Ironic Hypocrisy

I’m not sure how I stumbled on this site, but suffice it to say I did. I read the article by the priest who wrote it, about how the big bad atheists are taking over the blogosphere, and maybe even the entire Intertubes, with their “aggressive’, “crude”, “negative”, “dismissive” commentary on all things religious.

As you would expect, I disagreed with him, and left a comment. I said something similar to this:

The atheists you complain about will probably stop being so aggressive when:

  1. Theists stop voting for and electing politicians on the basis of their religious beliefs.
  2. When theists stop trying to legislate morality according to their religious beliefs
  3. When theists stop interfering in scientific research that conflicts with their religious beliefs
  4. When theists stop intruding in others sexuality and sexual identity.
  5. When theists stop insisting that their religious beliefs be taught in public school.

I thought it was a very neutral comment, directly addressing his complaint. It wasn’t disrespectful, or crude or overly aggressive in tone. It actually followed another comment left by someone else who disagreed, equally civil.

As you’ve probably guessed, when I went back later, both comments had been deleted (hence my inability to quote exactly from my comment). I found that somewhat ironic, given this statement in the piece:

…this is a free country and their advocacy for atheism should not, of course, be censored.

Except, of course, on his blog. What does he do? He censors two atheists. And not even two “aggressive”, “crude”, “negative”, “dismissive” atheists. Just two atheists who disagreed with him.

No hypocrisy there.

No irony either.

This is a good example of the whiny mentality that some Christians have. If someone deigns to criticize their beliefs, they immediately take it personally, get defensive, and accuse the critic of persecuting them. Or being strident. Or being aggressive. Or being crude. Get the picture?

All of which is a deflective tactic designed (perhaps subconsciously) to keep from addressing the substance of the criticism. If you avoid the criticism by jumping on the offensive, then you don’t ever have to confront the vacuity and lack of substance of your beliefs.

The other delusional aspect of this priest’s response is indicated in the last section, where he shows that he has not the foggiest understanding of atheistic criticism. He thinks that they really don’t disbelieve in his particular version of Sky Daddy, that they actually do believe, they just don’t realize it yet.

My wager, as a person of faith, is that everyone — and that includes Christopher Hitchens, Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins — implicitly wants God and hence remains permanently fascinated by the things of God.

He’s clueless, and this comes from a mentality that cannot imagine anyone NOT believing in his god. So there just has to be another explanation. And his explanation is that atheists are so fascinated by god that they spend all of their time fixated on him.

What a fool.

———————–

I left another comment after I noticed the first two missing, but this time I took a screen shot to preserve it.

Compare it to what’s there now.

————————-

2nd Update. The above was deleted right away, so I left another comment, calling him on his hypocrisy, and that was deleted.

__________

LAST EDIT, THEN I’M DONE:

As an experiment, I left an agreeable comment on the site, just to see if it would be deleted. Here it is with intentional misspellings intact:

It’s still there, more than 24 hours later.

Dog, I hated writing that.

32 thoughts on “Ironic Hypocrisy

  1. Left my own little comment on his website. Wonder how long it will take for it to be deleted.

    Also it’s good to see you’re still writing John. Your blog is still one of my regulars, even if I mostly lurk these days.

    • I hope he gets notice of the trackback and comes here to see what an asshole he is.

      Oh, my I called a priest an asshole. How rude!

    • Hey, Xander. My Venus Fly Trap author! Good to see you.

      Yes, apparently opposing opinions are not very Catholic. But, your post was captured in an email to me. I registered to comment, so even though he deletes them, I get them first. Until he figures that out and de-registers me.

      Here’s what you wrote:

      You really shouldn’t have a question as a blog title. Especially, if when you receive an answer, you delete it straight away. 

      Don’t just shy away from answers you dislike. If your faith is strong, how could someone’s lack of faith affect you?

      You also should not discount a response based on it’s tone. You should be looking at the validity of the argument, not at how it has been expressed.

      Especially when in your own writing: “but this is a free country and their advocacy for atheism should not, of course, be censored”.

      It is entirely hypocritical to then censor comments on your own blog.

      Is this really how you want to act? Is it moral? Is it right?

  2. What a moronic priest. Since this is his mindset, why doesn’t he just set all comments to “approval”? He’ll probably end up reading this comment and doing it. Learning from atheists! Jackass.

    I saw an Atheist Experience video yesterday where Matt Dillahunty was addressing the issue of “why do atheist form a group for something they DON’T believe in”? His answer was pretty decent and I’ll try to paraphrase it –

    I don’t believe in Bigfoot. If there were a large group of people who not only DID believe in Bigfoot but they were also implementing some really bad laws based on their belief – I’d be part of the “I don’t believe in Bigfoot group”.

  3. I saw an Atheist Experience video yesterday where Matt Dillahunty was addressing the issue of “why do atheist form a group for something they DON’T believe in”?

    JohnEvo, the analogy I like to use in response to that are people who do not believe that human activity is causing climate change. Why do they spend so much time and effort opposing people who are concerned about it? It is not uncommon for people who comprise the Religious Right to claim that humanity activity isn’t causing global warming because God controls the weather and that it is just a ploy by evil, godless socialists to control their lives.

  4. I think we often times forget the dynamics involved when we deal with the relogious, especially the “ordained”.

    Catholic, orthodox, or protestant, it is all pretty much the same. Criticism, dissent, unfavorable comment are not welcome, will not be tolerated by un affiliated passers-by nor the laity. Passers-by may keep passing without comment, and the laity is required to sit in the pew, mouths shut (except when required by ritual), and wallets open.
    They don’t want to hear any questions except certain ones that can be answered by slogans or a reference to scripture which…well, it’s scripture. Thus, you must read it, nod your head knowingly, and say no more. Accept.

    The only “discussion” permitted is in the upper tiers of these organisations, and if you read any of their “discourses” or “arguments” you find that while the semantic and rhetorical flights can but all over the shop, it’s some little point that is all part of their fantasy land and it’s not so much what’s said as the WAY in which it’s said. And only said to others qualified to play the game.

    So, surprise isn’t what I feel when I hear that comments are deleted.
    Not speaking in the “preistly tongue”, and certainly no actual questioning can be tolerated, even if said preist and his ilk baldly stated that we unbelievers were giant, anthropophagic cicadas because of our lack of religion.

    • I should leave an appropriately obsequious comment under another name agreeing with him and see if it stays up.

      • Oh, please, SI… of COURSE it will stay up! He wasn’t sharp enough to set his blog moderation – ya think he is able to follow your IP address back to you?

        • Have you looked at it recently? Someone (Gee, I wonder who) left a comment that actually stayed up! Go figure.

  5. Interesting title to the priest’s post: Why are so many atheists on the CNN Belief blog? A better question would have been, Why the hell does CNN have a Belief Blog?

  6. There was absolutely nothing objectionable about your comment. That is very weak that it was removed just because they didn’t like it. Hypocrisy to be sure.

    • Yes. And the one comment I left that forced me to suppress my natural gag reflex is still there.

  7. Ah… the ironic hypocrisy of you — one who censors others — complaining about being censored. Ironic hypocrisy indeed!

    On a lighter note, how about a joke: how does Hitler tie his shoes?

  8. As of today July 2 your comment is the only one. I left one myself that must be moderated first. Ah, that famous Christian tolerance.

    • Really? It’s still there? Wow. 6 days! Gotta be a record.

      Pretty good evidence for the intolerance of Catholic priests, and Christians in general. Not to mention the hypocrisy of the religious.

  9. Yeah! Damn the man! Down with censorship! **

    **special restrictions apply: down with censorship unless SI wants to do it [SI#345.67.55.4]

    • Slow day for you CL?

      Tell me, what have I censored on this blog, other than a clearly obnoxious troll named Gideon? Because that’s all you can point to.

      However, you and all your sock-puppet manifestations are perilously close to joining him.

      • With someone like Gideon, it’s not censorship, it’s merely enforcing standards of decorum. I would never ban someone just because they disagreed with me. Heck, I just publicly apologized to the Jews for Jesus after they somehow caught wind of my post criticizing them for handing out literature that ends up as litter. Two of them responded, including one who actually was the one I saw at the subway station, and they both insisted that they clean up after they’re done. I acknowledged what they told me in an updated version of the post and retained the original post as an example of my leaping to conclusions and admitting that I was wrong.

  10. However, you and all your sock-puppet manifestations are perilously close to joining him.

    Ah, yes, that’s the spirit… whine with all your atheist buddies about censorship, then hypocritically threaten to indulge in more of it yourself. LOL!

  11. While we’re on the topic of ironic hypocrisy, maybe you should tell all your new readers about how your boy Larry Wallberg, a.k.a. the Exterminator, was the master of all sock puppets? Surely you’re not suggesting that sockpuppetry is bad, right? Or will you deny that you knew about Trinity? I mean come on, you went and pulled a sockpuppet comment at this priest’s blog, so where’s the consistency SI? What’s with the special pleading?

    LOL! What a joke. Whining about sockpuppetry and censorship from a blogger that’s condoned both. However, to leave on a positive note, this just might be your most aptly titled post to date. 😉

    • Or will you deny that you knew about Trinity?

      For someone who puts on airs of intelligence, sometimes you’re really stupid.

      You honestly can’t tell the difference between parody and sock-puppetry?

      Sock puppets like Cl/Jon/Jason/Godless Randall et. al. come in and support each other, giving the appearance that there are more than one person with the same ideas. Trinity came in ( a couple of years ago, too. Why are you still nursing this?) and made fun of Christians, by taking their persona to an over-the-top, cartoonish dimension.

      The fact that you were taken in by him says more about you than me, Trinity or anyone else. Only a real doofus would actually buy it. Or Cl.

      I mean come on, you went and pulled a sockpuppet comment at this priest’s blog, so where’s the consistency SI?

      I was open and honest about it all, writing a blog post about it the whole time. I didn’t try to pretend I was someone else, unlike cl/Jon/jason/Godless Randall. As Spanish Inquisitor, I’m John Purcell. When I pretended to be a Christian on that blog, after having all my atheist comments deleted, I was still John Purcell.

      You really are stupid aren’t you?

      Sorry, but your time here is short. Make the most of it.

  12. Who said I bought it? It took about two comments to register a red flag, so, your namecalling–albeit usual–is unwarranted.

    Sock puppets like Cl/Jon/Jason/Godless Randall et. al. come in and support each other, giving the appearance that there are more than one person with the same ideas.

    That’s the funniest thing about all this: all this talk about evidence all day long, and here we are again, claims with no evidence. Any real lawyer would say the same thing, but not you. No, no… as long as you’re convinced in your own mind, that’s all the “evidence” you need. Ha! Oh well. At least you don’t have to represent me, and at least other people can get a kick out of your paranoid delusions. Yeah! Every dissenter who posts here is really me under a different name! No need to do any computer forensics or anything, you just know, don’t’cha? I mean, it can’t be that people actually think you’re wrong about point A, B or C, right?

    Get.

    Real.

    I didn’t try to pretend I was someone else, unlike cl/Jon/jason/Godless Randall.

    Yeah, and guess what? The one time I posted on this blog as “jason,” I came right back and admitted it was in good fun. Yet, here we are, months later, and you still insist on claiming I’m responsible for anyone and everyone who thinks you’re a quack! Are you really that self-absorbed?

    Sorry, but your time here is short. Make the most of it.

    Ah, yes, more threats of censorship. Nice display of fascist attitude! Very theocrat / Republican of you!

    • Who said I bought it?

      You did, in so many words, with your constant whining about it. As usual, you lie. If you saw a “red flag” after two comments, you wouldn’t still be complaining about it two years later.

      Naw, you thought he was legit. Still probably do.

      Gee, too bad you don’t get the last word, unless there’s another sock puppet out there somewhere you haven’t fooled me with. Why don’t you try Kirk C? Or Ray C? I haven’t seen him yet.

Comments are closed.