« Links With Your Coffee - Tuesday | Main | Links With Your Coffee - Wednesday »

Christmas, BC

I don't believe in evolution and the earth is flat, said Sherri Shepherd and now she has completed the trifecta with "I don't think anything pre-dated Christians "

Quicktime Video 1.6 MB | Duration: 01'05
Quicktime 7 required
This file is available for download here.
Ctrl-Click and 'Download Linked File' (Mac)
or Rt-Click and 'Save Target As' (PC) the link above.

Countdown w/Keith Olbermann



After watching this, go watch Idiocracy, then it all makes sense :)

As I was watching that, my eye strayed over to one of the T-shirt ads in the sidebar, one of whose slogans is: "well behaved women seldom make history."

As I watched the rest of the video, I added: "and stupid women never do..."

Shepherd vividly illustrates the appeal of christianity. As long as you have blind loyalty to Jeebus, you don't have to develop any other aspect of your intellect. Jeebus doesn't care if you know anything; He loves you just the way you are. Unfortunately, this sales technique doesn't just work on obese talk show hosts; it also works on college students, which is why there are so many evangelicals on our campuses. Got a 'D' in calculus? That's alright, cuz Jeebus loves you anyway. It's amazing how effective that approach is.

"..That's right, Poly-Theism - nothin' to do with Parrots". LOL

Mmmm. nothing beats a slice of crazy in the late morning.

Just another indication of how our education system has failed. Why bother to have an education when you can participate in a morning show like this without it?

Unfortunately, this sales technique doesn't just work on obese talk show hosts...

Got a gentleman's C+ average as a history major? That's alright, you can go to Harvard business school anyway 'cause we who love Jesus, love you too. Snorted cocaine? That's alright, 'cause we who love Jesus love you too. Drank like a fish 'til you were forty and failed at everything you ever did? That's alright, 'cause we who love Jesus love you too. Helped your pals to permanent university fund of U of Texas? That's alright, 'cause we who love Jesus love you too. Helped your pals tens of billions in cost-plus contracts on which they still never delivered? That's alright, 'cause we who love Jesus love you too. Lied and distorted intelligence to start a war that destroyed the lives of hundreds of thousands, displaced millions of others, and is destined to flush a couple of trillion dollars down the rat hole? That's alright, 'cause we who love Jesus love you too.

It's enough to make anyone love Jesus!

Evil ABC Executive: So, this "View" problem. All of our controversial figures are leaving, and Whoopi is about as exciting as watching plants grow. So, people, we have a dilemma.

Evil ABC Intern: We could always bring on this Sherri Shepard lady, she says some pretty stupid stuff. She can be our paris hilton, people can tune in just to see the train wreck.

E.A.E.: Good idea! Glad i thought of it.

It troubles me that so many African Americans hold this double standard which it comes to history. For them, the last 300 years certainly happened. They won't let up on it. But when you bring history to their religion, they either get irate or give blank stares.

Of course, I'm generalizing. But to me, one African American sacrificing the historical aspect of their religion so that they may enjoy their witnessing and blind faith is one too many.

"Just another indication of how our education system has failed."

I have seen this sentimental sentiment expressed not a few times. I have long outgrown my ignorant prejudice against the so-called "nanny-state" ( a bit redundant that, when you think about it), but still, how in the world could anyone be so utterly dependent on our, or anybody else's "education system," and its success or "failure" to obtain such general facts and, in aggregate, knowledge, about the world? It requires no special machines or equipment beyond the ubiquitous TVs, magazines, journals (and the odd public library at most). Why would anyone with the equivalent of a third grade education (not necessarily acquired from any "system") need anything more? What about bull sessions in the Street? Or, around here, out on the Trail? Do you need a Phd. in astronomy (psych., meteorology?) to notice the phases of the Moon or the seasons of the year? And the variability of human perception, ability, and...intelligence?

The only idea more hideously ugly than extreme human inequality (CEO pay, etc.) is the presumption of its (extreme) opposite.

She probably meant that in her humble opinion Jesus existed before the beginning of history, even before creation - a doctrine which may be quite stupid, but can actually be found in the Bible (Colossians 1,15).

Anything else would be just too dumb, considering that as a Christian must have at least heard about Adam & Eve and other fictional characters predating Jesus.

One Evo Emo: Great piece of prose you've got there.


It troubles me that so many African Americans hold this double standard [when] it comes to history. For them, the last 300 years certainly happened. They won't let up on it. But when you bring history to their religion, they either get irate or give blank stares.

That might be one of the most rediculous comments i've read on ogm. Those darn black people are so persistant about slavery, but they all believe stupid things like Jesus was the first thing on earth.

Jebus, if you are going to generalize, at least get the group right and say "those christians are so stuuuupid." :D

Never mind Sherri Shepherd. What about the genius before her who said "The Greeks came first."?

To quote Homer Simpson, "Ladies, you're both right!"

She completed the trifecta long ago when she insulted adoptees and adoptive parents everywhere by comparing adopted children from Africa to trendy handbags. I simply have no idea why the View doesn't fire her. Her continued presence on that show is an insult to women everywhere.

"It troubles me that so many African Americans hold this double standard which it comes to history. For them, the last 300 years certainly happened. They won't let up on it. But when you bring history to their religion, they either get irate or give blank stares."

Really? How large is your sample size on this one? Or do you just generalize off of one woman's comments for funsies? And what exactly do you mean when you say "They won't let up on it."?

"What about the genius before her who said "The Greeks came first."?"

Jon Stewart said Islam started in Jerusalem. Or does Jerusalem = Dar-es-salaam = City (country) of Peace = Abode of Islam, = Islamabad = Anywhere? Methinks it not. As far as me, Anywhere = Dar-al-Harb = Jeruharb? = Naqoyqatsi.

Yeah! Hera-clitos. Glory, Glory, Ain't-No-Allah-luyah!

Bei der Weg, the Bushman came first, he merged up with Homo erectus (after a .5 million yearseparation) somewheres around Australia (Sundaland, Sahulia?), and was here in America even/way before the Northeast Asians.

'[H]ow in the world could anyone be so utterly dependent on our, or anybody else's "education system," and its success or "failure" to obtain such general facts and, in aggregate, knowledge, about the world... Why would anyone with the equivalent of a third grade education (not necessarily acquired from any "system") need anything more?'

A third grade education does not equip someone to do investigative research, but presumably a student should have foundational tools before graduating from high school, even if they graduate quite marginally. So, that's not really the point I want to focus on.

The problem really boils down to one's curiosity, objectivity, and willingness to question convention -- the tools of research are no better than the person's diligence in using them. While people are ostensibly given free will to question, there are lots of elements that dissuade people from systematically doing it: polarized and dumbed-down framing of topics in MSM, the conventional wisdom that third-parties are a waste of a vote, conformity to religion (as seen by Reps and Dems pandering with religious rhetoric, and a majority of people less likely to vote for a candidate if they are atheistic/agnostic), parents trying to raise their kids in their own image more than helping them to become independent beings, uninspired pop entertainment, being "too busy," and so on. Those are among the hurdles people have to overcome and withstand to challenge the way things work, and we should not take for granted that people would naturally overcome them.

Maybe more than the average person being a moron deserving their fate, we are special/fortunate/lucky for having the perspective we do -- let's not take our experiences for granted.

Wow...yeah this is what happens when you are raised as a Christian. I love how people can get to these radical conclutions with out any evidence for them at all. How do you argue with that?

Can we insult someone like this...or do we HAVE to debate them???

And yet this woman makes way more money than I do.

This fully explains why in a few years we'll have to be playing Hail to the Chief for the newly elected President Hilton.

"polarized and dumbed-down framing"

"insipid pop entertainment, being "too busy," "

Yes, there is a System to blame, it is the System that has been roundly criticized by Mr. J. K. Galbraith, the Marketing System, anti-education. Any education, including that of the autodidact is swimming against the current current.

We should drain the Swamp. Swamps aren't supposed to have currents anyway, maybe it's quicksand.


the sad part is that her view is the opposite of what Christian beliefs should dictate. the fable begins with the masses angering god by worshipping the wrong gods, and then jesus comes down and dies for our sins. if Christians were here first, how was Jesus born a Jew?

Aaron, you ARE generalizing when you make comments like "It troubles me that so many African Americans hold this double standard which it comes to history. For them, the last 300 years certainly happened. They won't let up on it. But when you bring history to their religion, they either get irate or give blank stares."

I hate comments like this because it ignores the fact that each individual is a world apart from one another. I don't know what you consider yourself but does everyone in your group talks, thinks, and acts the same way? Oh, by the way, have you ever ask yourself if you are a racist? If not, please start analyzing.

"Jon Stewart said Islam started in Jerusalem."

I notcied that one too, form the clip the other day, though in fairness it was part of a joke. Still, Stewart was not exactly a whiz about comparative religion, world history or current events in the 1990s. Stewart for president!

"Can we insult someone like this...or do we HAVE to debate them???"

Are those the only choices? I don't think that Sherri Shephard is asking for a debate. You can just point out the obvious and be done with it, without the insult and without the debate I think.

Hm. (1) We seem to be utterly dropping the context here. I'm not sure why. "...their religion" and given the context of the discussion here would strictly structure us around religious African Americans.

(2) "They won't let up on it." See: History of Affirmative Action and its relation to the African American community (generally); Black Panthers and similar Black subcultures and countercultures over the past 50 years; African American subculture ("Black subculture") today; racial individuation and distinction ("The Man" mentality). Much of this amounts merely to racial awareness and superficiality in the most general sense.

(3) The mere fact that there are African American Christians in the first place is a supportive evidence that [at least] a large number of African Americans who are not first or second generation migrates from Africa [and] of the Protestant demographic do not critically apply history to their religious views. Most importantly, Protestantism for most, if not all, of those African Americans subjected to the tragic institution of slavery would have not reached their ears and spirits had they not first been subjected to slavery. The thesis here is that given the nature of the relationship of Anglo-phones then and their own religious views, it would seem that African Americans, in rejecting slavery, would also investigate into the religious justifications [though there were political ones] for slavery.

I argue here under a few assumptions: (1) If they were to investigate the logical and historical consistency (or lack thereof) of their Christian Protestant religion, they would be more likely to reject it. (1.1) So too, would they reject it based on the fact that it was handed down to them from their ancestry, that is, through the peculiar institution of slavery. (2) That everyone sufficiently understands that Protestantism is the major religion amongst the African American community. [ ]

Now, granted, there is no evidence exactly stating my thesis: That African Americans do not justly apply history to their religious affiliation. But given what I have provided, and given that you keep proper context, and further, that we all understand that no religion is absolutely true, we can see that the relationship between African Americans under Protestantism [should not] be so cozily established, even if not for the purely historical disputes which would cause vacillation in the minds of those African Americans who attend to them but more so for the purely arbitrary historical reason that they are religious in the first place.

What's more, given that we're talking about RELIGIOUS people anyway, we all [know] that they generally tend to get irate when you bring critical analysis or dissent to their religious views.

So because I'm further confining my thesis to African Americans who are themselves religious I'm being racist towards them?

The two equal and important characteristics are [religiosity] and [African Americans].

In no way have I suggested that it is that African Americans are not generally critical thinkers nor have I made a claim against African Americans solely. I am speaking of African Americans who are religious.

More, we could apply my exact thesis to the whole of religious folks, and many of you would probably nod your heads in agreement without looking for qualification of my claim.

"Yeah, most religious people aren't too keen on history nor do they care for it really."

Indeed, we could say this about just any demographic. Truly, my thesis is nowhere near the extreme of racism; in fact, it is terribly mundane and nearly self-evident.

Is it the case that racism is a hot button issue with you lot? Do you get mildly troubled when someone says "them" or "those people"in the same sentence as a certain demographic, if even it is such that the sentence in no proper way makes a serious racial claim against? It seems a certain superficiality of language is causing much of these accusations against me. It may also be that I simply made too many assumptions in proportion to the touchy topic of racism. So that left so many of you in the dark, thus immediately jumping onto the "bloody racist!" charge.

I mean really, what does she think the letters "B.C." stand for anyway?

(in the modern use, not Latin)

I was chatting with my catholic wife this morning about the Church. I would respect it far more if they took the role of Looking for Evidence of Jesus and studied the Dead Sea Scrolls and other evidence, perhaps, even bringing that knowledge of 'the real Jesus' into the religion. Instead they suppress anything not related to Established Doctrine. I mean, acknowledge human fallacy and take the position of attempting to understand 'god' by studying 'his creation' in minute detail. [i.e. if Evolution is not accurate, god sure left a lot of evidence laying around the planet to the contrary. How tough it is to say that ‘god created men through the perfect system of evolution’]

I mean, what if we made a new Bible that included the texts rejected from the established version.

I really dislike 'religion' and its abuses but I really love the teachings of Jesus and other ‘teachers’.

PS: ever notice how similar Muslim clothing (including burquas) is to a Nun’s habit? Why do westerners get their panties in a twist over another culture’s clothing? Why do they point to this as a sign of repression (instead of education/abuse/stonings) when the first thing a Christian Missionary does is put shirts on topless heathen women?

Seems the ignorance was pretty evenly spread around

"first the Greeks, then the Romans"

Ah, what about African, Eastern and Native American religions? All of which likely predated all the Western ones our apparently Euro/Western-centric ladies were noting.

"Jon Stewart said Islam started in Jerusalem."

I really assumed that was just part of the schtick he was trying to go with that joke. I didn't really think it was more telling then that.

And don't worry, I'm sure Sherri will tell us tomorrow about how she didn't hear the question and her kids were on her mind and the light was in her eye, etc.

Oh, and on the topic of crass generalisations.

Women. Or at least those on TV.

"And yet this woman makes way more money than I do."

My thoughts exactly. Grad school - wtf?

Fat, Colored and bitchy.

Someone explain me why USA still "the" most advanced country in the world?

Taking in all Aaron said before and after…

The only idea more hideously ugly than extreme human inequality (CEO pay, etc.) is the presumption of its (extreme) opposite.
…further compounds the blatant racism of this remark.

All the psuedo-eloquence changes nothing, it is still a shitty statement.

It's really very sad.

You know, I'm all in favor of personal freedom--but do we have to grant people the freedom to be completely ignorant of history? Isn't that kind of really, really dangerous?

-- Furry cows moo and decompress.

Sounds like I'm being cornered with a slew of reductio ad Hitlerum's cousin reductio ad racism.

So now we're on about racial equality? Sure, once someone has been labeled a racist—and unjustifiably (generalization and racial profiling are not synonymous) so—it seems that the straw men come marching through the door.

While comments like "fat, colored, and bitchy" go unnoticed and unscathed. She's not even "fat" nor was she at an intensity of anger to be described as "bitchy."

I'm sorry to comment again so soon, but its not even so much that, that upsets me. Its that here is a woman, who lives a probably comfortable life, who has the TIME and LUXURY and GOOD FORTUNE to not be in poverty and instead to be co-hosting a television show. I don't know if any of you saw her earlier gaffe, but she basically hid behind something like 'I've got a kid to feed, I don't have time to think about these things.' That statement is a complete slap in the face to the thousands of thousands of mothers who take jobs that they're underqualified for, take jobs that pay them shit, ruin THIER LIVES for the sake of thier children. I don't think I've heard anybody who appear on a television show saying, "man, I hate this job, but I need it to support my kids." THATS what disgusts me.

I am from India, I guess her comment wipes out like 5000+ years of history in mere seconds...Her dumbness is beyond belief.

I love how the other co-host are so quick to try and save her, "Oh shit, here goes Miss Brain-Child again!" What an embarrassment! She should be cleaning the bathrooms of that studio, not co-hosting the television show. It's like, "Here on the View we value ALL points of view, which is why our new co-host is Sally Ginkins, a mentally challenged third-grader from Idaho. What do you think about Global warming Sally?", "I LIKE BLUE!!COOKIE TASTE GOOD!!" "My, my, that's such a refreshing perspective."

Aaron, thanks for putting your remarks into context. Now, I really do believe you are a racist. Your whole thesis is based on a lot of assumptions that might make sense if there was some hard data behind it. You own conclusion says it all "Now, granted, there is no evidence exactly stating my thesis."

Your thesis reminds me of some of the same arguments the Nazis used to justify their grandiose view of themselves. The fact remains that while many conclusions are based on generalizations, especially when it has to do with people, they must be based on clear and extended research. Your original comment had none of that and your explanation is rather simple.

As for using such term as "them" or "those people" in the "context" of your words is apparent where you are coming from. The same way that Keith's remarks above about "Fat, colored and bitchy…." tells me a great deal of what he is all about.

Oh, by the way, please do not use the "wow, everyone is so politically correct" argument to counter punch those who disagree with you.

"further compounds the blatant racism of this remark."

"All the psuedo-eloquence changes nothing, it is still a shitty statement."

Alas, anti-bigot bigotry :{ Please.

Don't be such a simpleton in your between-line-reading, Will. If you "believe" (is there a better word?) in evolution, you believe in...what? Magical convergence in a politically conveniently correct manner, with no adaptation to possibly extreme climates, sometimes changing. What if an Ice Age were to evolve, say, "ice people"? Is it unthinkable? No! I just thunk it.

But the fact is, here I was thinking along the lines of George Bush style inequality. Incurious George not motivated to wonder, using whatever IQ he's got. Honestly nothing racial. What's his race? Texan? Within races are geographical sub-groupings, tribes, families. I am astounded at the inequality within mine. Everywhere you look you see it, inequality. But not EXTREME inequality. Show me a CEO who is 23 feet tall, and I'm all for increasing his food allowance. Show me a Texan genius/president whose brain is the size of a Hummer, or even a Volkswagen Beetle, and I'll advocate for a salary commensurate with his brain volume, or even volume squared. Assuming equal motivation to use what one has got. But we're not that unequal. Nor are we clones (even though identical twins can be strikingly different, I could go on and on)Republicans ain't elephants ain't donkeys ain't bonobos ain't chi,ps ain't Navajos ain't Hopis ain't Neanderthals, ain't that a shame? No. Nothing to be ashamed of. We have evolved diversely, and divergently. It is something to be valued, not eliminated, genocided, ashamed of, or denied. As it happens, I believe West-blacks are dolichocephalic in the time dimension. Just ask the lurching British rockers Who try so hard to imitate them. Species are special. So are sub-species. (Continue to) Deal with it.

Beim Weg, the Greeks, Thales, whoever, were the first to climb abeove religion. Late-comers to civilization, they put their more sophisticated, clever and cosmopolitan (multicultural, i.e.)neighbours to shame.

I'm not following the racist or inequality comments here.

We all agree that religion is not absolutely true. No person has a rationally justifiable reason to hold onto a traditional and religious viewpoint. Further, there is a contingent reason that explains why they should not hold onto that religion. In this case, it is history. My thesis only states the reason why I think African Americans should not be religious or should not be predominately religious, as the Harvard data shows. In truth, this thesis could be applied to any religious demographic.

To deny my thesis wholesale is to affirm that religions have a rational (that is, also evidence-based) reason for being accepted.

"Now, granted, there is no evidence exactly stating my thesis." Indeed, no hypothesis has evidence for it when it is in its infancy. If we rejected hypotheses for having absolutely no evidence, we would never attain new knowledge.

Your counterarguments have been: (1) Reductio ad Nazism (2) Blind faith in scientific realism (3) Refusal to actually address the argument (4) Misreading of sarcasm (My "those people" comments which in fact were criticizing the superficiality and socio-cultural receptiveness of language, not representative of any of my views. I am not sure how that would "show where I'm coming from". In what way is what apparent? (5) Misuse of comparison.

I only disagree with you because it seems that you accuse me extremely from a position of unclear and indistinct argument. I hardly can comprehend your counter argument beyond what seems tantamount to wordy name-calling and seemingly misguided comparisons (Misguided because they have no justification or "evidence.")

So emo, what are you trying to say exactly?

All the bullshit in the world will not hide the stench of a poorly informed "thesis" or an apologist's verbal masturbation.

The video clip is about Sherri Shepherd's ignorance due to religious belief, not about her ethnicity. Anyone who tries to frame it as such, or make excuses for those who do, should be ashamed.

So emo, what are you trying to say exactly?


I don't think that you can ask Emo such a question. He's just tossing around some ideas and exploring and excavating, if you will...

Or is it "she"... oh, well, not that it matters that much...

I suppose that's where we differ, then. But are the personal attacks necessary? Perhaps it is that you're better at those than actual argument. "Your thesis is uninformed and simple. Let me insult you until you tire of my stonewall tactic."

How easy is it to blame religion as if it is the cause of any of the world's problem. In what sense is it "due" to religious belief? This claim equally offends me just as my claims seem to be offending you. Where is your evidence?

To throw my arguments under the general domain of "ethnicity" is inappropriate since I target only the historical aspect of ethnicity, which is objective.

And poorly informed? I provided the demographic data, and the only real assumption made here is that religious world views are not rationally defensible. We will all agree to this. Thus, either religious African Americans will critically assess their religions and apply history or they will not. My thesis, sure, carries the couched assumption that when people are approached with disturbing information about their beliefs, they will be less likely to dogmatically hold them. So either they will or they won't. Apparently, they do apply history to their religion. There could be other theories, but what is yours?

"It's due to religion." That's a lazy non-explanation (and hypergeneralized). People move ideas; ideas cannot carry themselves across borders and oceans.

I saw an ignorant person in the video, you saw an ignorant black woman and proceeded to build a case that being black contributed to her ignorance.

Yes, we do indeed differ.

No: "Sherri Shepherd's ignorance due to religious belief."

Her ethnicity is no more or less important as a contributing factor to her ignorance than her religiosity because these two contingent factors meet within her. You've said it's because she's religious, as most others have said. I am saying it's both.

Our historical backgrounds all build to our individual faculties of intellect and ignorance.

And you're absolutely wrong. I'm saying that her historical background is contributed to her ignorance. If you want to keep swiping the race card, go ahead. My arguments are relative and could be raised against any demographic based on their varying degree of religiosity with respect to their sufficiency of historical understanding of their religious views.

Short and concise on topic comments are usually the most effective. I go elsewhere for detailed opinion.

My writing style and approach is apparently insufficient to help you see things somewhat from my view. Even still, you'd be wary of falling into my racist Nazi supremacy cesspool. So many it's best that we just end our discussion. If I should be given labels, so be it.

If you want to keep swiping the race card, go ahead.
You brought the subject of race up before anyone else.
My arguments are relative and could be raised against any demographic based on their varying degree of religiosity with respect to their sufficiency of historical understanding of their religious views.
That is an awfully long way to say knowledge is vitally important, especially if one believes in the supernatural. Why bring race into it?

You know Aaron, either you are freaking smart or I and some others here are too stupid to understand. You are using the Bill O'Reilly line of defense which is to accuse those who don't agree with his views of personal attacks against him, Bush, etc.

Let me make this clear…your thesis is not valid because you have not presented a convincing argument in favor of it (mainly because you do not have any evidence just assumptions). It is not my job or anyone here to build a case against an assumption-based thesis.

You argument IS racist because you conclude that her ignorant comments came from the fact that she is not only religious but that she is black. Not only that but that the majority of "them" are just like her (see your first comment). So to what do you attribute Bush's infinite number of dumb opinions? Would you say that is not just because he is religious but also because he is white?

You are a racist and if you are not you are very close to being one. If you do believe in your own words then go out and prove it.

By the way, I have read your various comments at least 3 times (I have to get a life!) and I find that I can only understand your first and those that come from Will. Thanks Will.

From what I gather, I'm only "wrong" because empiricism beat out rationalism of the 17th century.

"Your argument is based on assumptions" would have been laughed out the door had it been raised in early 17th century Europe. It is interesting to see rationalism continue to get a lashing. Plus, I see this as relevant because I only truly put forth one assumption: That people when given information that could perturb their beliefs, they would likely either analyze it more or shy away from it. Generally, this does not appear to be the case with African American Protestants in the U.S., given the Harvard data. In fact, my entire thesis is built on the assumption that African Americans are reasonable, just as any atheistic, Christian, or whatever other demographic that is subsumed into these "religious categories."

If the conclusion is based on religiosity AND ethnicity, then you cannot sufficiently say it is racist. Let us look at he definition of "racism":

a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

Now I am saying that it seems apparent that they DO NOT apply HISTORY or CRITICAL ANALYSIS to their RELIGION. I am not saying this about ANY OTHER aspect or sphere of their lives. The worst you can say of me is that in so far as I am commenting on their religiosity, I am coming off as somewhat prejudiced. But you only hypergenerally throw EVERYTHING I say into a category of racism. First, why should critical analysis be considered "superior"? Second, given that racism is a hierarchical world view, WHICH other racial category am I defending as superior?

I am beginning to suspect that this "racism" charge stems from a simple limited vocabulary or limited access to terms which can adequately describe what I argue as flawed. There's no quick label, as far as I can tell, that can, or simply you have not provided one.

How am I being prejudiced or discriminating by suggesting that if African American Protestants were to be aware of the arbitrariness of the transfer of historical ideas (trade, foreign relations, war, etc) [and] further that their religious views are a mere product of the slave trades (carrying its transfer of the idea of a specific religion), then they would be generally less likely to be as religious as the Harvard data shows?

The is no value judgment here. It is not a claim that they are in any sense qualitative inferior to any other demographic. Indeed, I've mentioned no other demographic. Isn't that necessary to accuse someone of racism, that a racial demographic thus be COMPARED to another? What I have argued is nothing more than a description of what has not occurred in the African American Protestant demographic. Within that observation, based on looking for what has not occurred, we can reasonably conclude that not applying history and critical analysis to their religious views is something that is not occurring. Not that they can't. But you seem to take away from this that I am saying that because they do not, that is a contribution to her ignorance and the demographic's ignorance. Should that be the case and from that claim, I have to rebut that her "Blackness" that I speak of is no value judgment but a mere respect for the fact that she comes for a historical line. It is a description of fact. She is Black, and she is Protestant. And she is within the confines of history. The Harvard data is my evidence.

Imagine: A population of 100 people. 80% of them are Protestant whereas 20% are atheistic. You would all agree that atheistic leaning is more rationally defensible. There has to be a reason why the Protestant population has that religion leaning. Where can we look? Oh no! We're our of resources to sufficient explain this phenomenon! Oh wait! History! The Protestant population didn't just magically appear as Christian 5 minutes prior to our inquiry. Let's find out where they came from.

As this investigation goes under way, certain characteristics of that Protestant population have to be factored in. Their cultural signifiers of their ORIGIN, their ethnic relations to other Protestants and their ORIGIN, their language, etc. Without these signifiers, we would not be able to understand why they're Protestant in the first place.

Finally, when I say "My writing style and approach is apparently insufficient to help you see things somewhat from my view." It is not meant to insult any of you. I recognize that my writing style can be cumbersome and seemingly tangential, but what I do write I do feel is relevant. As far as my style goes, I figure that if you're genuine interested in understanding what I'm saying you will either labor through, however relatively, my execution or you will ignore it.

I don't see why you should half-heartedly move through what I write just to conclude with "well, that's verbal masturbation." Truly, comments like this can be left out while you continue to independently make your "assumption-based" counterarguments. I am separating your personal attacks from the argument itself and demanding that you explain why they are necessary in the first place. Honestly, you can carry on with them because you are providing alternative refutation that is not intimately tied to your personal attacks. So no, I am not taking the Bill O road. Nonetheless, we do have a bit of paralleling going on here. So we can debate my racist inclinations and the necessity and nuance of personal attacks in argumentation. More fun for all!

So I sum up what appears to be your counterarguments.

(1) ONE too many assumptions many assumptions with no evidence. (2) You are a racist.

It seems that my implicit cries that you explain (2) require that you go through the headache of "building a case" against one. Hopefully you understand this that I've just summarized. If you do, you will see the futility of simply restating these "bloody racist!" charges.

I'm sure this has been a task for you to read through, and reading "opinion" on the Internet just isn't worth your time. I apologize for taking up your time even if it was your own conscious and free choice to devote your time. I am implying not value to my own arguments. It is your decision to read them. It may be clear why I add this disclaimer last.

Aaron, dude, I'm never going to really understand what the hell you are saying. Yes, it is part your writing style but more so it is the same tactic that Bill O uses. You know…"I gave you the facts as I see them now prove me wrong." (Actually, that is more what Colbert would've said).

OK, so you are not a racist. Fine. The reason why I don't agree with you is that your Thesis has holes. For one, you don't have the data available. Assumptions are necessary in forming one's idea of anything but they are proven right or wrong when you start investigating. It is not the role of the audience to prove you wrong if you haven't presented any facts. What are your facts?

I'm not saying "prove me wrong." I'm defending myself against this extreme charge of racism, and I'm defending the validity of a HYPOTHESIS. I'm sure you know how hypotheses work in scientific research. This is much the same way.

Imagine: "Hey dudes, let's look for gravitons!" "You're a racist!" (or something similarly absurd)

I'm treating ETHNICITY as a characteristic for observational study, and you and Will are throwing "bloody racist" as if we cannot quantify the characteristic. Where am I saying "prove me wrong?" I'm only defending myself.

We're somewhere between [hypothesis formulation] and [beginning the investigation].

This is a touchy area that, in most causes, requires the crucial decision of an administrator that may have to ask for a grant of the government or something similar so that the study may commence. But if everyone's throwing absurd backlash like "racist racist!", nothing will follow.

Not having data available is not a "hole" in a hypothesis. It is what the hypothesis hopes to vindicate itself with. That is the nature of research. Data does not precede the hypothesis. The data, of the African American Protestant demographic, IS the "available data" from which my hypothesis is based upon. Criticizing this would have been more beneficial than jumping to racism and Bill O'Reilly comparisons.

These analogical arguments are a waste of time. Why assume I have the wit to make the connection? Why assume that I even watch Bill O'Reilly? Why assume that I am even in tune with his debating style? Explain your similes, for they are completely lost to me.

"I gave you the facts as I see them now prove me wrong." Is not even an argument. I am proposing an argument that TRIES to connect what evidence I do have to the assumptions that I've made so as to make it a valid hypothesis. You are telling me "I have presented the facts," by your analogy, and, conversely, that I do not have enough evidence, thus my hypothesis has holes. You have not yet approached the assumptions I have proposed to make the hypothesis valid.

Now I am not saying you have to, but we could really bypass all this bickering if you either do so or just tell me my hypothesis is not worth the time because it is too unintelligible to you. That would be more beneficial to me than your half-hearted critique of it and seemingly misguided comparisons that assume too much of my cultural/media awareness.

But I suppose I should use some forethought and maturity and understand my own limitations. I should not expect you to inquire deeper into my thoughts if I cannot present them initially and intelligibly.

nelgom, you nailed it with the O''Reilly comparison. He isn't listening to anyone but himself and is using much rhetoric, to try and confuse the matter.

For the last time…

Where most of us saw an ignorant woman make a dumb-ass remark, Aaron saw an ignorant black woman and has been trying to justify that ever since.

Aaron, if you do not understand it I can't explain it to you because it doesn't get any simpler.

"Where most of us saw an ignorant woman make a dumb-ass remark"

Did you mean 'ignorant person' or are you bing sexist?

Did you mean 'ignorant person' or are you bing sexist?

Ah, good point Syngas!

"So emo, what are you trying to say exactly?"

Apologies. In my defense, we all ride the wind by a certain Bernoulli effect, on a shared universe/atmosphere of common backgrounds, assumptions, etc. for discourse. In short I am saying, trying, way too much. But the highlights:

I saw no connection, and was not thinking of HER race in connection with HER education, or her educatability. How could Jesus coming first be tied to her blackness? I don't see it.

I was prompted though, to also muse:

Race exists.

Race matters (can matter*).

Even though most differences between individuals, groups, tribes, families, Nations are not racial, races are broadly adapted in certain select features, all in the same direction ("Mongoloids of every size, shape and temperament ALL have straight black hair, "ice-people," cold-adapted eye-folds, and cold-adapted sub-cutaneous fat layers (even the skinny ones)).

I really saw no connection though, and was not thinking of her race until Aaron started errin'. How could Jesus coming first be tied to her education, even?

Literacy in Biblical lands predates Greek phonetic literacy, ignoring Linear A, (B?, whatever), pre-iron/dark ages (blond people = dark ages here, not for the first time. Hyperboreans. But Jesus came in the middle. He is the Omphalos of History. Anything before was created retro-actively. Maybe?

Idiocracy? Yes Democracy seems highly unscientific. Winston Churchhillbillies notwithstanding.



.*e.g., red hair, light skin = skin cancer. An Eskimo-Nuer hybrid would be unfit for survival (pre-modern technology)in both Inuit Akaska, AND African Sudan.


Support this site

Google Ads

Powered by Movable Type Pro

Copyright © 2002-2017 Norman Jenson


Commenting Policy

note: non-authenticated comments are moderated, you can avoid the delay by registering.

Random Quotation

Individual Archives

Monthly Archives