Morality is not determined by the church you attend nor the faith you embrace. It is determined by the quality of your character and the positive impact you have on those you meet along your journey
And in far too many cases, if one DOES get that power back, it is generally fear which keeps us from letting the world know because others are ready to slaughter you for getting free!
Carl's comment reflects exactly what happens when you give your allegiance to a grifter like Joel Osteen or Pat Robertson.
They collect your money tax free, have 5 million dollar homes, and live a life of absolute luxury while you slave away at a 40 hour a week job.
And all the time, these hypocrites claim to follow the teachings of a penniless Jewish preacher who lived 2000 years ago, whose followers supported slavery, opression of women and girls, and promised you'd burn alive if you don't do what they said.
And speaking of idiots, those of you who worship Sarah Palin and claim she's Queen Esther, and the only person alive who can "save" America, you of all humans are most to be pitied.
Here is one of the bamboozlers with a collar. Complete with video.
"St. Louis Archbishop Carlson claims to be uncertain if he knew sexual abuse was a crime" http://www.stltoday.com/lifestyles/faith-and-values/archbishop-robert-j-carlson-claims-he-was-unaware-sexual-abuse/article_4215ecea-3409-53b3-813b-545c81a1b793.html
Archbishop Robert J. Carlson claimed to be uncertain that he knew sexual abuse of a child by a priest constituted a crime when he was auxiliary bishop in the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis, according to a deposition released Monday.
During the deposition taken last month, attorney Jeff Anderson asked Carlson whether he knew it was a crime for an adult to engage in sex with a child.
“I’m not sure whether I knew it was a crime or not,” Carlson replied. “I understand today it’s a crime.”
Anderson went on to ask Carlson whether he knew in 1984, when he was an auxiliary bishop in the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis, that it was crime for a priest to engage in sex with a child.
“I’m not sure if I did or didn’t,” Carlson said.
Yet according to documents released Monday by the law firm Jeff Anderson & Associates in St. Paul, Carlson showed clear knowledge that sexual abuse was a crime when discussing incidents with church officials during his time in Minnesota.
In a 1984 document, for example, Carlson wrote to the then archbishop of St. Paul and Minneapolis, John R. Roach, about one victim of sexual abuse and mentioned that the statute of limitations for filing a claim would not expire for more than two years. He also wrote that the parents of the victim were considering reporting the incident to the police.
In a statement, Gabe Jones, spokesman for the Archdiocese of St. Louis, said “while not being able to recall his knowledge of the law exactly as it was many decades ago, the archbishop did make clear that he knows child sex abuse is a crime today.”
Unfortunately, I think if you actually gave this to a person under the spell of FOX, the Tea Party or any other fringe nut job belief system they would be absolutely certain it applies to their thoughts. Insanity is a very powerful force.
Wasn't it Einstein who said scientists made poor philosophers? They aren't necessarily good historians either. The "bamboozled" can see the error of their ways, otherwise human history would not be full of cultural revolutions, overthrown governments, exposure of charlatans, and so on.
Sagan was a great scientist and popularizer of science. But the quote here is vague and generalized, which reminds me of a comment Ailsa made when Gryphen blogged about Neil DeGrasse Tyson not long ago. Dr. Tyson had stated words to the effect that you won't find a physicist involved in leading armies into battle. "You just won't," he said. Ailsa provided a link to an open letter to Tyson from Patrick McCray, with specific examples which proved Tyson was wrong.
Admiration of science should be tempered with an understanding of the limitations of scientists, who are human beings like the rest of us, and none of us are infallible. Best to keep a sense of balance and avoid uncritical hero worship.
Einstein didn't exactly say that. In "Physics and Reality", Einstein, who was interested in epistemology, wrote:
It has often been said, and certainly not without justification, that the man of science is a poor philosopher. Why then should it not be the right thing for the physicist to let the philosopher do the philosophizing? Such might indeed be the right thing at a time when the physicist believes he has at his disposal a rigid system of fundamental concepts and fundamental laws which are so well established that waves of doubt can not reach them; but it can not be right at a time when the very foundations of physics itself have become problematic as they are now. At a time like the present, when experience forces us to seek a newer and more solid foundation, the physicist cannot simply surrender to the philosopher the critical contemplation of the theoretical foundations; for, he himself knows best, and feels more surely where the shoe pinches. In looking for a new foundation, he must try to make clear in his own mind just how far the concepts which he uses are justified, and are necessities. (Einstein 1936, 349)
As for the notion that "The "bamboozled" can see the error of their ways, otherwise human history would not be full of cultural revolutions, overthrown governments, exposure of charlatans, and so on," what evidence can you offer that these occurrences weren't caused by those who weren't bamboozled? Your vague and generalized assertion here provides no evidence that a formerly bamboozled cohort saw the error of their ways, and incited revolutions, across multitudes of historical events.
Sagan's comment may be vague and generalized, but that is because he is talking in generalizations. Re-read the quotation. He says, "Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back." "Almost never" is the qualifier that allows the idea to apply to many, but not all situations.
Here are some examples for you, Anon at 5:45, from a few different fields. J.Z. Knight, who claims to channel Ramtha, a 35,000 year-old warrior, for a while enjoyed huge popularity, offering enlightenment classes to wisdom seekers. She also sold expensive Arabian horses to people, based on predictions from Ramtha that the horses would earn large sums of money for their owners. After disgruntled purchasers realized they had been bamboozled, they sued, and Ramtha's horse-selling business came to a halt. Over time, numbers of Ramtha followers have continued to dwindle. As John Lennon realized that Maharishi Mahesh Yogi was a bamboozler, many once-dedicated "Ramsters" came to doubt Ramtha's authenticity. Knight lives just a few miles from me, and I know some of her former followers personally.They became so enlightened that they realized they were being bamboozled.
We've all heard of Ponzi schemes, named for con artist Charles Ponzi. He enjoyed success for a time, until his own investors became suspicious, and eventually brought him down.
Now look at the medical establishment. For decades, homosexuality was listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual as a mental disorder. There was a dark period in history when lobotomies were employed to treat a host of mental illnesses. The public, as well as members of the medical profession, were bamboozled, even with a lack of evidence, into thinking these viewpoints were legitimate. Today most medical professionals and lay persons know better.
Consider the French Revolution. As the common people suffered, they began to realize that they were being bamboozled by those in power, from the church to the nobility. They revolted. Heads rolled.
A blog isn't the best forum for this kind of discussion. I could go on, but I'll limit myself to one more point. A couple of the labels for his blog post are Christianity and religion. If you read IM much, you know this is a common theme, i.e., the implication that science and religion must be in opposition to one another. The Sagan quote strikes me as another effort by Gryphen to imply that science = logic, and religion = superstition.
And in far too many cases, if one DOES get that power back, it is generally fear which keeps us from letting the world know because others are ready to slaughter you for getting free!
ReplyDeleteCarl's comment reflects exactly what happens when you give your allegiance to a grifter like Joel Osteen or Pat Robertson.
ReplyDeleteThey collect your money tax free, have 5 million dollar homes, and live a life of absolute luxury while you slave away at a 40 hour a week job.
And all the time, these hypocrites claim to follow the teachings of a penniless Jewish preacher who lived 2000 years ago, whose followers supported slavery, opression of women and girls, and promised you'd burn alive if you don't do what they said.
And speaking of idiots, those of you who worship Sarah Palin and claim she's Queen Esther, and the only person alive who can "save" America, you of all humans are most to be pitied.
A great many of the bamboozled live in the Fox/RW echo chamber.
ReplyDeleteHere is one of the bamboozlers with a collar. Complete with video.
ReplyDelete"St. Louis Archbishop Carlson claims to be uncertain if he knew sexual abuse was a crime" http://www.stltoday.com/lifestyles/faith-and-values/archbishop-robert-j-carlson-claims-he-was-unaware-sexual-abuse/article_4215ecea-3409-53b3-813b-545c81a1b793.html
Archbishop Robert J. Carlson claimed to be uncertain that he knew sexual abuse of a child by a priest constituted a crime when he was auxiliary bishop in the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis, according to a deposition released Monday.
During the deposition taken last month, attorney Jeff Anderson asked Carlson whether he knew it was a crime for an adult to engage in sex with a child.
“I’m not sure whether I knew it was a crime or not,” Carlson replied. “I understand today it’s a crime.”
Anderson went on to ask Carlson whether he knew in 1984, when he was an auxiliary bishop in the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis, that it was crime for a priest to engage in sex with a child.
“I’m not sure if I did or didn’t,” Carlson said.
Yet according to documents released Monday by the law firm Jeff Anderson & Associates in St. Paul, Carlson showed clear knowledge that sexual abuse was a crime when discussing incidents with church officials during his time in Minnesota.
In a 1984 document, for example, Carlson wrote to the then archbishop of St. Paul and Minneapolis, John R. Roach, about one victim of sexual abuse and mentioned that the statute of limitations for filing a claim would not expire for more than two years. He also wrote that the parents of the victim were considering reporting the incident to the police.
In a statement, Gabe Jones, spokesman for the Archdiocese of St. Louis, said “while not being able to recall his knowledge of the law exactly as it was many decades ago, the archbishop did make clear that he knows child sex abuse is a crime today.”
It's always ironic when a proven liberal liar who blogs posts a quote about bamboozling.
ReplyDeleteYes, the irony is amazing, When did the Consev-i-tard liar assclowns get a copy write on bamboozling?
DeleteUnfortunately, I think if you actually gave this to a person under the spell of FOX, the Tea Party or any other fringe nut job belief system they would be absolutely certain it applies to their thoughts. Insanity is a very powerful force.
ReplyDeleteCarl Sagan was a brilliant man. Dragons of Eden was his best book, IMHO, and talks about how we humans think and why.
ReplyDeleteWasn't it Einstein who said scientists made poor philosophers? They aren't necessarily good historians either. The "bamboozled" can see the error of their ways, otherwise human history would not be full of cultural revolutions, overthrown governments, exposure of charlatans, and so on.
ReplyDeleteSagan was a great scientist and popularizer of science. But the quote here is vague and generalized, which reminds me of a comment Ailsa made when Gryphen blogged about Neil DeGrasse Tyson not long ago. Dr. Tyson had stated words to the effect that you won't find a physicist involved in leading armies into battle. "You just won't," he said. Ailsa provided a link to an open letter to Tyson from Patrick McCray, with specific examples which proved Tyson was wrong.
Admiration of science should be tempered with an understanding of the limitations of scientists, who are human beings like the rest of us, and none of us are infallible. Best to keep a sense of balance and avoid uncritical hero worship.
Einstein didn't exactly say that. In "Physics and Reality", Einstein, who was interested in epistemology, wrote:
DeleteIt has often been said, and certainly not without justification, that the man of science is a poor philosopher. Why then should it not be the right thing for the physicist to let the philosopher do the philosophizing? Such might indeed be the right thing at a time when the physicist believes he has at his disposal a rigid system of fundamental concepts and fundamental laws which are so well established that waves of doubt can not reach them; but it can not be right at a time when the very foundations of physics itself have become problematic as they are now. At a time like the present, when experience forces us to seek a newer and more solid foundation, the physicist cannot simply surrender to the philosopher the critical contemplation of the theoretical foundations; for, he himself knows best, and feels more surely where the shoe pinches. In looking for a new foundation, he must try to make clear in his own mind just how far the concepts which he uses are justified, and are necessities. (Einstein 1936, 349)
As for the notion that "The "bamboozled" can see the error of their ways, otherwise human history would not be full of cultural revolutions, overthrown governments, exposure of charlatans, and so on,"
what evidence can you offer that these occurrences weren't caused by those who weren't bamboozled? Your vague and generalized assertion here provides no evidence that a formerly bamboozled cohort saw the error of their ways, and incited revolutions, across multitudes of historical events.
Sagan's comment may be vague and generalized, but that is because he is talking in generalizations. Re-read the quotation. He says, "Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back." "Almost never" is the qualifier that allows the idea to apply to many, but not all situations.
Here are some examples for you, Anon at 5:45, from a few different fields. J.Z. Knight, who claims to channel Ramtha, a 35,000 year-old warrior, for a while enjoyed huge popularity, offering enlightenment classes to wisdom seekers. She also sold expensive Arabian horses to people, based on predictions from Ramtha that the horses would earn large sums of money for their owners. After disgruntled purchasers realized they had been bamboozled, they sued, and Ramtha's horse-selling business came to a halt. Over time, numbers of Ramtha followers have continued to dwindle. As John Lennon realized that Maharishi Mahesh Yogi was a bamboozler, many once-dedicated "Ramsters" came to doubt Ramtha's authenticity. Knight lives just a few miles from me, and I know some of her former followers personally.They became so enlightened that they realized they were being bamboozled.
DeleteWe've all heard of Ponzi schemes, named for con artist Charles Ponzi. He enjoyed success for a time, until his own investors became suspicious, and eventually brought him down.
Now look at the medical establishment. For decades, homosexuality was listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual as a mental disorder. There was a dark period in history when lobotomies were employed to treat a host of mental illnesses. The public, as well as members of the medical profession, were bamboozled, even with a lack of evidence, into thinking these viewpoints were legitimate. Today most medical professionals and lay persons know better.
Consider the French Revolution. As the common people suffered, they began to realize that they were being bamboozled by those in power, from the church to the nobility. They revolted. Heads rolled.
A blog isn't the best forum for this kind of discussion. I could go on, but I'll limit myself to one more point. A couple of the labels for his blog post are Christianity and religion. If you read IM much, you know this is a common theme, i.e., the implication that science and religion must be in opposition to one another. The Sagan quote strikes me as another effort by Gryphen to imply that science = logic, and religion = superstition.
Not to take from the genius of Carl Sagan, but I thnk Cantor needs to get that quote tattooed somewhere visible, like across his forehead.
ReplyDelete