Courtesy of Tania/A3

Yale Philosophy professor Jason Stanley recently drew national attention for his strong response to a keynote address at the Society of Christian Philosophers’ regional conference Sept. 24 to 26.

“Having homosexual orientation is a disability — for a homosexual cannot beget children through a loving act with a person to whom they have a unique lifelong commitment. Of course some homosexuals do not want to beget children, but the behavior of other homosexuals indicates that they clearly do; and a disability is a disability whether or not the disabled person minds about it,” Oxford Emeritus professor Richard Swinburne said in the address.

Stanley made a post on Facebook condemning Swinburne that was initially posted to a friend’s private Facebook page but was later circulated on the internet as a screen shot. The post, which included the phrase “F— those a–holes. Seriously,” drew intense criticism, especially from vocal conservative figures like Rod Dreher, who wrote in a Sept. 28 article in The American Conservative that he was outraged at the “reckless judgment, vulgar language and unhinged nature” of Stanley’s remarks.

However, both Stanley and Dreher agree that there is more to the controversy than Stanley’s choice of language. Stanley, who has taught at Yale for three years, framed the incident as a part of the larger “cultural war” between the left and the right, but Dreher regarded Stanley’s comment as an attack on free speech.

“[The Facebook post] was all a personal exchange between friends,” Stanley said. “My ‘potty words’ were taken completely out of context. ‘Potty words’ are bad, but because I’m a Yale professor, I can’t use them anymore?”

He called the backlash he has received for his comment “horrific,” citing his fear for his family. Stanley, who specializes in the philosophy of language and epistemology, said the current controversy is a continuation of attacks on him after he defended Yale student activists who protested against the controversial email about Halloween costumes last fall. He said his outspoken defense for the students made him a target for right-wing media outlets, adding that he has received hate mail over the past year.

Stanley said the recent reprisal is framed as offense caused by his language on Facebook, but is in fact the design of his “powerful enemies” who he claimed have attacked him in recent years, in retaliation for his open disapproval of their actions. For example, Stanley said, he openly took issues with the Templeton Foundation — one of the most prominent donors in the field of philosophy where Dreher worked as publications director — for what he described as disproportionate funding for religious philosophy and negligence towards studies on racism or homophobia.

But Dreher dismissed Stanley’s belief that he was targeted for his left-leaning political views.

“I thought it was hilarious that he assumes only a vast right-wing conspiracy could possibly account for people outside his bubble noticing what he said and drawing negative conclusions from it,” Dreher told the News.

Instead, Dreher argued that at the crux of the controversy was a threat to freedom of expression.

Swinburne’s speech represents “perfectly ordinary” Christian philosophy, said Dreher, an Orthodox Christian . He added that the nature of Stanley’s Facebook comment is precisely the type of discourse that “[makes] reasoned discussion and debate impossible.”

“[The comments] were yet another example of the arrogant, moralistic privilege that certain left-wing professors exercise to insult, bully and marginalize those who disagree with them,” Dreher said.

Dreher said in his article that “ideologues” like Stanley who hold influence within humanities departments are pushing their own agendas while evaluating opposing views with the same type of intolerance that they claim to be fighting.

Swinburne said he was unaware of Stanley’s comment and the following backlash and he preferred to leave others to defend him in this matter. This was not the first time that he had expressed “fairly unpopular views,” Swinburne said, but he could not recall a time when he received a public reaction similar to Stanley’s.

“Philosophers usually argue rather than use expletives,” Swinburne said. “But I’ll leave your readers to decide whether this was the suitable response from a philosopher.”

Stanley is currently teaching “Language and Power” and a philosophy section of Directed Studies.

  • CharlieWalls

    The referenced hate mail indicates to me that Stanley’s ‘free speech’ is significantly under attack. When I did DS long, long ago, it was centered on philosophy by thinkers quite dead physically — though still exceedingly interesting. Something like “Language and Power” would have been a breath of fresh air.

  • Patricia Kane

    What kind of friend circulates a private communication?
    Bigotry clothed in religious or academic language and in a religious or academic setting is still bigotry.
    Jesus would NOT approve.

    • The Noble Saybrugian

      Right, as we as know, Jesus was pro-gay marriage too!

      • MajorWoody

        Muhammad would not.

  • JLawsButtHole

    I disagree with Swinburne’s religion-based evaluation of the homo condition on impulsive grounds because I love my gay friends.

    But from a coldly logical perspective, he’s right. If you acknowledge the wants or needs of some homos to have kids of their own then their “condition,” in regard to having their own biological children, is a disability. If a man desperately wants to carry a child to term, his condition as a male is a disability too. You can come up with all sorts of examples using the raw, logical definition of the word “disability.” I have a disability when it comes to shooting a force laser out of my eyes like Cyclops from the X-Men. I can’t do it, no matter how much I try.

    People need to learn to love language and expand their minds so that they can think outside of their boxes enough to at least understand other people’s points. People have, for the most part, gotten rid of deep thinking in exchange for off the cuff, knee-jerk responses based on gut feelings instead of earnest consideration.

    This is 100 percent because living in the information age barrages us with constant information and the only way to absorb it all is to make snap judgments and move on to the next shiny thing. We make up our minds about what team we’re on (and this is made easier by the 50/50 ideological split we have in the US) and then we isolate ourselves in online “thought ghettos” and mentally masterbate our ideas in an echo chamber with other weirdos just like us so we train ourselves to make those snap judgments super efficiently and earnest consideration goes out the window on a societal scale.

    Stanley’s deranged, partisan response to the philosophical argument of Swinburne is indicative of the intolerance of the alt-left. The alt-right is just as bad. Nobody wants to savor language and stop to ruminate on ideas anymore. We just want to up or downvote and move on.

    It’s depressing.

    • jp

      You love your gay friends. OK, whatever. We’ll take that at face value. Just who are these gay men who are so “desperate” to give birth? Yes, there are many who wish to have children but how many of them are “desperate” to become pregnant and carry a child? I will venture to guess that almost any gay male who is “desperate” to have children would be entirely satisfied with the various options (adoption, surrogacy, etc) that are open to anyone else who isn’t able to have a child “normally.”. Throwing around loaded and coded terms like “disability” is not helpful, and using it in this way is just a slightly more sophisticated way of putting the old “gay is abnormal because they can’t have kids/the true purpose of marriage is procreation” canard that the religionists have consistently and tiresomely and malevolently used to cloak their prejudice against, and disgust towards, homosexuals and homosexuality. To have a reaction such as Stanley’s is not deranged, it’s deserved. You may be offended by the f-word, but many more of us are offended by the use of religion to justify the portrayal of gays as being somehow defective.

      • JLawsButtHole

        So you either missed the point or didn’t read what I wrote. That’s okay. I don’t fault you for it. The Internet is an ADD-inducing barrage and gut reactions rule the roost.

        • jp

          I read what you wrote and I understood exactly what you meant to say, which is that gays are somehow abnormal in your view. You may think your point of view is reasonable, but it is really not so at all. But someone who calls herself JLawsButtHole is probably not the most mature and reflective human on the planet. I’m still left to wonder who these gay men are who are desperate to give birth.

          • JLawsButtHole

            Gays are abnormal and anyone who argues differently is being dishonest. You call having a sexual preference that sets you apart from 90 percent of the population normal? You’re living in a fantasy world with no ties to reality. Either language has meaning or it doesn’t and we’re all just talking to ourselves in an echo chamber bubble. Jesus christ. People like you are why Trump is now our president. You’re so busy sniffing your own farts and arguing the finer points of nonsense gender politics that you didn’t stop to notice that nobody was paying attention to white voters, the largest, by far, demographic in the country. Great job. Keep telling yourself that black muslim transgender lesbians are what the national dialogue should be about. Have fun polishing the brass on the Titanic. Pathetic.

          • jp

            So you just really are a bigoted. homophobic aszcwhole. Got it.

          • JLawsButtHole

            So you’ve been indoctrinated in an Internet echo chamber and your tiny mind is closed off to anything that even remotely makes you think. And you can’t read. Got it.

          • jp

            Just because a human trait is not shared by the majority doesn’t make it abnormal. Bye Felicia.

          • JLawsButtHole

            Yes it does. That’s the definition of abnormal: a trait not shared by the majority. Normal = majority.

            You’re demonstrably wrong. Swallow it like a good girl.

          • JLawsButtHole

            Wow. Yes it does. You just wrote the definition of abnormal: a trait not shared by the majority. What planet are you living on?

          • JLawsButtHole

            That’s the definition of “abnormal” genius.

          • Richard Turnbull

            Your right wing extremist lunatic fringe weltanschauung is also abnormal. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, mind you!

    • Sz. S

      But I think that you have to have a narrow, heteronormative understanding of the wide range and breadth of human relationships in order to consider a lack of capacity to birth a child by natural means within a a couple a limitation.

      • JLawsButtHole

        Isn’t homosexuality now in the heteronormative cis-gendered column now? I can’t keep up anymore.

    • henri_cervantes

      you don’t have laser power eyes? we all pity you mercilessly, but behind your back.

      • JLawsButtHole

        Thanks. You’re the best. Behind the back is probably the best practice for dealing with someone trying to shoot laser beams out of their eyes. Very smart 😉

    • Dadler

      In 2016, with surrogacy an accepted and widespread practice, being gay and wanting children is no longer a “disability” by any definition but the anachronistic. It has been enabled by science and social approval. Gay folks are no more “disabled” than a heterosexual couple that cannot conceive. And no one would consider that a “disability” by the same standards. “Disability” is used by Swinburne to diminish and denigrate. And that is obvious. His atrophied theological thinking would also lead him to a dead end with straight parents having to deal with their children being gay, and how they, the parents, would also be “disabled” in that situation because they aren’t gay and couldn’t possibly understand their gay child’s POV. Oh wait, he’d also have to argue that being gay is a choice. Go run that one up the flagpole in any real debate and see how quickly, and justifiably, you’d be laughed out of the room. Religious philosophy is dogma. It sets itself above and beyond criticism. Belief in omnipotence kind of renders one’s rhetorical skills a tad, um, narrowed.

      • JLawsButtHole

        A hetero couple who can’t conceive is disabled. Touchy feels doesn’t change the meaning of the word “disabled.” If someone is unable to do something, they are disabled in that regard. This is very straightforward.

    • homasapiens

      “People need to?”
      People are not going to. You need to take that fact into consideration when you ponder the human condition.

      • JLawsButtHole

        Pointing out what people need to do is necessarily based on what they aren’t doing to begin with. So what’s your point?

    • LeonardoWeber

      So all males who want children are disabled in this way?

    • Richard Turnbull

      Your caricature is a hoot, though! Thanks for the laughs!

  • theantiyale

    Not to worry.
    It’s only a matter of time before men can gestate a zygote to birth via implantation and caesarian.

    • Richard Turnbull

      That’s a cool version of the “naturalistic fallacy,” bro!

  • Malcolm Pearson

    Okay, I’m a philosophy graduate of Yale. This is a tempest in a teacup. A private comment to a friend is not an attack on free speech. A silly response by people like Mr. Dreher does not constitute a reason to fear for your family. Everyone needs to take a deep breath, assume the best about each other, and go on with their lives. This is the sort of article that makes me think professional philosophers don’t actually have enough to do, lol

    • McLaughlin

      Though you are a philosophy grad student at Yale (impressive!), you might consider enrolling in a remedial reading comprehension course. Given Yale’s admissions policies, I have *no doubt* there are plenty on offer.

    • cestusdei

      How many of a more conservative persuasion are in fear or have lost jobs because of something they said off the cuff? Way to many. The double standard is quite amazing.

      • Richard Turnbull

        That’s the standard defense of bigoted attacks by “conservatives” — “You know, when I say you shouldn’t have these basic human rights, I expect you to consider that simply my own opinion simpliciter, which I have a right to express without any vociferous objections from you or anyone else.”
        Cf. Trump stating women who have abortions should be “punished,”
        but the list of examples would be practically endless.

        • cestusdei

          Yeah and you give the standard defense for left wing fascism. You don’t want us to have the rights of free speech, religion, and conscience. You punish those who exercise those rights. The list of examples is practically endless.

    • http://www.mandm.org.nz Matt

      Actually its not, it comes after a philosophy conference invited prof Swinburne to address the topic of Christian sexual morality and then distanced themselves and apologized after the fact when some people in the audience complained they were offended by the content. The apology was worded in such a way that it suggested they may not invite speakers to present topics on subjects like this again.

      That actually isn’t a trivial matter in terms of academic freedom, and allowing open discussion in moral philosophy where topics can be discussed on their and merits not ruled out before hand on political grounds.

      Professor Stanley’s comments came in the wake of this, after many people complained at the way Swinburne had been treated and its implications for academic freedom. It was in a context where, on Facebook, several of them publicly expressed out right contempt, hatred and hostility towards people who held opinions like Swinburne one of the people in the discussion ostensibly was involved in both the organizing of the conference and issuing of the apology.

      Some academics got caught out showing the world the level of vitriol and utter contempt they for colleagues who express political and moral views they disagree with and some of the same people had just been involved in a controversial decision involving the academic freedom to express the views in question. That’s hardly trivial. To dismiss it as a “right ring” plot or vendetta speaks volumes.

      • R Craven

        You’re right. I had personal experience of Jason Stanley’s unpleasantness several years ago.

      • Richard Turnbull

        Bigot expresses hateful bigotry and is shocked when civilized human beings express disgust.

  • jeffJ1

    I am absolutely charmed by arguments about Christian philosophy. When you unhook your thought process from any connection to reality and base your worldview on the Bible and an unshakeable faith in an all-knowing, unknowable deity, you can get into really entertaining conversations.

    • McLaughlin

      Even more charming, perhaps, are intellectually stilted atheists who, either out of ignorance or malice, expertly set up straw men to “bravely” destroy rather than engage in critical thought. Bravo, bravo indeed, sir.

      • Richard Turnbull

        Is this parody?

    • cestusdei

      I am absolutely charmed by such straw man arguments that reveal immense ignorance about philosophy and Christianity. Very entertaining.

      • Richard Turnbull

        Sophistical debating tricks like that will fool only the rabid acolytes of right wing kookery.

        • cestusdei

          Right back at you fascist boy.

  • John_Protevi

    Dreher thinks “Swinburne’s speech represents “perfectly ordinary” Christian philosophy”? That is, Dreher thinks “perfectly ordinary Christian philosophy” uses “disability” like Swinburne does? This is false, and allows the false notion that the target of Stanley’s ire was “perfectly ordinary Christian philosophy,” when it is not, but is instead the noxious and dangerous use of “disability” by Swinburne. A use that is critically examined here: https://www.academia.edu/13030614/Homophobia_and_the_Limits_of_Scientific_Philosophy

  • Joe Boole
    • Richard Turnbull

      But see: Critique of Religion and Philosophy by Walter Kaufmann.

  • John_Protevi

    Dreher thinks “Swinburne’s speech represents “perfectly ordinary” Christian philosophy”? That is, Dreher thinks “perfectly ordinary Christian philosophy” uses “disability” like Swinburne does? This is false, and allows the false notion that the target of Stanley’s ire was “perfectly ordinary Christian philosophy,” when it is not, but is instead the noxious and dangerous use of “disability” by Swinburne.

    • Richard Turnbull

      Right wing biblical hermeneutics is nonsense on stilts.

  • Steve
    • Richard Turnbull

      Have any links to Breitbart or Town Hall?

  • Harold Totten

    It seems to me that using a private expression of dislike that was unfortunately made public by a “friend” to tar and feather someone is the bullying action in this case. It’s attacks like Mr. Dreher’s that attempt to shut down reasoned discourse.
    And as to philosophers engaging in the use of expletives and coarse comments about each other, I will always treasure Schopenhauer calling Hegel a gasbag.

    • Richard Turnbull

      Ja, das stimmt!

  • Francisco Castro

    I just can’t believe Swinburne’s hypocrisy, whining about free speech while Stanley’s freedom to communicate is being seriously compromised by these virulent, menacing persons. He can feel deeply insulted by some private mad comments but when it comes to actual, material threats to free expression against someone, he doesn’t feel obligated to say anything. Moreover, although I could understand people’s annoyance with Stanley’s expressions, not only they don’t seem to care about his privacy (he can say anything among his friends, as long as he doesn’t make violent calls or anything like that) and in no moment they wonder about what could make a person so mad about their visions of homosexuality (which are very insulting for many people and if stated, they need to be proposed under careful scientific scrutiny and not as a capricious, merely traditional value-choice). Much more when it comes to visions that have the power to determine the law and influence deep attitudes toward the lifestyle of millions and millions of persons. They don’t even seem to acknowledge how close their own visions are to homophobic hate speech and action. They may be right about the “disability” stuff. But they may not. And if that’s the case, they’re the ones who are doing the damage.

    • cestusdei

      Ask the folks at Memories Pizza who hypothetically said they would not cater a gay wedding. They were hounded by death threats. Free speech? Try saying you don’t agree with gay marriage at any major university and see what happens. Do it before you get tenure and see if you stay hired lol. Those who have the power are not the orthodox Christians.

      • Richard Turnbull

        Bigots are always shocked when humanists or people with different religious views express disgust at their bigotry. Mais c’est la vie!

        • cestusdei

          Yeah and you bigots are always shocked when someone doesn’t agree with your fascism.

  • rudy262

    Watch Dr. Swinburn’s complete lecture for context: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6J_nPeF_lQ

  • cestusdei

    How thin-skinned he is. Let’s be clear: he said something atrocious and got caught. Now he is suddenly the victim. I remember when Hilary used this excuse, until the blue dress was discovered. The man is unprofessional and frankly not much of an academic scholar. He can’t refute an idea so he resorts to name calling. Is Yale a community college? You can’t find anyone, anyone at all, better then this guy?

    • ldffly

      I said as much in another comment, but YDN would not publish it. That is YDN’s right and I’m not contesting it. However, his work outside of logic and formal semantics is not impressive to me.

      • Richard Turnbull

        Why not? He’s expressing valid moral outrage, isn’t he? That in itself is a kind of work — dead-eyed, robotic scrabblers after a career sometimes devolve to the level where they have no functioning moral compasses at all!

    • Richard Turnbull

      LOL — With your mentality, I wouldn’t approve you teaching tricks to a dog, much less philosophy to human beings. (Signed) Skeptical Former Philosophy Major/Macalester College, U. of Minnesota Twin Cities, etc. etc.

      • cestusdei

        A philosophy major lol. That explains your inability to think and reason.

  • Edward O’Neill

    You know what’s also a disability? Lacking empathy.

    Swinburne should address sociopathic philosphers. Or just plain bigoted ones.

    • cestusdei

      He did address bigoted ones, like the one from Yale. Anti-Christian bigots.

      • Richard Turnbull

        No, “bigotry” is a mindless prejudice not based on facts and sound, cogent reasoning.
        The fanatical, biased hatred of various groups propounded by numerous so-called Christians, their relentless attacks on basic human rights, of women or anyone else, and their preposterous claim that one text contains absolutely irrefutable truths about absolutely every possible ethical, moral, and metaphysical question, for all time, allowing for no dissent, with threats of eternal damnation by some hypothetical “Supreme Deity” for those dissenters, is a vicious form of tyranny over the life of the mind, and a kind of blasphemy against that very Deity.
        That which is despicable, deserves to be despised.
        Do you see now?

        • cestusdei

          Only sound to fascists like you. We see our rights eroded and voted for Trump. We reject your tyranny. Dissent? As soon as someone does that on campus from the conservative view you attack them violently. Hell you even attack bakers. You deserve to be despised. Do you see now?

  • mattcat83

    This story from Yale Daily News is reporting on a comment privately made by a philosopher (Stanley) about another philosopher’s (Swinburne’s) comment about homosexuality, the former of which was publicly distributed and commented upon by a conservative figure (Dreher).

    So here we have comments about comments about comments. When did the news degenerate into pure gossip?

    • Richard Turnbull

      When did serious intellectual inquiry degenerate into inane posts online?

  • Matthew Long

    As all Transvalued plebs gravitate towards, turning away from forgiveness, approaching the only thing they can conceptually grasp, That of a Will to Power. The Antichrist.

    • Richard Turnbull

      Nein, das is Unsinn! — Walter Kaufmann’s Nietzsche: Philosopher, Psychologist, Antichrist is what you need — available from the usual suspects used in good condition for about $11.
      Especially since Nietzsche’s stated moral ideal was “The Roman Caesar with the soul of Christ,” inter alia. And of all people capable of metanoia, despite your clear implication, serious students of Nietzsche would be arguendo high on the list.
      Fail. Please try much much harder in future.

  • Adam

    Who cares what Rod Dreher has to say? He exists in a fantasy world of his own making where supposed homo-fascists are restricting his right to be a Christian, yet he faces absolutely no consequence for fomenting and seeding hate from his internet backwater. Best to ignore him.

    • cestusdei

      Ah but you don’t ignore him or anyone who dares disagree with you. You hunt them down and seek to destroy their lives. Ask Brandon Eich about it. Or the folks at Memories Pizza. Nothing like death threats and personal destruction to convince us evil Christians that we are wrong. Love wins? LOL I see no love at all just lots of hate for those you don’t agree with. No wonder the nation is so divided and there is no civility.

      • Richard Turnbull

        Right wing extremist lunatic fringe kooks relentlessly attack the basic human rights of others and are shocked, shocked! I tell you, when their would-be victims fight back.
        “Toleration of intolerance itself becomes a kind of moral evil.”
        — Thomas Mann, author of Buddenbrooks, The Magic Mountain, and Doktor Faustus (my paraphrase)
        “Some things were not meant to be tolerated.” — George Bernard Shaw (my paraphrase)
        “Do not do unto others as you would have them do unto you — their tastes may not be the same.” — George Bernard Shaw

        • cestusdei

          Left wing fascist kooks like you come back after 2 YEARS to mine an old thread and relentless attack those who disagree with you. Maybe we will decide to not tolerate your intolerance. Maybe Trump is our first step in that direction. Eventually you will push us so far we will decide that law and order no longer applies. Then we will do unto you what you are doing unto us. We the real victims will fight back and you snowflakes will lose. Keep pushing us scooter.

  • http://voxmagi-necessarywords.blogspot.com/ VoxMagi

    A crude comment to an acquaintance on FB only indicates that he’s human…and that he looks upon certain people with contempt. In these politically charged times, that would only suggest that he’s one among millions who have less than friendly feelings toward the folks on the other side of the ideological camp. Given that his ardent opposites open fire over an FB post and clearly seek some redress of their grievance, the implication that those same persons ‘have it out for him’ probably isn’t without substance. I may not agree with Stanley, but his detractors seem to be made up of harping ninnies.

  • chava from Jerusalem

    I think that Stanley should stick to the philosophy of language. His new book regarding fascism may have valuable insights, but to draw conclusions from recent US political protagonists may be early and one-sided. For example, in the Kavanaugh hearings, I saw antagonistic activity which sounded warning bells.

    • Richard Turnbull

      I saw the same antagonistic activity that sounded “warning bells,” but evidently interpreted it differently, as a farcical failure by the right wing supporters on the Judiciary Committee to thoroughly investigate Kavanaugh.
      But it isn’t finished: in September, over forty witnesses came forward to the FBI, in some cases visiting local FBI offices, offering to give sworn testimony about what they observed of Kavanaugh’s behavior. None of that testimony was deployed in the report about Kavanaugh and the allegations against him supplied to the White House and the Department of Justice. That’s part of the farce.
      If the Democrats take control of the House of Representatives as of January, 2019, there will be a new chairman, Rep. Gerrold Nadler of New York, and a majority of Democrats on the committee. All of those forty or more witnesses can be summoned and provide their sworn testimony. They can be, indeed, must be, subjected to vigorous cross-examination — “beyond any doubt, the greatest legal engine ever invented for the discovery of truth” (Wigmore) — and we can finally hope to learn the relevant facts about Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s allegations, about Deborah Ramirez’s allegations concerning the sordid events involving Kavanaugh she claims occurred in Emerson Hall, about Julie Swetnick’s allegations concerning dangerously out-of-control parties attended by Kavanaugh and Mark Judge among others, and about the charges that Kavanaugh repeatedly perjured himself during the committee hearings, each instance of which would constitute a felony meriting Kavanaugh’s removal from the bench.
      See also: House of Trump, House of Putin: The Untold Story of Donald Trump and the Russian Mafia (August, 2018) by Craig Unger, complete with fifty-three pages of footnotes, filled with revelations for the general reader, albeit none of which will surprise Special Counsel Mueller and his investigators. The importance of this book at this juncture in our history cannot be overestimated. Trump’s neo-fascist cult of personality and his sleazy minions pose an ongoing threat to our democracy, the free press, and the rule of law which undergirds both.

  • sharsand

    Ah, such hypocrites. Big f**$#in deal. So Professor Stanley’s language was “utterly shocking,” but our “beloved” so-called president can lie, lie, lie 24 hours a day, call people all sorts of horrible names, stir hatred among his base and across the globe, and oh well, that’s just the way it is. My organization had the pleasure of having Professor Stanley speak at an event last month, and what he is saying is based in fact, not conspiracy theories and innuendos. We are at a critical juncture in our country, we are being taken over by those who are dismantling of our entire democratic system by, not only the likes of Trump, but the subversive moves that have been going on for 50 plus years by the Kochs and their secret cabal of hate (ALEC) and history is being rewritten and our children are not being taught what it means to live in a democracy and what their obligation is in a free society.

    Isn’t anyone shocked by the fact a sitting president has rallies (as did Hitler) out in the hinterland to promote hate while getting paid by the taxpayers, us. He may not use swear words when he’s out there, but he’s saying and doing much worse than anything Professor Stanley said, which was an innocuous, but true comment. Trump is throwing out lies and name-calling about the Obamas, about Democrats, about immigrants, about blacks, the LGBTQ community, about Jews (George Soros references), and anyone who disagrees with him, including some moderate Republicans (though they’re few and far between). He’s the most unethical person to ever sit in the White House, and yet, where’s the shock at what he says or does as president?

    And last, I found an interesting quote by Richard Swinburne: “”Swinburne at one point attempted to justify the Holocaust on the grounds that it gave the Jews a wonderful opportunity to be courageous and noble” (p.64 Bantam Press paperback edition The God Delusion).”

  • sharsand

    One more thing: if you research Rod Dreher, you’ll see he’s not all that different from the Breitbart, Fox, Hannitys of the world. They just stir the pot of hate, making a mountain out of molehill.