Thursday, May 3, 2012

My Response To Macho

I once wrote about someone I admire, Helmut James von Moltke.  As an aside, I'm rather proud that one of my blog posts on him is my most visited one--it's the one that recounts his chilling encounter with evil incarnate. link

Now it so happened that von Moltke was raised in the Christian Science Church (FTR, I'm not a Christian Scientist). Anyways, von Moltke's parents first translated Mary Baker Eddy's work into German. According to ueber macho blogger Crack Emcee, who garners the apparent respect of numerous high profile bloggers, anyone associated with what he brands cult characteristics is forever tainted with the "cult characteristics" and is to be mocked and parodied.

Just the other day on Althouse, Crack was running down Mitt Romney again--in his eyes guilty of holding fast to tenets of the Mormon faith. That's just absurd--akin to holding Helmut James von Moltke hostage to every last jot and tittle of Christian Scientism.

I asked Crack the other day on Althouse what he thought of Mary Baker Eddy--here's what he said:
A nut job, responsible for the deaths of a lot of kids. Come on, you could've guessed that one, couldn't you? Would you deny your kid a blood transfusion based on her bullshit? link
My reading of Crack is that he believes strongly in guilt by association. Crack is a bigot in that regard. Show me the evidence that Mitt Romney colors his political thinking and potential future actions by the details of his faith.

I'm going to requote something written by von Moltke's widow, Freya, which I put back here:
However, questions of faith were also, or became, personally vital for almost all the members of the group.  Even if they were not churchgoing Christians, it was their faith in divine work, and, in fact, the faith rooted in Christian heritage, that gave them their foundation and their courage.  Their faith also imposed upon them the duty to act against the destruction of fundamental humanity (evolved from Christianity) by National Socialism and to risk their lives for this. However, for them it was not only a matter of great heritage, out of which our western treasures had grown, in spite of all atrocities committed by the church and by Christians throughout the centuries; rather, they also believed in the future of Christianity.  Christianity has a way--just when it appears bankrupt--of becoming alive again in a new and different manner. They believed that. Faith is tested by one's actions. People attach themselves to many gods and are always in danger of being led astray by false gods--as was the case then with the false gods of National Socialism.


  1. Interesting debate point. Crack Emcee is about criticizing what he deems to be bullshit and there is obviously a lot about the LDS faith that is...difficult to accept would be a charitable way of putting it.

    That said, there is plenty in regular Christianity (or any religion) that is difficult to accept in a scientific objective manner. And Crack is an atheist. So he is consistent.

    I still very much like his opinions and his site (even if I disagree with some of them). He makes you think.

    I respectfully disagree with Crack on this. To me Mitt Romney is not my first choice as the GOP standard bearer, but I have no problems voting for Romney over Obama based on their stated policy positions. Would I prefer Mitt Romney to be more a classical liberal (think founding fathers)-libertarian-fiscal small goverment conservative? Of course. But to me the current choice between these two candidates is not that difficult to make.

    I would like to know why his site got pulled down.

  2. Crack's mocking of the implausability of religious tenets isn't my target here--it's the nexus he draws between those tenets & beliefs and one individual. He's connecting imaginary dots and relies on leaps of faith to do so.

    I put the von Moltke stuff in as a bulwark, rock bottom definition of faith for Crack to mock.

  3. I dunno. Crack is clearly some kind of mad genius but, you're right, he's a religious bigot. I suppose he comes to his atheism honestly but to me it's always seemed to be about how religion done him wrong.

    But to your point, Bruce. No, Romney can't be held responsible for every tenet of his belief. It's about how he'll govern. While I don't understand Mormonism, I'm convinced no harm will come to the country if a Mormon is elected President.

  4. Thanks for stopping by and speaking your mind, Pete.

  5. I always thought one of the strengths of America was our ability to get people of different backgrounds to work together. And not through coercion or ridicule, either.

    1. There have always been prejudice and bias, America is no different than tribalism that is hard wired into human beings (even cows like me like to herd), but we managed to work through it and we will work through this too.

  6. Pete's remark about things being personally directed strikes a chord with me. I've seen this a lot more the last few years, and in more areas than just religion! It's as if everything had conspired to personally make their lives miserable, that there was nothing even close to the idea of a line of 'general argument'. It affected both blog I write on, and blogs I comment on as well, and I don't relate to it all that well.

  7. When I lived in KC there were many LDS in Independence, Mo...Truman's hometown. I worked w/ some, socialized some w/ a few. I don't see the fucking problem. It's not like he's a Jew[sarcastic..for those who don't know me].

  8. Well said, chickelit.

    Ascribing the characteristics of a group to each individual associated with that group--and only those characteristics--is the very essence of bigotry.

  9. Crack has more lately said on Althouse that Romney may not be properly vetted for the same reason that Obama wasn't in 2008: blind allegiance. I think that the media has maintained a vigilance on Romney's past--so far. And it's not a misdoing that the story about him from 1965 never had legs.

  10. The idea that Romney needs vetting is simply bizarre. The man's been in public life for a long time, and the only "dirt" anyone's come up with involves a HS prank that may or may not have happened.

    What Crack wants to "vet" is Mormonism. Well, to hell with that. As a sort of agnostic myself, I'm fed up with the intolerance of atheists.

    I'm certainly not a psychiatrist or even a psychologist, but IMO Crack is a disturbed individual who deals with his problems by blaming them all on some deep conspiracy of cultists. It increasingly bothers me that he is indulged in his rantings like the crazy uncle at Althouse.

    This is not to say that everything he says is crazy, or that he's not a smart and interesting guy. He's all that. But he also seems like someone who needs to see just how batshit crazy his obsession with cults is. Nobody is willing to do that, and I don't know exactly why.