However: I admit that none of us is Rupert Murdoch, but we are in a much stronger position with respect to the public than most. (E.g., I wouldn't know much about Israel-Palestine where it not for Norman Finkelstein, yet, despite his efficacy as a propagandist, I don't think he has any particular God-given advantage.) In fact, many on this list appear to have classrooms full of students to preach to.
With respect the the reverend's alleged "poor taste", I can't find much evidence that secular institutions are in any meaningful sense superior, except perhaps in the limited sense one party may in particular instances be better to vote for than the other, to overtly religious ones--take a look at liberal universities and their regard for, say, freedom of thought, e.g. At this point, it's pretty much all rotten--seems we've got to start with what we have to work with.
On Mar 22, 2008, at 9:42 AM, Michael Smith wrote:
> On Saturday 22 March 2008 00:26:33 Peter Hart Ward wrote:
>> What's shameful is that none us are willing to stand up and publicly
>> defend him.
>
> What would that entail, exactly? Particularly for those of us who
> don't have a 'public.'
>
> As regards list communications, surely most people on this
> list figure he needs no defense (apart from his poor taste
> in beling religious at all, of course).
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>