"Rick" <Npl1O_SalphaP_AgeekM@juno.com> wrote in message
news:37b0dhF5b677fU1@individual.net...

ChasNemo wrote in message
<1108343578.255410.223270@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>...

This is for all the hypocritical bible thumpers in Bu$h's Moyers begins

the column: "One of

the biggest changes in politics in my lifetime is that the delusional is

no

longer marginal."

This is quite true. The US has been taken over by freaks and by those who
exploit their fears and delusions. I'm afraid that Moyers' views seem to
describe the state of affairs quite well.

regards

Milan

In article <37b0dhF5b677fU1@individual.net>,
Npl1O_SalphaP_AgeekM@juno.com says...

Bill Moyers' new column for the Minneapolis Star Tribune is stunning for
both its mean-spiritedness

LOL. First off, mean-spiritedness is exactly the response that
fundamentalist scum deserve.

However, Bill Moyers is not capable of such rancor.

OTOH, if you object to mean-spiritedness, then you might
try to start by criticizing Ann Coulter and Michael Savage.

and for its departure from elementary standards
of opinion journalism.

Bill Moyers is a far better journalist than you could ever hope to be

and has probably been doing honest, accurate opinion journalism

since dumb-asses like you were in diapers.

Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins

In article <37b0dhF5b677fU1@individual.net>,
Npl1O_SalphaP_AgeekM@juno.com says...

Bill Moyers' new column for the Minneapolis Star Tribune is stunning for
both its mean-spiritedness

LOL. First off, mean-spiritedness is exactly the response that
fundamentalist scum deserve. However, Bill Moyers is not capable of
such rancor.

OTOH, if you object to mean-spiritedness, then you might
try to start by criticizing Ann Coulter and Michael Savage.

Rick wrote:

Bill Moyers' new column for the Minneapolis Star Tribune is stunning

for

both its mean-spiritedness and for its departure from elementary

standards

of opinion journalism. In brief, Moyers argues that the American

government

has been taken by right-wing Christians who believe in the imminent

Rapture,

and for that reason look forward to environmental catastrophe. (In a
"rapture", faithful Christians would be suddenly transported from

earth to

heaven, thereby avoiding the awful events on the earth during the
apocalyptic disasters that will take place at the end of time.)

Therefore,

according to Moyers, right-wing Rapturists actually promote policies

which

they intend to harm the environment, since destroying the environment

will

hasten the Rapture.

When people live in temporary housing, how do they tend to
treat it?

For a qualified opinion, ask soc.singles' resident landlord
and couch-tosser, Crash Street Kidd.

Throughout history, the dominant environmental policy has been:
pollute and move on. Now that the human population has exploded,
there aren't many places left to move on to. But people still
feel a deep emotional need to believe in an easy way to escape
their messes.

After a lurid and hostile description of the beliefs of Christians

who think

that a Apocalypse/Rapture might occur soon, Moyers declares, "we're

not

talking about a handful of fringe lawmakers who hold or are beholden

to

these beliefs. Nearly half the U.S. Congress before the recent

election -

231 legislators in total and more since the election - are backed by

the

religious right."

Something like 83% of survey respondents in the U.S. identify
themselves as "Christian." Of course there are thousands of
distinct Christian sects/schisms/denominations, with a dizzying
array of doctrinal differences major and minor, and they don't
all vote as a bloc. But there certainly is a "religious right"
that is a major political player in the U.S. today.

Moyers falsely conflates "being backed by the religious right" with
believing in imminent rapture. This is nonsense. To cite just two

examples,

plenty of the "religious right" voters and leaders are Catholics and
Orthodox Jews who are against abortion and gay marriage, and who

rarely if

ever think about the Apocalypse.

"Plenty" of Orthodox Jews? What's that, about 1% of the U.S.
electorate?

There are obviously more Catholics, even a few who are real
Catholics and follow the Pope's infallible teachings on birth
control, but do Catholics constitute an active counterweight
against the Rapturists on environmental issues?

In any organization it is possible for a determined few to
hijack policy on any issue the rest have less concern about.
This is the nature of political horse-trading. It is also
the nature of "organization." An organization typically
consists of a few determined leaders and a larger number of
relatively passive followers. Thus the values of the organization
tend to reflect the values of its most active and determined
members. On any issue most members don't much care about either
way, a determined minority is largely free to set policy.

Suppose, for example, that Catholics care more about stopping
abortion and gay marriage than they care about protecting the
environment. As we know, there is a difference between having
some sympathy for a particular cause vs. a willingness to pay
a serious price for it.

Catholics might then ally themselves with Rapturists
on the abortion and gay marriage issues, and remain largely
passive as the Rapturists exert their environmental priorities.
The mere presence of Catholics who don't think much about the
Apocalypse is hardly enough, by itself, to blunt Apocalyptic
fervor.

Moyers' argument could still be wrong, but you have not shown
it to be wrong.

Moyers rails against the 59% of Americans who believe that "the

prophecies

found in the book of Revelations are going to come true." But

thinking that

all the prophecies in the Bible will come true--eventually--is hardly

the

same as believing that all the prophecies will be fulfilled in the

next few

years, or in one's lifetime. Moreover, at least some of those

Americans who

believe in the prophecies have actually read the "Book of

Revelation." I

suspect that Moyers did not bother to do so before writing his screed
against "delusional" Bible-believers--or else he would not have twice

given

the book the incorrect title of "Relevations." Would you trust a

writer who

couldn't even give the correct title of the book he was denouncing?

That depends on the merits of his arguments. Lots of people make
spelling errors. Natural languages such as English have
considerable redundancy, allowing reasonably intelligent readers
to tolerate some errors while still perceiving the author's intent.

Misspelling "Hitler" would not change the nature of Hitler, for
example.

And if you really want to be a stickler for accuracy here,
let's remember that the correct titles of books in the Bible
are not English words at all, but rather they are words in
the original languages of Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic.

Should we trust any so-called Christian who hasn't bothered to
read the Bible in its original languages?

A writer
who complained about Muslims who believe in the "Koan" or Jews who

believe

in "the book of Jobs"?

How about the Rev. Reggie White who believed an Asian could
turn a television into a watch?

Moyers writes: "The only Democrat to score 100 percent with the

Christian

coalition was Sen. Zell Miller of Georgia, who recently quoted from

the

biblical book of Amos on the Senate floor: 'The days will come,

sayeth the

Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land.' He seemed to be

relishing

the thought." To put things bluntly, it appears that either Moyers

lied, or

he made the claim about Miller without bothering to check if it were

true.

Miller did quote Amos--on Feb. 12, 2004--not "recently." To be

precise,

Miller was quoting Martin Luther King quoting Amos. Miller was

lamenting a

metaphorical "famine" of moral values. And so was Amos, in the

original. As

quoted by Miller: "The days will come, sayeth the Lord God, that I

will send

a famine in the land. Not a famine of bread or of thirst for water,

but of

hearing the word of the Lord."

If Miller wanted to lament a metaphorical famine of moral values,
why did he not simply say, "I lament a metaphorical famine of
moral values" instead of speaking in riddles and burdening the
listener with the pointless exercise of decoding his words?

Why did Miller find it necessary to invoke Biblical authority?
Did he feel incapable of arguing his case on its merits?

Miller (like Amos) was complaining about a decline in moral values.

The

words used by Amos (and quoted by King and Miller) have nothing do

with a

literal famine (or any other environmental issue). No reasonable

person

could read Miller's speech as pertaining to an imminent, literal,
environmental famine.

No reasonable person would accept a claim that "the Lord God"
"sayeth" anything, without solid proof. That's as far-fetched
as claiming fish can talk. No reasonable person would accept a
claim that fish can talk, without solid proof.

A reasonable person might wonder if Miller was attempting a bit
of comedy by quoting from a book of ancient superstitions
as if it could somehow bolster his case.

There are many other ancient books of superstition Miller could
have quoted from. Why did he choose the Bible?

There are plenty of self-righteous and angry fourth-rate talk show

hosts, on

all sides of the political spectrum, who rely on inaccurate sources

which

fit the talkers' bigoted preconceptions. Moyers begins the column:

"One of

the biggest changes in politics in my lifetime is that the delusional

is no

longer marginal." The sentence may be more self-referential than

Moyers

realizes.

Speaking of the word "may":

I received a letter in the mail that said "You may have
won ONE MILLION DOLLARS."

Most people understand that such statements, although emotionally
appealing, have a low probability of paying off.

Unlike any organized religion, the Publisher's Clearing House
can actually prove it has made good on a tiny percentage of
its claims of lavish future rewards.

Is believing in the Rapture more logical than believing suicide
bombers wake up to 72 virgins in paradise?