Wednesday, February 20, 2019

Martin Luther King

 How do you think religion affected Martin Luther King? Was it an accident that he was a reverend, as well as a civil rights leader? 

56 comments:

Starhopper said...

It's hard, if not impossible, to separate that aspect of MLK's life from the rest of him. LIsten to his speeches (or even just read them), and you hear the unmistakable cadence of African American Baptist preaching. And (this is important) not just in style, but in content. Although he was assassinated before the term was invented, MLK was an advocate of what eventually became known as "Liberation Theology", which insists on an indissoluble bond between faith and action, particularly as regards the poor and oppressed of the world. He was truly a prophet in the tradition of Amos and Hosea.

Absent that, he would hardly be worth our time. Name something.. anything that he did, supported, proposed, or preached that was not absolutely soaked in what we now term Liberation Theology.

Legion of Logic said...

I believe it had a huge impact on him. The tone and charity with which he spoke is so different from what we hear today. I think his dream and his strategy for achieving it came from a place of deep faith, probably why it has always resonated so strongly with me and why it is the standard I have set for myself - a man's heart, words, and actions are what we are to judge by, and nothing else.

bmiller said...

MLK Jr was the right man with the right skill-set, mindset, and faith at the right place at the right time.

He followed Gandhi's method of non-violent protest which Gandhi based on Christianity's teachings. So in both cases, it was the faithful following of Christ's teaching that effected the morally just result.

MLK Jr was not, however, a "Liberation Theologist".

Starhopper said...

MLK Jr was not, however, a "Liberation Theologist".

You are 100% correct. To say so would be an anachronism, since liberation theology did not emerge on the global scene until after MLK's assassination. But it's fair to say that, had he lived 15 or 20 years more, MLK would have fit right in with the teachings of Oscar Romero and Gustavo Gutiérrez.

If you dispute that, tell me where he would have differed.

bmiller said...

Liberation Theology grew out of the unique situation of Latin America which was quite different that the situation in North America. MLK Jr's civil rights mission was to achieve racial equality for all people regardless of the color of their skin. America had been an independent, classless democracy for almost 200 years while Latin America was only recently coming out of a class based colonialism. The goals of MLK Jr and the Liberation theologists were different.

"Liberation theology is a synthesis of Christian theology and Marxist socio-economic analyses". Marxism is joined to Liberation theology at the hip and is therefore anti-Catholic....as Saint John Paul II pointed out years ago.

It is also a mistake to say that Saint Oscar Romero taught Liberation Theology.
Romero, according to his biographer, "was not interested in liberation theology" but faithfully adhered to Catholic teachings on liberation and a preferential option for the poor,[5] desiring a social revolution based on interior reform. Up to the end of his life, his spiritual life drew much from the spirituality of Opus Dei.[6"

Marxists aren't known to tell the truth. Better to read up on what Belloc and Chesterton on what the Distributists really taught.

bmiller said...

LINK to the major source of Saint Oscar Romero's spiritual life mentioned above

Starhopper said...

Let the scholars argue it out. I got my information from biographer Dr. Michael E. Lee of Fordham University. He is on the governing board of the Catholic Theological Society of America and President of the Academy of Catholic Hispanic Theologians of the United States. Good enough credential for me. For 15 dollars, you can get his audio book Óscar Romero: Saint of Liberation from Now You Know Media (a wonderful source for guaranteed orthodox Catholic lectures. I like to listen to them on long (multi-day) car rides.

bmiller said...

It appears Dr. Lee is a proponent of Liberation Theology and so could be expected to have a bias. Just because he teaches at a Catholic University doesn't necessarily mean he teaches orthodoxy. I also don't have your audio book, so you may just be misinterpreting him.

That's why it's always good to check multiple sources. Especially since while St John Paul II condemned Liberation Theology he advocated Romero for sainthood. That just wouldn't make sense.

Links from the Wikipedia article:
From his secretary

And from Opus Dei.

Starhopper said...

"It appears Dr. Lee is a proponent of Liberation Theology and so could be expected to have a bias."

bmiller: "Don't listen to St. Paul. He appears to be a Christian, so he could be expected to have a bias."

bmiller said...

Starhopper,

Really, that's your only response?

Well I raise your St Paul reference with 2 Peter 3:16:

He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

I consider your response an admission of your departure from reasonable discussion.

Starhopper said...

"I consider your response an admission of your departure from reasonable discussion."

Huh? I don't see why. Your comment was the equivalent of when atheists say we must discount any and all comments about Christ by Christians on the grounds that, "Well, they're Christians. Of course they're going to say [fill in the blank]!"

If Dr. Lee is a proponent of LT, might it just be because he knows it to be a valid theology? If so, then of course he's going to write in favor of it. I would hope that he would! You can't pooh-pooh someone's comments solely on the grounds that they might actually believe what they're writing. Why shouldn't they?

That seems to me to be the very essence of reasonable discussion, and not a departure from it.

Hugo Pelland said...

"How do you think religion affected Martin Luther King? Was it an accident that he was a reverend, as well as a civil rights leader?"

He was definitely influenced, in a good way. But he could have been influenced to do the opposite too, should he interpret the same religion a different way and/or should he have been born with a different skin color.

Many (most?) of his opponents were also driven by their own religious ideas after all, even sometimes calling themselves by the same religous category.

Therefore, another example of religiously driven good actions labelled as such because of secular/objective principles to judge them against.

bmiller said...

Starhopper,

I considered your response non-responsive since the subject was whether St Oscar Romero taught Liberation Theology. I presented my reasons for thinking he did not. Your only response was to put a mischaracterization into my mouth. I don't consider that reasonable discourse.

The immediate topic was not whether Liberation Theology is right or wrong but it is relevant to the discussion if Lee is an advocate of that position, is neutral or if he opposes it. If he were neutral or opposed it then his claim that Oscar Romero taught Liberation Theology would be more convincing to those considering the evidence. If Lee was already advocating for Liberation Theology to be considered orthodox teaching then he may be stretching the facts in order to get at least one bishop to appear to be on his side...especially one that is not around to set the record straight. After all, theologians have no teaching authority within the Catholic Church. That is the province of the bishops (like St Paul).

Starhopper said...

Again, all true (or, mostly so). But, other than a personal acquaintance, who would know more about a deceased person's views than a biographer of him? And speaking of personal acquaintances, consider reading Witnesses to the Kingdom by Jon Sobrino. He knew St. Romero personally and worked with him for many years. He knows (and describes) in detail Romero's conversion from opposition to LT to passionate advocate - to the point of becoming a martyr. (And St. Romero aside, just as a great commentary on the Gospel, it's a great read.)

bmiller said...

Again, all true (or, mostly so). But, other than a personal acquaintance, who would know more about a deceased person's views than a biographer of him?

Would his personal secretary and biographer count as a personal acquaintance? Because he was one of the 2 sources linked in the Wikipedia article whose foot-noted article I linked to with the "From his secretary" hyperlink.

Look, I'm certain that St Oscar Romero being educated at a Neo-Scholastic school was orthodox in his beliefs. St John Paul II, the well known opponent of Marxism and Liberation Theology, endorsed his ministry in El Salvador and so I'm also sure that St Oscar Romero did not preach Liberation Theology.

I'm also sure that St Oscar Romero preached what was relevant to his particular flock at that particular time and that particular place. People in El Salvador were being killed by government forces (aided by the US?) indiscriminately, mostly the poor and powerless without due process. When innocent people are being killed, that becomes the first priority and not the demonstration of existence of God to atheists. It is irrational binary thinking that if St Romero spent his time fighting one injustice that he supported a different one (a wedding of Marxism to Catholicism).

I'm sorry but I'm not going research any more of the conspiracy theorists you bring up. If you want to quote Oscar Romero I'm sure I will agree with him that we need to make sure that we attend to the needs of the poor. But I've never seen anyone provide a quote from him supporting LT explicitly.

Starhopper said...

I think I see your problem here. You are under the mistaken impression that LT has something to do with Marxism. IT DOES NOT. I am saddened that you belittle persons who write the truth under explicit and frighteningly real threats against their lives as "conspiracy theorists". Perhaps if you actually read them, you'd understand how mistaken you were.

bmiller said...

I think I see your problem here. You are under the mistaken impression that LT has something to do with Marxism. IT DOES NOT.

Well since I started this all off with this quote from Wikipedia:
"Liberation theology is a synthesis of Christian theology and Marxist socio-economic analyses"
Which you did not disagree with...

and then I stated that "Marxism is joined to Liberation theology at the hip and is therefore anti-Catholic....as Saint John Paul II pointed out years ago." Which is the common understanding.

I don't think I am mistaken. You have not provided me anything to persuade me otherwise.

I am saddened that you belittle persons who write the truth under explicit and frighteningly real threats against their lives as "conspiracy theorists". Perhaps if you actually read them, you'd understand how mistaken you were.

I have no idea who these "persons who write the truth under explicit and frighteningly real threats against their lives" are that you refer to that would have been saved by "Liberation Theology". Unless you mean that if their Marxist philosophy had prevailed then they wouldn't have been threatened, but the others would have been.

Starhopper said...

bmiller,

The problem with everytime I attempt a discussion with you is that you see everything through the lens of politics. You seem incapable of examining a subject in any other way. I am speaking of (practical) theology, and you drag Marxism into it. Notice that no one other than you has done so.

I care not for Marxism. I've studied it long enough to recognize its stink when it appears, and will have nothing to do with it. I've also not only "studied" LT for many years now, I've (tried to) live it. Big difference. I have yet to detect a whiff of the noxious fumes of Marxism anywhere near it.

You aren't even arguing against a straw man. You are firing off against a nonexistent opponent. And you apparently refuse to educate yourself, desmissing primary sources as conspiracy theorists. Wikipedia is not the infallible source of information you seem to think it is. Read the book I recommended above. It's not that long. Or listen to the audio book I recommended. Or try The Jesuit Martyrs of El Salvador - a bit dated now, but still a wonderful "quote mine".

Legion of Logic said...

Starhopper, would you agree with this assessment of liberation theology?

If so, both of you are right. It started off as organic ministry to the poor, then became politicized, which earned the ire of the Roman Catholic Church.

Starhopper said...

"which earned the ire of the Roman Catholic Church"

Indeed it did. But so did the Divine Mercy devotion of St. Faustina Kowalska. So did Dante's Divine Comedy. Or Galileo's Sidereus Nuncius. St. Juan Diego was not immediately believed when he reported that Our Lady had appeared to him. Neither was Bernadette of Lourdes. The bishop of New York commanded Servant of God Dorothy Day to stop using the word "Catholic" in her ministry (a command which she disobeyed).

But in all of these cases, the Church ultimately embraced these things - including Liberation Theology. The Catholic Church (thanks be to God!) is not always the first to jump on a bandwagon, and on occasion will direct "ire" upon ideas and practices which it eventually, and quite rightly, champions.

bmiller said...

Starhopper,

The problem with everytime I attempt a discussion with you is that you see everything through the lens of politics. You seem incapable of examining a subject in any other way. I am speaking of (practical) theology, and you drag Marxism into it. Notice that no one other than you has done so.

I introduced my reasoning for rejecting St Romero as a proponent of Liberation Theology with a definition of Liberation Theology. That definition was from the "Dictionary of Historical Terms (1998), Second Edition, Chris Cook, ed., p. 203." I did not "drag" Marxism into the discussion of Liberation Theology, it was there from the beginning, and I made it plain what I was arguing against. I didn't write the Wikipedia article or any of the other articles it linked to nor did I write the definition in the "Dictionary of Historical Terms".

I wonder why it is that you insist on bringing a martyred bishop into the discussion of Liberation Theology other than to give it an air of authority. It's obviously controversial if he even supported it and it would not legitimize it even if he did.

You may think Liberation Theology is the greatest thing ever, and I'm willing to hear you make your case. But it looks like a shameless appeal to authority and a disservice to St Romero to keep invoking him as part of the discussion.

Starhopper said...

"it looks like a shameless appeal to authority"

A majority of my comments in face to face (not on line) discussions about religion. philosophy, theology, and even (perhaps even especially) science are arguments from authority. I realize that, compared to experts in most fields, my own opinions are of little worth. So your accusation carries no shame for me. I'll cheerfully cop to the charge.

bmiller said...

Then you should at least make sure you appeal to an authority that actually supports your view.

One Brow said...

bmiller,

"Liberation theology is a synthesis of Christian theology and Marxist socio-economic analyses".

I did not "drag" Marxism into the discussion of Liberation Theology, it was there from the beginning, and I made it plain what I was arguing against.

In your mind, is there any difference between using some Marxist socio-economic analyses and full-blown Marxism?

bmiller said...

VII
MARXIST ANALYSIS


1. Impatience and a desire for results has led certain Christians, despairing of every other method, to turn to what they call "marxist analysis."

2. Their reasoning is this: an intolerable and explosive situation requires 'effective action' which cannot be put off. Effective action presupposes a 'scientific analysis' of the structural causes of poverty. Marxism now provides us with the means to make such an analysis, they say. Then one simply has to apply the analysis to the third-world situation, especially in Latin America.

3. It is clear that scientific knowledge of the situation and of the possible strategies for the transformation of society is a presupposition for any plan capable of attaining the ends proposed. It is also a proof of the seriousness of the effort.

4. But the term "scientific" exerts an almost mythical fascination even though everything called "scientific" is not necessarily scientific at all. That is why the borrowing of a method of approach to reality should be preceded by a careful epistemological critique. This preliminary critical study is missing from more than one "theology of liberation."

5. In the human and social sciences it is well to be aware above all of the plurality of methods and viewpoints, each of which reveals only one aspect of reality which is so complex that it defies simple and univocal explanation.

6. In the case of Marxism, in the particular sense given to it in this context, a preliminary critique is all the more necessary since the thought of Marx is such a global vision of reality that all data received form observation and analysis are brought together in a philosophical and ideological structure, which predetermines the significance and importance to be attached to them. The ideological principles come prior to the study of the social reality and are presupposed in it. Thus no separation of the parts of this epistemologically unique complex is possible. If one tries to take only one part, say, the analysis, one ends up having to accept the entire ideology. That is why it is not uncommon for the ideological aspects to be predominant among the things which the "theologians of liberation" borrow from Marxist authors.


To be continued...

bmiller said...

Continued:

7. The warning of Paul VI remains fully valid today: Marxism as it is actually lived out poses many distinct aspects and questions for Christians to reflect upon and act on. However, it would be "illusory and dangerous to ignore the intimate bond which radically unites them, and to accept elements of the Marxist analysis without recognizing its connections with the ideology, or to enter into the practice of class-struggle and of its Marxist interpretation while failing to see the kind of totalitarian society to which this process slowly leads." [22]

8. It is true that Marxist thought ever since its origins, and even more so lately, has become divided and has given birth to various currents which diverge significantly from each other. To the extent that they remain fully Marxist, these currents continue to be based on certain fundamental tenets which are not compatible with the Christian conception of humanity and society. In this context, certain formulas are not neutral, but keep the meaning they had in the original Marxist doctrine. This is the case with the "class-struggle." This expression remains pregnant with the interpretation that Marx gave it, so it cannot be taken as the equivalent of "severe social conflict", in an empirical sense. Those who use similar formulas, while claiming to keep only certain elements of the Marxist analysis and yet to reject the analysis taken as a whole, maintain at the very least a serious confusion in the minds of their readers.

9. Let us recall the fact that atheism and the denial of the human person, his liberty and rights, are at the core of the Marxist theory. This theory, then, contains errors which directly threaten the truths of the faith regarding the eternal destiny of individual persons. Moreover, to attempt to integrate into theology an analysis whose criterion of interpretation depends on this atheistic conception is to involve oneself in terrible contradictions. What is more, this misunderstanding of the spiritual nature of the person leads to a total subordination of the person to the collectivity, and thus to the denial of the principles of a social and political life which is in keeping with human dignity.

10. A critical examination of the analytical methods borrowed from other disciplines must be carried out in a special way by theologians. It is the light of faith which provides theology with its principles. That is why the use of philosophical positions or of human sciences by the theologian has a value which might be called instrumental, but yet must undergo a critical study from a theological perspective. In other words, the ultimate and decisive criterion for truth can only be a criterion which is itself theological. It is only in the light of faith, and what faith teaches us about the truth of man and the ultimate meaning of his destiny, that one can judge the validity or degree of validity of what other disciplines propose, often rather conjecturally, as being the truth about man, his history and destiny.

11. When modes of interpretation are applied to the economic, social, and political reality of today, which are themselves borrowed from Marxist thought, they can give the initial impression of a certain plausibility, to the degree that the present-day situation in certain countries is similar to what Marx described and interpreted in the middle of the last century. On the basis of these similarities, certain simplifications are made which, abstracting from specific essential factors, prevent any really rigorous examination of the causes of poverty and prolong the confusion.


One more post to continue....

bmiller said...

Continued from above:

12. In certain parts of Latin America, the seizure of the vast majority of the wealth by an oligarchy of owners bereft of social consciousness, the practical absence or the shortcomings of a rule of law, military dictators making a mockery of elementary human rights, the corruption of certain powerful officials, the savage practices of some foreign capital interests constitute factors which nourish a passion for revolt among those who thus consider themselves the powerless victims of a new colonialism in the technological, financial, monetary, or economic order. The recognition of injustice is accompanied by a pathos which borrows its language from Marxism, wrongly presented as though it were scientific language.

13. The first condition for any analysis is a total openness to the reality to be described. That is why a critical consciousness has to accompany the use of any working hypotheses that are being adopted. One has to realize that these hypotheses correspond to a particular viewpoint which will inevitably highlight certain aspects of the reality while leaving others in the shade. This limitation which derives from the nature of human science is ignored by those who, under the guise of hypotheses recognized as such, have recourse to such an all- embracing conception of reality as the thought of Karl Marx.


Have you ever read this?

bmiller said...

Section 10 is especially enlightening to anyone who ever tried to have a discussion with a Marxist.

Your opinions are false by definition if you disagree with them because to disagree is to out yourself as an "oppressor".


X
A NEW HERMENEUTIC

1. The partisan conception of truth, which can be seen in the revolutionary 'praxis' of the class, corroborates this position. Theologians who do not share the theses of the "theology of liberation", the hierarchy, and especially the Roman Magisterium are thus discredited in advance as belonging to the class of the oppressors. Their theology is a theology of class. Arguments and teachings thus do not have to be examined in themselves since they are only reflections of class interests. Thus, the instruction of others is decreed to be, in principle, false.

2. Here is where the global and all-embracing character of the theology of liberation appears. As a result, it must be criticized not just on the basis of this or that affirmation, but on the basis of its classist viewpoint, which it has adopted 'a priori', and which has come to function in it as a determining principle.

3. Because of this classist presupposition, it becomes very difficult, not to say impossible, to engage in a real dialogue with some "theologians of liberation" in such a way that the other participant is listened to, and his arguments are discussed with objectivity and attention. For these theologians start out with the idea, more or less consciously, that the viewpoint of the oppressed and revolutionary class, which is their own, is the single true point of view. Theological criteria for truth are thus relativized and subordinated to the imperatives of the class struggle. In this perspective, 'orthodoxy' or the right rule of faith, is substituted by the notion of 'orthopraxy' as the criterion of the truth. In this connection it is important not to confuse practical orientation, which is proper to traditional theology in the same way that speculative orientation is, with the recognized and privileged priority given to a certain type of 'praxis'. For them, this praxis is the revolutionary 'praxis' which thus becomes the supreme criterion for theological truth. A healthy theological method no doubt will always take the 'praxis' of the Church into account and will find there one of its foundations, but that is because that praxis comes from the faith and is a lived expression of it.

Starhopper said...

Wow, just wow.

This song must really resonate with you.

bmiller said...

Wow just wow, Starhopper.

A "Catholic" that equates the Vatican with the JBS. God help you.

Starhopper said...

I wasn't equating the Vatican with the JBS. I was equating YOU (or at least your worldview) with it.

bmiller said...

My worldview is the worldview of the Catholic Church.

I posted the Vatican's critique of LT using Marxist analysis, which I agree with, and you immediately equated this viewpoint with the JBS.

Only a Marxist would hear a disagreement with their position as the mark of an "oppressor"...hmmmm.

Starhopper said...

I daresay that as a professional Soviet analyst for the Department of Defense, with a degree in Russian and 34 years of practical experience, I've likely forgotten more about Marxism than you've ever learned from surfing the web.

I also know enough about Marxism to loathe it. I can smell its stink from a mile away, and I detect no trace of it in Liberation Theology.

bmiller said...

Seriously. You're supposed to be a Catholic. I quoted a Vatican document. So you call me a Bircher.

By extension you are calling the Vatican the JBS. If you read that entire article, you will see that you are behaving exactly the same as those LT'ers that the Vatican is criticizing. They only view their side of the class struggle as being true, so every disagreement is by definition false. Even the Church in which they claim to reside disagrees. So much the worse for the Church.

So, you're right and the Church is wrong.

Starhopper said...

Twist my words all you want. I was writing only about you - not the Church. You (to all appearances) see everything through the lens of politics. Left equals bad; right equals good. No thought necessary, no exceptions permitted, no nuance allowed. So easy.

I know in advance that I am going out on a limb here (but what the heck?), but that is precisely the attitude for which Our Lord condemned the Pharisees. ("Why do your disciples not fast? ... Why do they eat with unwashed hands?")

bmiller said...

Twist my words all you want. I was writing only about you - not the Church.

I can only read what you wrote. Once again, all I did was quote a Vatican document. How exactly does that not reflect on the Church's viewpoint but somehow makes me a Bircher?

You (to all appearances) see everything through the lens of politics. Left equals bad; right equals good. No thought necessary, no exceptions permitted, no nuance allowed. So easy.

I disagreed with you that St Romero was a Liberation Theologian. I did so because he was in line with the Vatican's assessment of LT as far as I can tell. I happen to agree with the Vatican. I am looking at this situation through the "lens" of the Church. Why do you see this as political unless you acknowledge that Liberation Theology is more about politics than theology? Are you projecting?

I know in advance that I am going out on a limb here (but what the heck?), but that is precisely the attitude for which Our Lord condemned the Pharisees. ("Why do your disciples not fast? ... Why do they eat with unwashed hands?")

Sorry. Are you telling me that you are Jesus and the Pope is a Pharisee? That's seems to be your trajectory, especially after my last post. Otherwise, your question is pretty open ended and I don't understand it's relevance.

Starhopper said...

And you are equating yourself with the Pope? Amazing.

bmiller said...

Quoting the Pope (emeritus) doesn't make me equal with the Pope, no.

But really. What are you getting at?

bmiller said...

And by the way, I thought you would be happy that I'm not talking about abortion! ��

Starhopper said...

Hah! I was wondering when you'd bring the subject up.

But just so you know, Liberation Theologists are 100% opposed to abortion. All of them. So there's nothing to discuss here, vis a vis that subject.

bmiller said...

All of them.

Hmmm...We'll see. 😏

bmiller said...

Well that didn't take long

Starhopper said...

Charlatans.

No TRUE Scotsman, er, Liberation Theologist would countenance abortion. You can take that to the (capitalist) bank!

bmiller said...

A true Scotsman is notoriously thrifty. So of course he would take it to the bank. :-)
And before I'm accused of an "-ism" I'm part Scottish.

However if he were a Distributist, he would avoid...


Banks

"Distributism favors the dissolution of the current private bank system, or more specifically its profit-making basis in charging interest. Dorothy Day, for example, suggested[35] abolishing legal enforcement of interest-rate contracts (usury). It would not entail nationalization but could involve government involvement of some sort. Distributists look favorably on credit unions as a preferable alternative to banks."

bmiller said...

But since you insist on discussing abortion and you are opposed to it, you should be encouraged that even with the Devil himself in the office of the president funding for PP is being cut.

Only $450 million more to go

Starhopper said...

Even a stopped clock is correct twice per day.

bmiller said...

Not the digital ones.

One Brow said...

bmiller,

Thus no separation of the parts of this epistemologically unique complex is possible. If one tries to take only one part, say, the analysis, one ends up having to accept the entire ideology.

That's an astoundingly inaccurate statement.

For example, it's part of Marxism that every human on earth desires food to eat. So, does that mean if you want to reject Marxism, you need to reject the notion that all people need food?

bmiller said...

It seems my link was not working properly. I apologize.
HERE is the link to the entire document.

5. In the human and social sciences it is well to be aware above all of the plurality of methods and viewpoints, each of which reveals only one aspect of reality which is so complex that it defies simple and univocal explanation.

6. In the case of Marxism, in the particular sense given to it in this context, a preliminary critique is all the more necessary since the thought of Marx is such a global vision of reality that all data received form observation and analysis are brought together in a philosophical and ideological structure, which predetermines the significance and importance to be attached to them.


The particular context is "human and social sciences".

bmiller said...

Sections VII: SUBVERSION OF THE MEANING OF TRUTH AND VIOLENCE and IX: THE THEOLOGICAL APPLICATION OF THIS CORE
are important to read in order to tie VII to the observations in X regarding "The partisan conception of truth, which can be seen in the revolutionary 'praxis' of the class,

The entire document is a pretty good explanation of the mindset one necessarily acquires by embracing Marxism. It also makes a good case that Christians taking just a sip of the Marxist Kool-aide soon find themselves drinking the whole pitcher and thinking they are not only sober, but have achieved enlightenment.

Joe Hinman said...



Atheists IQ argument

Atheists have been making the IQ argument for Some Time. They are still making it. The idea that atheists tend to score higher on IQ tests than theists is widely accepted in social sciences but it is not generally known how much atheist activists have contributed to the research. There is one major study, using meta analysis, that establishes the overall correlation the most corroboration is from minor studies. When that major study first came out, the study by Miron Zuckerman, I gave a two part devastating critique.[1] Not only do my original criticisms still hold but there is still no real groundswell but only the assumptions of atheists whose support is more ideological than scholarly.

bmiller said...

Some US Senators who voted to let infants die:

Ben Cardin
Chris Van Hollen
Kyrsten Sinema

Joe Hinman said...

Scientific Racism and IQ


On Monday I argued that the Atheist IQ axis is also racist I said I would expound upon that contention today,[1] I am not saying that Atheists in general are racist nor am I saying that anyone who thinks atheists are smarter based upon IQ is a racist but there is a group of atheists IQ experts, academics, who are racists and back each other in their research. They implicate the only major study [Zukerman] backing their hypothesis [that atheists are smarter than believers]. I have been following the gang of racist atheist IQ experts for several years now. On Atheistwatch I've written about the New Attempts of atheists to prove that they have higher IQ's than religious people: Atheism's Psychology Today Scam, and, The Atheist IQ Scam (part 1) (see part 2). I found an article by Andrew Brown in the American Guardian (Andrew Brown's Blog) [2]where he demonstrates the racist background of the atheist assumptions. He also discusses the idea that IQ tests are not measuring intelligence but cultural norms.I don't find that these apostles of "scientific racism" are conected to any loaders of the atheist movement,

bmiller said...

Are the Methodists now bigots?

HERE it seems to suggest so.

Starhopper said...

Bigot is a useful word when used with due caution, and sparingly. Unfortunately, it is nowaday used as a conversation stopper. No need to address the issue. Your opponent is a bigot!

That said, there are indeed honest to God bigots out there who deserve to be called out. For instance, in June 1944 the proper response to a nazi was not to argue with him, but rather to hit the beaches and kill him.

bmiller said...

Look out Methodists!!!!