• ducdebrabant

      The implementation of Obamacare is not “increasingly unpopular,” and Russia is no more our main strategic adversary now than it was during the election. Public support of rights for gays and lesbians is even more solid now than it was when Romney opposed them. Global warming is still a problem for the world, despite Romney’s refusal to admit its existence, and the evidence of that has only increased. The auto industry Obama saved is still saved, and the crash of the entire finance system he helped avert still hasn’t happened to vindicate Republicans’ insistence that everything Obama has ever done has been destructive. And Gwen Ifill is still right, and Romney still wrong, about what Obama said about Benghazi. But if Republicans want to tell themselves this ridiculous man, this denouncer of the 47% who told us “corporations are people, my friend,” this corporate raider with an elevator for his cars, this barefaced liar and long-time bully, was a prophet who shall now be honored in his own country, and are inclined to run him again against Hillary Clinton, I hope they will. Man, do I hope it. I might even put it in my prayers.

    • ducdebrabant

      In the first place, I don’t agree that the word “zealot” (uncapitalized) does have an ugly connotation necessarily. Depends on what you’re a zealot about. But in the second place, “Zealot” (capitalized) has a very specific meaning you perhaps don’t know (surprising, I would think, for a Jew): “Zealotry was originally a political movement in 1st century Second Temple Judaism which sought to incite the people of Judaea Province to rebel against the Roman Empire and expel it from the Holy Land by force of arms, most notably during the Great Jewish Revolt (66-70). Zealotry was described by Josephus as one of the “four sects” at this time.”-Wikipedia. That’s the etymology of the common word, too. Apparently the author believes that Jesus was crucified as an enemy of the Roman state, that he was more or less literally a Zealot. This is either true or it isn’t, but he wrote a whole book to prove his point, and I wouldn’t attack it without reading it, or at least knowing a lot more about it than its title.

    • ducdebrabant

      Any scholar of religions either has to have either some religion or none. Apparently the interviewer knows nothing about scholarship, teaching, or history, and thinks Muslims must only write about Islam, Christians about Christianity, Atheists about Atheism. A world in which nobody can have an opinion about anybody else’s religion, or even about the historicity of anybody else’s religion, no matter how well-informed or well-read they are, or how well-trained in scholarship, or how systematic in their approach or thinking, would be a world with strange gaps in scholarship and higher education. To put it simply, the interviewer is stupid. I think she must have her job because she’s rightwing, pretty, and a person of color, and Fox News finds it difficult to tick those boxes.

Load More