Carrol
Joseph Catron wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 2:51 PM, Dennis Claxton <ddclaxton at earthlink.net>wrote:
>
> 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."
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk