Born in 1948, I have lived my entire life in America’s high imperial moment. During this epoch of stupendous wealth and power, we have managed to ruin our greatest cities, throw away our small towns, and impose over the countryside a joyless junk habitat which we can no longer afford to support. Indulging in a fetish of commercialized individualism, we did away with the public realm, and with nothing left but private life in our private homes and private cars, we wonder what happened to the spirit of community. We created a landscape of scary places and became a nation of scary people.
(James Howard Kunstler, in the conclusion of The Geography of Nowhere: The Rise and Decline of America’s Man-made Landscape)
Dang! Slacktivist ticked me off again. And since the whole point of reading him is to be challenged, “ticked off” seems to require explanation.
Slacktivist, after quoting Ezra, Chapter 10:
Does this mean “the Bible condemns interracial marriage”?
It does if you’re Dennis Prager, or if you’re a white evangelical, or if you’re any other so-called “conservative” reader of the Bible who insists on treating the Bible the way they do.
For these folks, “What does the Bible say about X?” is answered by searching out the passages that mention X and citing each of them as an authoritative, definitive statement answering that question. You know — clobber texts.
(For Team Jonah, the Bible condemns interracial marriage)
So: what’s wrong with that? Let me not count the ways, lest I become tedious, but just focus on one: Slactivist is telling Prager us that Prager doesn’t believe what Prager just said Prager believes:
The link here is to WorldNet Daily, so be warned, but here’s conservative columnist Dennis Prager saying something that isn’t true:
No religion practiced in America – indeed, no world religion – has ever banned interracial marriage.
To prove that Prager doesn’t believe what he just said he believes, Slactivist caricatures a hermeneutic, imputes it oddly to Prager (who is Jewish, not Evangelical), and then instructs us on the eventuality Prager’s imputed hermeneutical method: Prager’s interpretation leads him to oppose interracial marriage, precisely what he just said no religion practiced in America does – and which Slacktivist concedes is not the surface meaning of Ezra.
In other words, pay no attention to the lying crypto-Evangelical racist Jew; he can’t have anything worth saying.
Whatever could prompt Slacktivist to say something so arrogant, dishonest and uncharitable? Hmmm. You don’t suppose he disagreed with Prager’s main point, do you? Pay no attention to the lying, uncharitable, diversionary Slacktivist; he’s trying to distract you from the shenanigans of America’s new progressive enforcers.
I’ve concluded that the signal-to-noise ratio of the Slacktivist is about 1/10. I don’t have the time to wade through 9 parts drek for one part thin gruel. For all his high moral dudgeon, he can be remarkably crass and disonest.
He’s gone from the sidebar. He’s gone from my RSS feeder. This will be the last time I’m likely to be dissecting one of his columns unless someone else calls a column to my attention.
Can anyone recommend a progressive Christian blogger who’s honest and intelligent? Honest and intelligent comments (which may require moderation, as Rod Dreher moderates comments to his conservative blog) would be a bonus.
Sometimes I think that certain scientific studies are surreptitiously commissioned to divert attention from “the real issue,” too. Take GMOs, for instance.
We now hear regularly that multiple scientific studies have shown that genetically modified crops produce food no more dangerous than standard crops. Well, whatever.
My main concern never was that it was dangerous to ingest GMOs. Rather, I’m concerned at Monsanto and a few others patenting our food, suing farmers who buck them, and eventually becoming monopolists or oligopolists over our food.
Study that away, Monsaton.
Or maybe instead of scientifically studying it away, they should have Politifact “fact-check” it away. Monsaton can solemnly declare that “if you like your food, you can keep it,” and it should be rated “true,” despite the doubters, because in the world of Politifact, sincerity is a “fact” for which it can vouch as making Truth.
Of course, a few years later “if you like your food, you can keep it” could be rated Lie-of-the-Year by Politifact. They’d be quite insouciant about it.
Things like that have happened. Like this week.
“If the calculus is, ‘Do I spend two hours going to church Sunday morning or do I get to watch college basketball Sunday afternoon?’ If he had to choose between the two, and knowing Obama, he’d probably choose college basketball.”
He added, with a laugh, “And that’s a calculation many Americans make on a weekly basis.”
(As the Obamas Celebrate Christmas, Rituals of Faith Become Less Visible)
Yup. And Church wins every time at my house. But then, we don’t think we’re smarter than God.
* * * * *
“The remarks made in this essay do not represent scholarly research. They are intended as topical stimulations for conversation among intelligent and informed people.” (Gerhart Niemeyer)
Tipsy Teetotaler ن 