel the same way about watching "Dancing With the Stars" and golf. Am I bigoted against golfers and reality TV viewers?
Pretend I'm Bill Maher? That's a serious insult. Bill Maher is a germ theory denier and an anti-Vaxer, which makes him far more dangerous than some person who doesn't understand the orbit of the Earth.
I get you think I'm a bigot. Considering the people you haven't bothered to take this amount of time to call out on bigoted statements, I'm comfortable with your disdain.
DS
Happy New Year back at you.
I have also seen those who believe that if their version of Christianity - say, the most literal possible interpretation of the Bible - disagrees with modern science, then it is correct to disregard the science as in error for disagreement with the Bible. Similar forced conformity of science to the Koran correlates with the decline of Moslem power.
To disbelieve science for religious reasons is stupid. And it is far too common, particularly from the religious right.
Trying to force the teaching of creationism or intelligent design, which are bad science, is an example. Or to alter the content of science text books to reflect religious views rather than good science.
Denying the correct age of the earth would be another example.
Trying to force the teaching of abstinence only sex education would be another, where inaccurate medical facts are presented, especially relating to the subjects of abortion, or contraception. Which is done pretty much exclusively to promote the religious views of the right - without notable success in having people either be abstinent, or make smarter safer decisions about sex.
DS -
A thought; you might want to look into getting one of those baby slings that works like a slightly more vertical hammock, hanging the baby in front of your chest. It permits plenty of face to face contact with the spinoff, while leaving both hands free for typing replies to Kermit. Or ...new posts about the adorable things the spin off is doing.
Doggie, trading science for faith is equally stupid, and it's far too common, particularly from the religious left.
Stoo likes to "make fun of people for having what I believe are dumb beliefs". Of course, his own beliefs are absolutely subjective, but why let facts interfere with bigotry?
An especially happy new year to you Kermit!
I of course don't speak for DS on this, but I suspect he would agree... there is a place for faith, which by definition is belief without factual proof. There is a completely different place for science, relying on factual evidence. I agree with Stooge that it is purest folly to confuse where those two are appropriate, respectively. That appears to me to be what he was doing in this post - poking fun at those who confuse the appropriate roles of science and religion - and get a lot wrong ABOUT BOTH in the process.
Which is why I recently wrote several posts related to faith, such as the Star of Bethlehem astronomy post, and the significance of the translation of the Revelation of the Magi ancient text, and a little further back, one on the extraordinary insight and spiritual wisdom of the Chief Rabbi of the UK, Baron Sir Jonathatn Sacks when he spoke about the role of religion in modern life - including politics.
I don't feel I've made ANY tradeoff between my respect for facts and science, and my spiritual belief. They coexist quite comfortably for me.
I'm willing to change my beliefs when faced with solid evidence against them. I don't consider being corrected when I'm wrong bigotry.
there is a place for faith, which by definition is belief without factual proof.
Sure, but there's not a place for belief in things that we know not be true. Or more to the point, there's not a place in public policy for things we know not to be true.
Mocking people who believe in Bigfoot, alien crashes in Roswell or that a god created the Earth in some perfect form 10,000 years ago is just a hobby.
When solid evidence of any of those things arises, I'll stop making fun of them. In the meantime, you can make fun of my subjective beliefs when they pop up. I promise I won't call you a bigot.
Using your facebook person's example, they don't seem all that dedicated to the precepts of their avowed faith - like do unto others as you would have them do to you, turn the other cheek, love your neighbors as you love yourself, or as you love God - in the hissy fit response to an accurate correction; nor do they seem to appreciate the irony that God actually appears greater than they initially were aware, prssuming God is actively responsible for the movement of the earth not only the creative origin.
Which made your example doubly fun, or maybe triply fun (and appropriate).
You might appreciate something, in this context, that I just wrote about how conservatives differ from not-conservatives, according to an MRI brain scan study done in the UK of people's amygdala, a primitive brain center of certain emotions (notably fear and hostility). It showed a noticeable difference by political view point. I cross referenced that with other neuroscience studies, an area of psychology that analyes right wing political ideology adherents, and religion. Long,but kind of fun.
Bill O'Reilly; "One less than bright person."
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/370183/january-06-2011/bill-o-reilly-proves-god-s-existence---neil-degrasse-tyson
I saw that segment on Colbert from last night; it was hilarious, although not as rip roaring funny as Jon Stewart's riffs on Glenn Beck.
What a laugh that it is O'Reilly who will be doing the traditional interview apparently, of President Obama, because Fox News is carrying the Superbowl this year - and Obama does an interview with the superbowl carrying network every year. Or will that be pre-Stupidbowl interview this time.
I learned the science of the tides back in elementary school, so why didn't Bill-O? Were his textbooks perhaps dictated by those same Texas school committees that want to put creationism and other silliness in textbooks, perhaps?
Jesus Christ, Kermit.
There is no such thing as bigotry against stupid.
Cute dalmation puppy icon, Spot.
I'm known as 'dog gone' for a reason, LOL!
There is no such thing as bigotry against stupid.
Video at 6! Pffft.
I used an example of a trend I've seen
Yeah, I see a lot of trends too...
Post a Comment