And the presence of the police didn't deter the mass murderer, either.What in the heck is your point?
As an aside, I couldn't help but think of you, and all progressives, with your promiscuous slinging of terms like "gun-nuts", "racists", "homophobes", etc when I read this:And yet [Trump] stands. This election must be about something else.It is a reckoning, a final settling of accounts and grievances going way back. This isn’t about Republicans versus Democrats. It’s the gunfight at the OK Corral, between the Earps and the Clantons. It’s a street fight about what have become irreconcilable views of America.Undeniably, economic anxiety over flatlined incomes and the sense of economic loss, blamed variously on globalization or immigrants, explains a lot in this election. But not all of it. A Trump doesn’t rise without stronger forces in play.That force has been described, including by me, as the revolt of the politically incorrect. PC, though, is just the symptom of a more virulent social disease.The U.S. has been through culture wars before, as with the religious right in the 1980s and ’90s. Or the smart set in the 1920s. The country, ever resilient, eventually adjusts and moves on.Political correctness added something new to the cultural divide: moral condescension.What has really “angered” so many more millions who now feel drawn into the Trump camp isn’t just PC itself but that its proponents show such relentless moral contempt and superiority toward everyone else. People in America can take a lot, but not that. Marx would have a field day with how progressivism’s cultural elites have reordered social classes between the right-minded and everyone else.Despite years of winning Supreme Court assent to their views, the left insists that the other side must remain on the moral hook. On race, sex or the environment the moralistic left seems to think it can keep the population incarcerated forever on vague, unproven charges of cultural guilt. For what?In nearly eight years of presidential speeches, Barack Obama, by explicit choice, has come to embody the holier-than-thou idea of showing secular moral contempt for those who disagree with him.As his inheritor, Hillary Clinton will bear the brunt of an energized Trumpen proletariat that suddenly finds moral demotion as something they no longer have to bear. That the mercurial Donald Trump has occupied both sides of this conflict and then some is, after all these years, beside the point. He has you pegged, and also why you and your ilk can't figure out Brexit, either.
I heard a fragment on the radio yesterday suggesting that half of voters are anti-immigrant and pro SSI/Medicare, and neither party represents that desire. Well, maybe, but Ockham says racism explains Trump most easily.Brexit as well.Anybody who thinks Obama has often -- or ever -- displayed moral contempt is part of the 'Obama is a racist' fantasy. The president who constantly expressed moral contempt was Reagan, who claimed no one could be moral unless he believed in god. Besides being demonstrably wrong, that was contemptuous, but I don't recall your ever calling him out for it.
Anybody who thinks Obama has often -- or ever ... So I guess Obama never used the term "bitter clingers", did he?And that isn't the only time reality bites credulous progs like you.The president who constantly expressed moral contempt was Reagan, who claimed no one could be moral unless he believed in god."I'm calling you out on it. I think that is utter bullshit. (Reminds me of the bullshit you shoveled in accusing Bush of having said Operation Iraqi Freedom would pay for itself. When challenged, you scarpered. I'm betting you will scarper here, too.)Well, maybe, but Ockham says racism explains Trump most easily.In the sense that Ockham says Harry uses racism to explain trump, because Harry has exactly one tool: a hammer with "racism" painted on it.Brexit as well.Perfect example of the limitless contempt you have for those who disagree with your self-acknowledged moral superiority. You can't be fussed to learn anything about what was actually going on.====Still trying to figure out the point of this post. Still trying to figure out how it is you don't bother to update a post based upon false pretenses.
Brexit as well.Wrong.Courtesy of the most racist paper in the US, the NYT. (Pro-tip: Ockham's razor doesn't mean what you think it does.)
That's it? That's what has you exercised? I note two things here: you do not understand the meaning of "contempt", nor the concept of "demonstrably wrong".Now that you have provided the quote (would it have killed you to do that from the outset?), I suppose you expect me to call him out for it.I would, if I could find any reason. He believes what he said to be true. He didn't demonize anyone who disagrees (unlike all progressives all the time). There was no attempt to impose his beliefs upon anyone else.Indeed, it is telling that his reliance upon something more grounded than progressive moral relativism comes across to you as contemptuous. And it isn't telling anything good.BTW, what's the point of this post?And can we take it as settled that Home of the Free is yet another addition to Harry's Big Bag o' Bollocks?
There you go again. I provide the quote and you weasel around.Here's another:And the frustrating thing for the great majority of Americans who support and understand the special importance of religion in the national life—the frustrating thing is that those who are attacking religion claim they are doing it in the name of tolerance, freedom, and open-mindedness. Question: Isn’t the real truth that they are intolerant of religion? They refuse to tolerate its importance in our lives. […] So, I submit to you that those who claim to be fighting for tolerance on this issue may not be tolerant at all.He was, in that speech, advocating forced denominational prayer.
There you go again. I provide the quote and you weasel around.No, weaseling around is when the goal posts shift to another time zone and become a basketball hoop.Weaseling around is failing to explain a post based on false pretenses.Weaseling around is still failing to provide a link to a survey, or providing the ongoing impression that you are completely immune to contradictory evidence. Weaseling around is failing to acknowledge when you have typed howlers, or explaining the self defeating "logic" underlying this post.Etc.I should have, but forgot to, acknowledge that my charge of "bullshit" was wrong. I should have checked for myself first, which would have saved me the bother of apologizing now.However, the rest of my response was, unlike what you nearly universally produce, exactly on point. While the quote certainly exists, you characterization of it is tendentious, and abuses both words and concepts.What is particularly telling is that opinion that runs counter to your own religious beliefs is ipso facto evil. Reagan conveyed a point that is arguably true as both a matter of logic (c.f. incompleteness theorem), and human nature. It most certainly has not been disproven. NB: your thoughts aren't proof of anything merely because they are in your head.And certainly there is evidence on his side. Indefensible moral relativism yields more than 600,000 murders of convenience per year. Disregard of Biblical injunctions against sexual incontinence has killed more than 600,000 people. Your arrogance is disgusting.And the frustrating thing for the great majority of Americans who support and understand the special importance of religion in the national life … " The unwarranted moral preening, virtue signaling, and endless nastiness of the MAL — all of which you embody — is exactly why you don't get Brexit. You, like all other progressives, slap some defamatory label on disagreement.Then stop thinking. (Note: question begging. Assumes without proof thinking had started in the first place.)He was, in that speech, advocating forced denominational prayer. Forced? Really? Why don't you do us a favor and provide what he actually said? After all, your characterizations of what others have said has so often proved to be confused where it isn't wholly invented.
I guess you missed the part where Reagan characterized Americans who favor equal rights for all as "attacking religion."While RtO often ridicules religion and points out how stupid its noisier adherents are, RtO supports the same rights for religious people as for irreligious people. Reagan did not.
You are right, I missed that part. So why not take the repeated hint and quote exactly what he said, instead of what you think he said.
I guess you missed the part where Reagan characterized Americans who favor equal rights for all as "attacking religion."If you call that a quote, then you must have been a horrible journalist, even by the abysmal standards of the "profession".No. The whole passage. That way we can see if your characterization is even remotely accurate.
I found what I was remembering. He said the same thing numerous times, but this is te clearest (and stupidest) version:The truth is, politics and morality are inseparable. And as morality's foundation is religion, religion and politics are necessarily related. We need religion as a guide. We need it because we are imperfect, and our government needs the church because only those humble enough to admit they're sinners can bring to democracy the tolerance it requires in order to survive.His mentioning tolerance and religion in the same breath proves how psychotic he was
No, your failure to see your own religious fanaticism denies to anyone else who disagrees with you any possibility of a principled argument.To term words as mild as these as psychotic is a sure sign your thinking is off the rails. In particular, you completely fail to understand the logical and epistemological pitfalls that await those think they can assert an ungrounded morality.Which proves your overweening arrogance.He was, in that speech, advocating forced denominational prayer.No, he wasn't. Not even close, absent magical reading skills that include words nowhere near the script.--- BTW, still waiting for what the heck the point of this post is, and an explanation of that other post that was based upon completely false pretenses.I predict more weaseling.
http://www.gty.org/resources/print/blog/B151104'The god of religious tolerance is not the God of the Bible. It is Satan who doesn’t care what we believe—or how sincerely we believe it—as long as we don’t believe God’s Word. To portray God as tolerant of all forms of worship is to deny the God of Scripture. After all, this was His first commandment: “I am the Lord your God. . . . You shall have no other gods before Me” (Exodus 20:2–3). If we believe the Bible, we cannot concede that other religions might be true as well.'Like I say, combining Christianity and tolerance is psychotic (which means untethered from reality). I was going to reference today's unhinged sermon from Wretchard, which I heard on radio. And, as I recall, that is a voice that gets respect on your blog. But the citation here suffices, and then some.BTW, this -- 'you completely fail to understand the logical and epistemological pitfalls that await those think they can assert an ungrounded morality' -- is a concise statement of the Reagan position you are denying Reagan asserted.This exchange is becoming comical (which is a good thing), but to assert that Reagan was not advocating forced denominational prayer is howlingly funny. Really? You think his audience was going to sit still for the schools' forced Inshallah? Not bloody likely
Like I say, combining Christianity and tolerance is psychotic ...Considering what regimes aggressively eschewing religion have gotten up to, you are picking a singularly odd hill to attack. Newsflash: just because you like saying something does not make it true. Particularly when your understanding is so ideologically handicapped. Among other obvious points you fail to take on board, he is talking about a religious belief completely confined to the spiritual realm, and tags it with a statement of the glaringly obvious.So what? I know you are no fan of reality contradicting your narrative, but the most tolerant societies are Christian, and Christians are far, far more tolerant, and much less hate filled than the left. See for example just about every college campus. Or warmenists attempts to demonize opponents, even to the extent of subverting the First Amendment. Or forcing some people to engage in acts they find morally repugnant while congratulaing others, bien pensants, for doing exactly the same thing.And, as I recall, that is a voice that gets respect on your blog.Then it should be easy enough to link to.This exchange is becoming comical (which is a good thing), but to assert that Reagan was not advocating forced denominational prayer is howlingly funny. I insist that until you can provide proof of that, then you are delusional.Or full of crap.Since reality is easy enough to find, I'm going with full of crap.
Reagan sez: 'our government needs the church'Skipper sez:'he is talking about a religious belief completely confined to the spiritual realm'I think Reagan was a racist idiot. I think his remarks are piffle. But I at least stopped to read what he said. You oughta try that too.
I read the entire speech.In which there isn't the tiniest hint anywhere of forced denominational prayer.And, given your utter ineptitude when it comes to the word "racist", your thoughts on the matter are indicative of precisely nothing except a dedication to the odious.BTW -- you should consider, if you can, the difference between objective and subjective truth.For instance, how many people would be alive today had gays felt compelled towards sexual continence?
Toleration:http://theoswatch.com/kentucky-judge-refuses-to-marry-atheists-because-i-cant-do-ceremonies-if-god-not-present/?fb_ref=DefaultQuery: Reagan gets his way on forced prayer and a Hindu proposes to lead the prayer (not that a Hindu would be likely to do so). How many of the people in Reagan's audience would have stood still for that?We both know the answer is 0.
Query: Reagan gets his way on forced prayer ... Query: RtO never trafficked in bollocks -- asserting that for which there is exactly zero evidence, in this case -- how many RtO posts and comments vanish?Query: how many queries are required of RtO before getting an answer as to why this post shot itself in the foot, or why the post on Citizens United is based on completely false pretenses, before answers are forthcoming?
Apparently infinite queries.Clearly, journalists hiss and spit at factual accuracy.Just as clearly, it is time to add Home of the Free to Harry's Already Big and Ever Expanding Big Bag o' Bollocks.