Quantcast

«

»

Jul 10 2012

Why Does Anyone Take SE Cupp Seriously?

DarkSyd called my attention to this video of S.E. Cupp on her new MSNBC show (she’s one of many hosts that rotate), where she engages in mostly inane blather about religion. And it just makes me ask, once again, why anyone takes her seriously? What I’ve heard her say ranges from the true-but-utterly-obvious-and-trite to the downright asinine.

She claims to be an atheist but she spends most of her time bashing atheists. Now that would be fine if her criticisms were rational — after all, there are lots of atheists whose ideas and behavior deserve criticism, as there are such people in any sizable group — but they’re not. Instead, she goes on and on about how she wishes she could be a religious person and wishes she could have faith, but she wants nothing to do with those “intolerant” and “militant” atheists.

But she shows immediately that she has no idea what intolerance means. In her very first question to her guest, who edited a book that includes Christians, Jews and Muslims talking about their common ground, she says that since religious faiths make exclusive truth claims, one has to be intolerant in order to believe in any of them because they have to take the position that they’re right and someone else is wrong. But this has nothing to do with intolerance. Saying you’re right and another person is wrong is not intolerant; if it was, she would be intolerant every time she engages in an argument of any kind. And that’s just plain stupid (yes, I’m right and she’s wrong).

To make matters worse, later in the clip she declares, with great emphasis, “I would never vote for an atheist president, ever. Never.” Her reason is simply moronic.

I like that there’s a check, okay, that there’s a person in the office who doesn’t think he’s bigger than the state, he doesn’t think that he’s bigger than sort of esoteric…I like religion being a check and knowing that my president goes home every night addressing someone above him and not thinking all the power resides right here.

Seriously? That bunch of anti-atheist idiocy from someone who claims to be an atheist? She’s a complete buffoon.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

55 comments

1 ping

Skip to comment form

  1. 1
    thalwen

    I’ve always found her extremely irritating. She has that rabid pit bull in lipstick vibe about her.

    I like religion being a check and knowing that my president goes home every night addressing someone above him and not thinking all the power resides right here.

    I like a president that doesn’t think that a work of fiction with some rather evil parts has more validity than actual reality and the will of the people, but that’s my crazy atheist side talking.

  2. 2
    Illuminata, Genie in the Beer Bottle

    repeating what I said at Singham’s blog about this.

    I saw her once on Maddow’s show. She aped being the stereotypical “bimbo” throughout the entire piece. It was like she cared way more about being “cute” than being a journalist/pundit/wev.

    It’s was so embarassing. But, I’m willing to bet she says shit like this because she has to. If you’re going to suck the teat of corporate media, your integrity is the price.

  3. 3
    matthewgreenberg

    http://www.atheistnexus.org/forum/topics/an-atheist-who-doesn-t-think-an-atheist-should-be-president

    i’ve written about this in the above link. take a look if you want my analysis (and people’s comments).

    at first i felt bad openly wondering if someone’s “beliefs” are true. i don’t feel that way any more. there is no way in hell that S.E. Cupp is an Atheist.

  4. 4
    Raging Bee

    If she was really an atheist, the radical right would have nothing to do with her. There’s no way an atheist would get the billing she gets. So is she really an atheist? Or is she just pretending to be an atheist, then deliberately acting to reinforce as many old negative stereotypes of atheists as she can?

    Seriously, she’s touching all the bases on the stereotype field: envying religious people their certainty and happiness, thinking only religious people have a moral anchor, pretending to be shocked at the “intolerance” of those nasty “militant” atheists…I’m betting in the next few years she’ll be making a very public conversion to whatever brand of Christianity she thinks will make her most popular (or the one that bribes her the most). Then she’ll go on to preach about how horrible those atheists really are, based on her own experience!

    The dumber she looks as an “atheist,” the smarter she’ll look when she gets “saved.” That’s why she’s not even trying to echo any atheist arguments that actually make sense, despite the fact that such arguments are old and well-known: that would blow the whole narrative.

  5. 5
    matthewgreenberg

    “I’m betting in the next few years she’ll be making a very public conversion to whatever brand of Christianity she thinks will make her most popular…”

    agreed. i think it may even happen soon. she is getting close. there is no doubt in my mind.

  6. 6
    Raging Bee

    I saw her once on Maddow’s show. She aped being the stereotypical “bimbo” throughout the entire piece.

    That’s part of the “salvation” narrative: a whore lost in lust and iniquity, seeking approval through sex and getting only miserable empty relationships, until she found the One True Path and gave up those wicked ways!

  7. 7
    Raging Bee

    Here’s another prediction: her fellow wingnuts aren’t ostracizing her, as they’d ostracize a real atheist, because they know it’s all an act. But when she “sees the light,” they’ll all say they stuck by her out of their Christian love, because Jesus told them he had plans for her.

  8. 8
    d cwilson

    Cupp got her start on Fox, where she would often appear on O’Reilly’s show to explain why atheists should always meekly concede that Christians are right. She’s an atheist in much the same way that Alan Combs or that drunkard on The Five are liberals: Just there to remind wingnuts that they’re always right.

    Oddly, she doesn’t seem to understand that now that she works for MSNBC, she isn’t required to kiss the every rightwing ass in America.

  9. 9
    screechymonkey

    “If she was really an atheist, the radical right would have nothing to do with her.”

    I disagree with that part. Everyone loves to be able to point to someone who is supposedly on the other side but who does nothing but criticize “their own.” I think it was Dave Weigel at Slate who had a good post a month or two ago about how long some people have been able to peddle a shtick of being, e.g., a Democrat who constantly criticizes Democrats.

    But I agree that we should start a betting pool on her conversion date.

  10. 10
    Ing

    She has that rabid pit bull in lipstick vibe about her.

    Stop that. She’s just the same as Limbaugh or O’Reilly or all those other blow hards. Her sex has nothing to do with her awfulness.

    ——————————————

    It’s funny that Christians think atheists are immoral and devious and willing to pretend to be good just to cheat people…but when one comes along saying exactly what they want to hear they eat it up, not at all thinking that she could be cynically pandering to exploit them.

  11. 11
    otto67

    “I like religion being a check and knowing that my president goes home every night addressing someone above him and not thinking all the power resides right here.”

    The same irrational belief that keeps that persons power in ‘check’ also gives that person the rationalization that he/she is ‘rightous’ in their actions, it cuts both ways.

  12. 12
    Sastra

    In her very first question to her guest, who edited a book that includes Christians, Jews and Muslims talking about their common ground, she says that since religious faiths make exclusive truth claims, one has to be intolerant in order to believe in any of them because they have to take the position that they’re right and someone else is wrong. But this has nothing to do with intolerance. Saying you’re right and another person is wrong is not intolerant …

    This idea that it’s “intolerant” to say that people are wrong in religion is based on the belief that religion = identity. In a faith-based system, you don’t believe what you believe because you drew an objective conclusion from evidence available to all. Given a fair argument, you’d gladly change your mind. That’s reason, and it puts people on the same ground.

    Instead, you believe what you believe — you draw the conclusion you do — because you are NOT being objective. You are being the subjective you, at your best, passionately involved and eagerly “seeking” the spiritual answer that Those-Like-You look for and find … and Those-Who-Are-Not-Like-You do not. You leave off the common ground of inquiry and enter into a mythological narrative in which you are the small and humble hero. By being religious, you are expressing the deepest and most important aspect of who you are on your journey to the purpose of life.

    Within this framework, being wrong means that YOU are wrong. Not your conclusion. You, personally. I think that’s why there’s often this tacit or not so tacit pact among the religious to treat criticism like bigotry. As they see it, you’re saying that there’s only one right way to be a human being: they ought to be like you. Trying to change their view is an attack on their right to exist.

    What dangerous nonsense. And yet atheists like Cupp (and they are out there) grant the truth of this religious attitude toward belief as a deeply personal “choice” — and thereby crucify not just other atheists, but themselves. Because if one “chooses” to believe in God because they’re motivated by some sort of underlying essence, then the essential nature of the atheist is anti-God: against everything true, right, and good. All our rational arguments and reasons are stripped away as irrelevant.

    As tempting as it is to believe Raging Bee is correct (and he may be correct), I think the Christian admiration of Cupp isn’t based on their sense that she will convert and be of use — but based on her being of plenty of use as she is. She’s an atheist version of the “Uncle Tom,” granting Christians the arguments and assumptions and deference they rest on while conveniently appearing to be coming from the “other side.” She validates religion and apparently accepts the fact that she’s defective. Of course they love her. The tame, good atheist, who knows her place and doesn’t get all uppity.

  13. 13
    Raging Bee

    I think it was Dave Weigel at Slate who had a good post a month or two ago about how long some people have been able to peddle a shtick of being, e.g., a Democrat who constantly criticizes Democrats.

    That’s my point: SipEE Cupp is just doing a schtick, and everyone on the right knows it’s just a schtick, and that’s why they haven’t ostracised and trashed her like they routinely do to REAL atheists like Jessica Ahlquist (“evil little thing”) and Ed Brayton (“evil fat thing”).

    (Another part of her schtick will be that when she finally sees the light and embraces Jesus, she’ll insist that everyone who says Republicans are bigots are lying — she was an atheist, and they never mistreated her, so that proves Christians are more loving and moral than atheists.)

  14. 14
    Bronze Dog

    I like that there’s a check, okay, that there’s a person in the office who doesn’t think he’s bigger than the state, he doesn’t think that he’s bigger than sort of esoteric…I like religion being a check and knowing that my president goes home every night addressing someone above him and not thinking all the power resides right here.

    So, fear of a higher authoritarian power is the one and only thing that can check an authority? So, who keeps the highest authority in check? Turtles all the way up?

  15. 15
    Mr. Upright

    I like that there’s a check, okay, that there’s a person in the office who doesn’t think he’s bigger than the state, he doesn’t think that he’s bigger than sort of esoteric…I like religion being a check and knowing that my president goes home every night addressing someone above him and not thinking all the power resides right here.

    A President does not have to pretend there’s a god to realize he’s not “bigger than the state”. After all, he is the head of one part of the state, listed second in the Constitution.

    This “atheist” seems to be implying that religious belief is necessary for humility. I would say that belief in the Constitution should humble any President. Maybe it doesn’t in practice, but it should.

  16. 16
    thalwen

    @10 – I didn’t mean her appearance or sex. Like one of those people who pretends to talk like a normal civil person but has that obvious layer of hatred and contempt for humankind.

  17. 17
    roland72

    She seems to be an atheist who wishes she wasn’t. Well, OK, but that hardly seems typical…

  18. 18
    cactusren

    To add to the comments at 14 and 15:

    Another thing the Cupp seems to be forgetting is that the Constitution begins with “We the people”. Ultimately, the president, and Congress, and (less directly) the courts answer to the people they were elected to serve. They also answer to each other in a clever system of checks and balances. It’s almost as if the people who wrote the constitution set up the government so that no one person could gain too much power.

    But I suppose a middle school understanding of our government is too much to expect from a television pundit.

  19. 19
    screechymonkey

    Raging Bee @13: “That’s my point: SipEE Cupp is just doing a schtick, and everyone on the right knows it’s just a schtick, and that’s why they haven’t ostracised and trashed her like they routinely do to REAL atheists like Jessica Ahlquist (“evil little thing”) and Ed Brayton (“evil fat thing”).”

    I would say that only some on the right know it’s a schtick. Obviously the producers at Fox News and elsewhere, and the more sophisticated media consumers on the right know what’s going on. But the schtick must fool somebody, or else there’s no point in doing it, right?

    And I think it’s an important distinction, because otherwise you’re setting the bar too low for prejudice. Very few prejudiced people are so bigoted as to ostracize every single member of the minority group they dislike as a whole. Many atheist-hating righties will cheerfully grant S.E. Cupp an exemption from their hatred, the same way that many racist right-wingers will grant people like Herman Cain an exemption from their hatred.

    They don’t have to believe that S.E. Cupp isn’t a “real” atheist, it’s enough if they believe that she’s just not like those other atheists.

  20. 20
    cjtotalbro

    Her sex does have everything to do with her being on TV. Were she just a libertard atheist the best she could hope for would be some guest spots on Penn Jilette’s podcasts, but since she is also an attractive woman the media has latched onto her. I’m not saying being a female hack is somehow worse than being a male hack, but she is only on MSNBC as a cynical ploy to attract dipshit male teenager libertarians/conservatives.

    She is just the latest parasite to latch onto the wingnut gravy train. The pretty gal who likes guns, huntin’ n’ small gubment shtick got played out by Sarah Palin, so this moron decided to add that unique “atheist” twist.

  21. 21
    Randomfactor

    Another thing the Cupp seems to be forgetting is that the Constitution begins with “We the people”.

    We are the People of the United States of America. Thou shalt not have strange “gods” before Us.

  22. 22
    Anthony K

    I suspect there’s also an element of unchallenged illusory superiority in her self-hating atheist shtick. Her atheism (much like Limbaugh’s drug addiction, Bennett’s gambling addiction, almost every homophobic Republican ever’s latent homosexuality) is a minor lapse in her sense of self as an otherwise thoughtful and moral person. All those other atheists (drug addicts, gamblers, homosexuals, etc.) are simply unrepentant degenerates, though.

    It’s the conservative mantra: personal responsibility for everybody (except me)!

  23. 23
    jws1

    Holy shit! On that new show, “the cycle”, Ms. Cupp just now behaved exactly as you all have more or less described. She just led an interview of some author of a Christianist bullship tripe about being “lost in doubt and disillusionment, on a way to faith and hope”, and she did indeed express her desire to be persuaded to believe there is a god. Very milquetoasty.

    Does Brayton have inside knowledge about what cable shows are gonna talk about?

  24. 24
    Moggie

    I like that there’s a check, okay, that there’s a person in the office who doesn’t think he’s bigger than the state, he doesn’t think that he’s bigger than sort of esoteric…I like religion being a check and knowing that my president goes home every night addressing someone above him and not thinking all the power resides right here.

    To be fair, that probably sounded better in the original Persian.

  25. 25
    senor

    A Beck-and-Barton-loving born-again Assembly of God acquaintance of mine posted theblaze.com’s recap of that video on his Facebook feed, which described how reasoned and thoughtful her explanations were. So it would seem that Ms. Cupp’s pseudo-atheism is having its desired effect. I tried informing him that it’d make no sense for anyone in general to throw their own belief system under the bus like that, but I’m sure that was in vain.

  26. 26
    Illuminata, Genie in the Beer Bottle

    Cjtotalbro – I completely agree with that. The Wrong love to crow about how “hot” their women are, esp in comparison to left-leaning women, so yeah, Id bet dollars to donuts that her being cute – and, more importantly – cutesy, is part of the reason she’s where she is. She’s fucking useless otherwise (to the Wrong, that is).

  27. 27
    Ed Brayton

    Yes, let’s please not use insults about her gender here. My criticism has nothing to do with her gender, it has to do with her complete lack of coherence and intellectual honesty.

  28. 28
    John Hinkle

    To make matters worse, later in the clip she declares, with great emphasis, “I would never vote for an atheist president, ever. Never.”

    So as an atheist, you haven’t really thought out this atheist stuff, have you? And we should listen to you why?

  29. 29
    cjtotalbro

    Bingo.

    Compare the women on Fox News to the women on MSNBC. The right has basically turned most women they give a platform to into shiny hood ornaments.

    He fake atheist canard reminds me of Lee Strobel and she strikes me as about as bright.

  30. 30
    grignon

    What does “bigger than sort of esoteric” mean?

  31. 31
    Zinc Avenger (Sarcasm Tags 3.0 Compliant)

    Why does even believers tolerate S. E. Cupp?

    She outright admits she doesn’t believe, and that she wants to.

    So even someone who wants to delude herself can’t bring herself to believe their crap.

  32. 32
    scienceavenger

    The [Right] love to crow about how “hot” their women are, esp in comparison to left-leaning women

    Which always seemed like majorly ducking into the punch, since the explanation of why seems patently obvious: The Right doesn’t give ugly women a fair hearing.

  33. 33
    Modusoperandi

    And that’s the Liberal Media.

  34. 34
    usingreason

    Still better than FoxNews

  35. 35
    marshallsmith

    My former son-in-law was somewhat like this woman. After being a life-long christian, he announced to me a few years ago that he was now an atheist. I told him at the time it would be difficult to remain an atheist living as we do in the bible belt surrounded by family, friends and co-workers who are christians. (I’ve been an atheist in the south for over 35 years) He identified as an atheist for 5 or 6 years. When we’d talk, he always pointed out how he disliked ‘militant’ atheists and how they were as bad as religionists. I told him I’d never met a door to door witnessing atheist. One day, he strangely confessed, though he was an atheist, he didn’t really think the theory of evolution was true. This statement left me baffled. I tried to give him a very cursory tutorial in evolution via natural selection but I don’t think he ever got it. Then, a couple of years ago he told me that he envied christian believers. He thought they were happier because belief in god gave their lives meaning and purpose. He wished he could believe.

    Lo and behold, a year of so after this he went through a personal financial crisis and decided he again believed in god, jesus, etc. He believes god found him a new job….seriously. After an initial period of enthusiastic church involvement, he’s since become a sort of run of the mill, nonchurch going christian. So SE Cupp may even be telling the truth about her own opinions. I too look for her to convert in the future just like my son-in-law.

  36. 36
    maethor

    I saw the whole episode a couple of days ago. If you listen a bit further, she gives a second reason for not voting for an atheist president. She says “someone who represents the beliefs of 5-10% of the population shouldn’t be president”. I find this ironic, given that she has repeatedly supported Romney. Wikipedia says there are only 6.1 million Mormons in America. That’s less than 2%.

  37. 37
    aaronbaker

    I think self-hating or angst-ridden atheists are popular with a lot of theists–for obvious reasons: I’m an atheist, but there’s still something off about atheism; or: I’m an atheist, and what a monumental, terrible, tragic thing it is to lose one’s faith!

    The matter-of-fact, I-don’t-believe-because-it’s-a-load-of-crap-and-I’m-not-losing-sleep-over-it-either-atheist is much more irritating, and perhaps even threatening, to the same people.

  38. 38
    JeffreyD

    Two neurons, one Cupp.

  39. 39
    Raging Bee

    Another possibility is that Cupp is an attention-whore, and she’s doing this I-don’t-believe-but-I-want-to-believe-and-I-might-if-you-talk-to-me vacillation as a way of getting others to woo her, win her, persuade her, and keep on guessing who/shat she “really” is under that mysterious unguessable inscrutable mask. That doesn’t necessarily invalidate my earlier theory, it just may add another layer of drama and self-delusion to the mix.

  40. 40
    observer

    “I like that there’s a check.”

    Well, of course she does. That’s why she attacks atheists and coddles the religious. It’s a great way to keep those checks coming.

  41. 41
    andrewlephong

    Saying you’re right and another person is wrong is not intolerant.

    I agree with this in principle, but in practice many people interpret being told that they’re wrong as a slap in the face. This is more the case with religion than with innocuous topics like what your favorite brand of car is, or whether you prefer Android or iOS on your phone, but people do get pretty worked up and angry about car brands and smartphone operating systems too. It’s just human nature in general for people to get upset and perceive disagreement as an attack.

  42. 42
    demonhauntedworld

    Raging Bee beat me to it, but I’ve always invariably read SE Cupp’s name as “Sippy Cupp”. I think that about sums up the level of intellectual sophistication she’s operating at.

  43. 43
    machintelligence

    She needs one of those truth in advertising disclaimers: “I’m not an atheist, I just play one on TV.”

  44. 44
    abb3w

    I’ll note, there’s at least one “I wish I could believe” atheist in my limited circle of personal acquaintance.

    Might it be associated with folk analytical enough to see the errors in religious reasoning, but emotional enough to still be unhappy with the conclusion?

  45. 45
    Christian

    I’ll note, there’s at least one “I wish I could believe” atheist in my limited circle of personal acquaintance.

    I can certainly understand the wish that something were true or really exists like a god for instance.
    But “wishing to believe” something is quite a strange position to take since it implies that to this person the truth of what he wants to believe is only of secondary concern (or no concern at all).
    In other words, what they really mean is “I want to believe this even if it is false” but they never express it in this form.

  46. 46
    anubisprime

    OP

    She’s a complete buffoon.

    And then some!

    She is intellectually weak, shallow and lacks integrity, that is the obvious what is not obvious is she will stab atheism in the back sooner or later.
    She has no qualms and atheism does not pay the bills.

    Be warned she has no insight beyond how to earn a buck as a ‘pet atheist’ on a right wing atheist bash…Obama hate…god drool.

    Genuine atheists should consider very carefully their interactions with her, I think it totally a fruitless if not a dangerous act.
    And why actually bother…she is not required in any function and obviously has no particular allegiance to atheism.
    Because sooner rather then later she will have no compunction about stabbing atheism in the back because that is what will ensure continued appearance fees.

    This is not the first time she has shown her true colours…just surprises me that just because she claims atheist status some in the atheist community tend to fall over themselves to be sycophantic bitch to her whims.

    Time to kick it to the curb…should have been done years ago!

  47. 47
    Raging Bee

    Arriving at work this morning, I thought of this topic and was reminded of that hopeless airhead girl in the “Twilight” movies, whose inability to choose between a vampire and a werewolf has both forever hanging on her every word, in the hope that some day she’ll finally choose one of them and stick with him*. From what I’m reading of SipEE Cupp here, she’s sounding every bit as annoying, exaperating, spineless and, in the end, useless, as that girl.

    _____________________________
    * I say go with the werewolf — he’s warmer, cuddlier, and a better actor.

  48. 48
    Sastra

    Christian #46 wrote:

    But “wishing to believe” something is quite a strange position to take since it implies that to this person the truth of what he wants to believe is only of secondary concern (or no concern at all).

    There are times when even devout believers seem to take this position. In fact, it’s often the underlying theme for apologetics and the animosity against atheists: religion is therapy. It will “work” for you. It will make you happier, calmer, more appreciative, and an all-around better person. Therefore, you ought to believe in God.

    I have a friend who is today a “spiritual counselor;” she confidently tells me that she used to be an atheist. What changed her mind? When she was working as a nurse, she started accompanying some of her co-workers to their church, a black gospel church with lots of praise and music. She said she was overwhelmed by the sense of joy, peace, and love she felt there and decided that there was something in religion which was true after all. There was something about it she wanted for herself. So she now believes in a Higher Power (and metaphysical idealism wrapped around an astonishing load of new age crap.)

    From my point of view, this is a WTF response. Happy clappy = God exists? Where’s the connection? Her reasoning doesn’t seem to mesh with the conclusion — unless, of course, you look at religious belief as if it was a form of therapy, a lifestyle choice or self-improvement project. Which she apparently does. Pick a spirituality, a way you want to be. And then bundle in whatever “beliefs” ornament and establish the version which is right for YOU. Details don’t matter.

    SE Cupp sounds like she’d love my friend’s reasoning here. “Wow, what a wonderful way to find Faith! Good for you! It looks so nice on you.”

    I think atheists take religion more seriously here. But when we do take it seriously — and pay attention to the little detail about the truth of the details — they react as if we’re trying to undermine their chosen way of making themselves happy. How dare we!

  49. 49
    Raging Bee

    …and decided that there was something in religion which was true after all.

    Yeah, something in religion is true — it’s just not the supernatural beliefs, the stone-age rules of conduct, the tribalistic identity politics, the threats of eternal punishment after you’re dead, the logic used to support the beliefs, or the history-folktales. Shovel all that crap aside, and you might find something that’s true cleverly hidden underneath. Maybe.

  50. 50
    Sastra

    What’s true is not unique — and what’s unique is not true.

  51. 51
    kermit.

    aaronbaker: The matter-of-fact, I-don’t-believe-because-it’s-a-load-of-crap-and-I’m-not-losing-sleep-over-it-either-atheist is much more irritating, and perhaps even threatening, to the same people.

    They tolerate those atheists if they are unshaven drunkards. They make excellent bad examples (“See, Timmy, what kind of life those atheists live!”).

    But matter-of-fact unbelievers who pay their bills, take their kids to soccer, and pet dogs are dangerous. Their mere existence can make kids ask questions.

  52. 52
    Michael Heath

    Raging Bee writes:

    Yeah, something in religion is true — it’s just not the supernatural beliefs, the stone-age rules of conduct, the tribalistic identity politics, the threats of eternal punishment after you’re dead, the logic used to support the beliefs, or the history-folktales. Shovel all that crap aside, and you might find something that’s true cleverly hidden underneath. Maybe.

    I would argue institutionalizing altruism and promoting the concept of grace are two benefits we’ve received from religion. Not that they conceptualized the idea or were unique in promoting either, but conceding they were relatively effective advocates. At least effective enough to keep the ideas alive and help some people. Especially altruism when human culture was moving from tribalism to city-states.

    I’m confident the combination of liberalism and secularism are the two contemporaneous ideologies which are now not only the most effective advocates of authentic* altruism and grace, while not suffering from the baggage of some influential adherents who oppose both concepts like we see from those who now dominate Islamism and conservative Christianity, ‘conservative’ in the both the theological and political sense.

    *I find the altruism practiced by proselytizing Christians to be inauthentic. That these Christians are more concerned with promoting their brand, recruiting converts, leveraging their good deeds to increase their influence and political power, and feeding their ego and conscious then being authentically focused on the optimal results that comes from effective altruism. And that’s just the mere adherents, the leaders also demonstrate a quest for personal power and money, even at the expense of those people they’re chartered with caring most about.

  53. 53
    democommie

    “If you’re going to suck the teat of corporate media, your integrity is the price.”

    It’ NOT the teat.

    “and keep on guessing who/shat she “really” is under that mysterious unguessable inscrutable mask.”

    That may be the freudian slip of the week. “shat”, indeed.

    “She is intellectually weak, shallow and lacks integrity, that is the obvious what is not obvious is she will stab atheism in the back sooner or later.”

    She’s been doin’ the stabby thing for a while.

    It’s turtles, well, turtles and snake oil, all the way down.

  54. 54
    Ing

    @10 – I didn’t mean her appearance or sex. Like one of those people who pretends to talk like a normal civil person but has that obvious layer of hatred and contempt for humankind.

    And your terminology would be perfectly fine…just as soon as men start wearing lipstick in western culture.

  55. 55
    abb3w

    @46, Christian:

    But “wishing to believe” something is quite a strange position to take since it implies that to this person the truth of what he wants to believe is only of secondary concern (or no concern at all).

    More that truth isn’t the only concern; happiness is also a factor. In so far as the lack of truth is the obstacle to belief, it’s consistent.

    And, practically speaking, it doesn’t seem that unusual for someone’s belief to be more directly associated to happiness than to truth. Not that surprising, from an evolutionary psychology framework.

  1. 56
    Religious Identity and Character | The Bronze Blog

    [...] quote provided by Sastra that inspired this long, wandering post: This idea that it’s “intolerant” to say that people [...]

Leave a Reply

Switch to our mobile site