I don't get all this handwringing about dissing teabaggers or religion.
>
I'm not handwringing; I'm calling Michael Parenti a horse's ass. There's a very distinct difference.
But since I neglected to do so before, let me articulate a few of the ways in which this review leads me to believe that he's a horse's ass:
1. He makes it a point to critique a text from the most obtuse
perspective possible. We've pretty much talked this one to death, so I'll
merely point out that if he instead taken this approach to *Beowulf*, or
*The Brothers Karamazov*, he would have been laughed out of polite
society.
2. He stands on the shoulders of midgets - and samples generously from
their works. Personally, I liked his block quote better when it was in a
Dawkins speech (http://bit.ly/ct7aQw). I wouldn't be surprised if
Hitchens did a better job with his chapter on Mother Theresa, either.
3. Five minutes as a New Atheist and he's already engaging in neocon
revisionism. "[T]he Islamists can already boast of existing bona fide
theocracies such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan (under the Taliban)..." Oh, really now? I'm pretty damn sure the "Islamic" in "Islamic Republic
of Afghanistan" means something (http://bit.ly/c11wz5).
4. He makes a cottage industry out of the obvious. "[W]hen people survive
a danger, they proclaim that their prayers have been answered." My, what an
original observation! And not only that, but Pope John Paul II was an
anti-Communist, televangelists are often corrupt, and cult leaders tend to
be egomaniacs! Elich writes that the section on Tibet (which wasn't an
idyllic paradise!) "alone is worth the price of the book." I should hope
so, as it sounds like the only part that might tell anyone anything that
wasn't patently obvious already.
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 3:09 PM, Dennis Claxton <ddclaxton at earthlink.net>wrote:
Any literate person is qualified to comment on the bible, just as that
> person would be qualified to comment on film noir or Louis Armstrong record.
Sure, and if that person is obviously talking misinformed rubbish (as is eminently possible in either case), the rest of us are qualified to mock him or her for it.
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 3:26 PM, Dwayne Monroe <dwayne.monroe at gmail.com>wrote:
Then as now, the discussion divides
> into two camps: people who think the book non-erotically spanks all
> the right asses and the opposing camp, who think we should be nicer to
> believers (after all, Bishop Such and Much, Rabbi Look Out and Rev.
> How's Yer Father came out against this or that, which we like, etc).
I think you're confusing *an* opposing camp with *the* opposing camp. That certainly isn't what Carl, Chris, or I have been saying.
-- "Hige sceal þe heardra, heorte þe cenre, mod sceal þe mare, þe ure mægen lytlað."