Clearly this is a rhetorical question. It is of course possible that Johnson could criticize some person who has drawn his ire (usually by being religious) without resorting to making up facts to support his assertions, but the reality is that he is simply too lazy and intellectually dishonest to do so. Johnson has left a long list of libel across the Internet (why Robert Spencer doesn’t sue him I’ll never know) mainly intimating that some blogger he’s on the outs with is a racist or neo-Nazi of some sort. Even Jewish bloggers like Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs have been smeared as neo-Nazis in one of the most offensive and disgusting lies ever to be spread through the Internet.
So I wasn’t surprised when a slow trickle of visitors from LGF started arriving at this old post I wrote claiming I was in fact a Christian who wants to replace science in schools with Creationism. I’m also apparently big in Stormfront, and not “ethnically tolerant” according to some White guy, who went on to call me an Uncle Tom. Not that any of those things were actually in the post I wrote, which waxed philosophic on why so many atheists were almost evangelical in their furor to convert others; no these are simply lies Charles Johnson has made up about me (or more correctly anyone who criticizes him) that his unthinking cyber-groupies simply repeat at his behest.
The post was in my Pagan and Proud category which should have clued Chuck’s minions in. That and the long paragraph in which I elaborate on my non-Christian religious beliefs. But the trolls who have bounded to the defense of mademoiselle Johnson wouldn’t know that because it requires reading the post, they are happy to simply take Chuck’s word for it that I’m a kook smearing him. That’s pretty much a direct quote.
Kook thinks he has me figured out — I’m a sekrit atheist who hates religion:
[Link: www.red-alerts.com…]
Notice the links to Eurofascists.
The Eurofascist he points to is born-again Christian blogger Lionheart (who has told me himself he is not a racist and I believe him) who was attacked by LGF. Notice how if you’re a groupie, Chuck’s comment on his Sunday night open thread gives you all the information you need to formulate an opinion of me and what I wrote. I’m a “kook” (religious) who links to racists.
He reinforces the view a few minute latter with this comment:
If there’s anything that might convince me to become an outright atheist, by the way, it’s the completely deranged attacks and hate mail from the religious right.
If you weren’t convinced I was the rabid offspring of Pat Buchanan and Benito Mussolini who deserved some good old fashioned Internet invective before, this implied cry for help from Johnson who is simply beleaguered by we mean old fundamentalists would be the breaking point I’m sure.
Case in point, here are some comments left for me:
Reine said,
on April 12th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
Your article is so misleading, I hardly know how to respond. I don’t know if Charles Johnson is an atheist or not. I do know that I am an actively practicing Christian, and I am also registered and a regular commenter at LGF, where I have made no secret of my religious beliefs. LGF is not an “anti-religion†site.
Religious or not, anyone should be appalled at the attempts to replace science with “creationist†views in the classroom. You say you are not a Christian; do you agree that Christian belief should replace the teaching of scientific knowledge? I know I would not want my child being taught the state’s version of “Christianity†– it is my right and my responsibility to teach my child the religious views we believe in; it is not the right of the state school system to choose which version of religion will be taught to her.
I believe God created the universe and all the processes by which we have evolved. I am not a scientist, and I have no fancy language nor fancy links to give you. But an acceptance of evolution as the process, and a belief in God as the creator, are perfectly compatible.
Er. O.K. But the article this comment was put on said no such thing. The post, entitled Charles Johnson and the Truth about Atheism, puts forward some of my personal theories on Atheist behavior and what drives their derision for the religious using Johnson as an example. It does not say that I think Science should be replaced with Biblical creationism. This is what happens when a person with a personality cult realizes he can manipulate his followers. In our subsequent exchanges it was very clear that “Reine” had no idea what I had written, but was simply responding to what people in the LGF comment thread were claiming I wrote.
Then there was this nugget:
Sharmuta said,
on April 12th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
The criticisms of ms. geller and mr. spencer have nothing to do with religion and everything to do with their support for ethnic-nationalist groups in europe. It is geller and spencer that are hailed as heros by the neo-nazis at stormfront, not Mr. Johnson. But don’t let facts get in the way of your attack. Maybe stormfronters will now love your blog too. Lucky you.
The Geller that this person is talking about is Pamela Geller from Atlas Shrugs, a Jewish woman. It is vile and insulting to say the least to claim that a Jewish woman is a hero to neo-Nazis. I defy any Johnson fan to find a Stormfront forum where she, or Robert Spencer from Jihad Watch for that matter, are called heroes. There is not, this is simply another slander Johnson throws around at these bloggers after his falling out with them.
But my favorite LGFer so far is this guy, who claims I’m the web’s only Biracial neo-Nazi because I criticize teaching theory as facts and made a personal observation about atheists I happen to know:
Salamantis said,
on April 12th, 2009 at 9:02 pm
No, the point is that the Big Bang is so well established by checkable-and-recheckable-at-will empirical evidence that the difference between its probability and apodictic certainty is vanishingly small. That, my dear noncognoscenti, is empirical science, readily accessible with a few simple internet clicks.
As to religion, I have been an eclectic Wiccan for 30+ years. Wicca has no problem with science. You impress me as Odinist or Asatru, and not the ethnically tolerant kind.
I also note that you contradict yourself in a single post, by first saying you don’t judge people solely on their metaphysical opinions, then imediately stating that most of the many atheists whom you claim to know are bad people.
My guess is that you have been booted from LGF for being a troll yourself, most probably for defending the indefensible idea that antijihadis should climb into bed with eurofascists, and harbor a visceral animus concerning it.
But wait, it gets better. After I corrected him, he pressed on with his assertion that I was a Biracial neo-Nazi. And he has absolute moral authority to do so. You see, he’s a whole 1/4 native American:
Salamantis said,
on April 12th, 2009 at 9:28 pm
I myself am one quarter Native American. The fact that you claim biraciality does not insulate you from charges of ethnic intolerance, and especially does not insulate you from sharing the religious intolerance that is infamous among many Odinists.
I know what was in your post about atheists – after all, I paraphrased it. But all it amounts to is an unsubstantiated assertion claiming to be a personal anecdote. The statistics speak differently; atheists as a group are underrepresented in US prison populations.
It appears that I was on the mark with my guess that you are Odinist, and equally on the mark with my guess that you are a booted LGF troll. No email notification occurred and in fact none was necessary; the fact that your idiotarian emotional convictions dominate your rational intellection was more than enough of a clue.
And I find it unintentionally ironic to the point of hilarity that an Atlas Shrugged-Brussels-Journal-Gates-Of-Vienna groupie would accuse me of groupieism.
Anyone pulling the “I’m (random percentage here) Native American” card on me should be referred to my “Ward Churchill’s a White Guy” series. He went on to claim I had an affinity for Nazi regalia and was probably a pedophile. By way of explaining his behavior here I should mention Salamantis is a lefty divorcee who once called for the U.S. to militarily intervene in Europe if Jihadists ever found themselves being attacked by Europeans and works as Chuck’s secret policeman, ferreting out people who don’t toe the LGF line on other sites so Commissar Johnson can ban them. Here’s his MySpace page. Surprise! He’s friends with teen girls. And he’s 53.
You can read our exchange on that post if you’re interested.
My point in looking at this is to show that there is something rotten at LGF and it starts at the top and works it’s way down right to every last sad unemployed attic dweller who waits with bated breath for Charles Johnson to tell them what to think and who to attack. Johnson linked to a post that he knew they wouldn’t read, but my more recent post about him would have been more germane. That’s the one where I point out that despite Johnson’s constant carping on others’ unseemly associations, he himself is supported by a Canadian neo-Nazi group.
I doubt Johnson would ever link to that one in the comments though, it would make him look like a hypocritical liar.
Johnson and his followers all make a habit of deflecting criticism and making up facts on the spot to prove some point. Even though I’m Biracial (proudly so), a Polytheist (proudly so), and work with a group dedicated to fighting child molestation these people have already begun creating a myth that I’m some fundamentalist Christian Nazi pedophile who has gone out of his way to attack poor old Charles Johnson.
It’s almost as if they knew they couldn’t win in an honest debate.
The 16 year old girl to whom you refer is the daughter of another one of my MySpace friends, Sheila. I accepted her as a friend with her mother’s knowledge and approval. She has pics of her daughter on her page. They live hundeds of miles from me, and we have never met IRL. So much for your attempt at a pedophilic slime job.
When I find fake Lizards posting slags about Charles and LGF on hate-LGF sites, I let the list know. It’s only fair that people should know when folks to whom they are lending blog space are sliming them behind their backs.
Apparently you would be in favor of another Kristallnacht, if its victims were Muslims instead of Jews. I was simply remarking that if the Euros succumbed to another variant of their former Nazi craziness, the US would regrettably be compelled to yet again spend US blood and treasure in order to once again save them from themselves. It would seem that you would prefer us allowing a Holocaust and Final Solution for european Muslims to proceed.
If people are interested in my views on the whole Islamofacist issue, they are available on my MySpace blog, here:
http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=44849319&blogId=247516883
Yes yes, everyone who disagrees with you is a Nazi looking forward to another Kristallnacht etc. Is there anyone that takes you to task who isn’t a Nazi? Is it safe to assume you’ve never heard of Godwin’s Law?
Since you called me a pedophile (out the blue) and “cognitively immature” (as opposed to non-cognitively) I was simply pointing out that 53-year-old Wiccans who friend teens on MySpace are living in a glass house as the Christians say. It is a fascinating story though; tell me more about this mother who thinks it’s acceptable for her adult friends who are old enough to be her kids grandfather to connect with her daughter on a social network? Whatever do you talk about? I personally avoid children I know, and dread when they find the MySpace and Twitter I use to promote my sites.
Another way in which we’re different, I’m sure.
YOU’RE the one who falsely claimed that I was advocating that the US defend Islamofascists against the rest of Europe’s population. I was simply pointing out that we might have to save their bacon yet again, if they made the same mistake with another scapegoat.
Since you claim to have a wife, I cannot claim that you are physically immature; the claim of mental immaturity is a direct judgment of the content of your posts.
I don’t mind living in a glass house, as I have nothing to hide. I actually have never corresponded with the daughter, her link just sits there. And someone who is afraid to allow young people to even link to their sites would seem to be fearing that their hidden desires might be coaxed to the surface by the contact and become publicly known.
I guess that you and I are indeed different, at least in that respect.
Okay, then, Rob. You have been busy. I shall call back the search and rescue teams LOL. This is interesting. I love your political rants but I can’t comment too much on this as I didn’t look at the links you provided. I just really wanted to ask Salamantis something.
Salamantis: Hi. I want to point out that although Rob was clearly hinting at an issue you have as an older man with teens as friends, “pedophilia” refers to children and not teens. I don’t mean to sound nit picky. I’m not attacking you or anything because this is really the first I’ve heard of you and I didn’t click on the links Rob provided to see the full story (yet). I just wanted to mention.
I, also, see you are eclectic Wiccan. (I’m solitary Pagan, btw.) I’m curious, what do you think of Gavin and Yvonne Frost?
I heard enough shady stuff about the Frosts that I never red any of their books or searched for any of their internet stuff, if they have any.
If you wanna check out an essay I wrote on NeoPaganism, you can read it here:
http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=44849319&blogId=247515583
The term that you are searching for is ephebophilia (I remembered that there was such a term, but had forgotten what it was, so I spent several minutes Googling around to find it – you’re welcome ;~). And no, I don’t have that. In fact, quite the opposite; the first woman I was engaged to was a few years older than me, as was my ex-wife, and as is my gf. I guess I’m my father’s son; my mother was a bit older than my father.
His baseless accusation simply points to something seamy in his own mind, in my opinion.
If by your logic baseless accusations points to something in your own mind since you called me a pedophile out of the blue when I hadn’t broached the subject doesn’t that mean you were exposing yourself?
Apparently, unable to counter your arguments with facts, Charles Johnson must lie. How pathetic. There are plenty of intelligent atheists out there that could have at least attempted to criticize you, without resorting to ad hominem attacks, especially ad hominem attacks based on lies.
Rob Taylor,
Sorry I forgot to address you in my last comment. As for attacking Spencer and Geller, People really should be a skeptical of any claim that they are connected with Nazis.
Rob, you ignorant slag, the bon mot about glass houses is Confucian, not Christian. Moron.
And as for avoiding children you know, maybe that says something about the inner you. One can admire your self-restraint, at least.
That’s not what a bon mot is but nice try. You also used slag wrong. Otherwise your comment was a worthless personal attack made by a person unable to argue the points in the article.
But I’m sure it sounded high brow to feed that unwarranted sense of superiority you have.
Not being a Christian or a Confusion I couldn’t care less about offending either with a wrong attribution.
Heh, I see you’ve been a minor target in the attacks coming from the (K)G(B) counterrevolutionary investigative committee. Nice. I wonder if there’s any old photos of Johnson with excommunicated “neofascist sympathizers” that can be airbrushed to remove them and promote the glory of the lizards state.
I’d love to run a picture with Johnson standing with Spencer and Geller under the headline “Charles Johnson supports Fascism!” just to see how he likes it.He’s really out there.
“… puts forward some of my personal theories on Atheist behavior and what drives their derision for the religious using Johnson as an example.”
In other words you are an ignorant bigot. An idiot as far as I can tell. Didn’t anyone ever tell you that you cannot judge a group by an individual, especially when that individual is behaving badly.
Furthermore, atheism is a lack of belief. You might as well be making gross over-generalizations about people who don’t believe in leprechauns.
This is some idiotic reasoning you’ve got going on here.
My tone reflects that fact that you are libeling me for my disbelieve in religion. Screw you, you bigot.
Pingback: CAIR Attacks Robert Spencer with material from terrorist tool Charles Johnson/ LGF — Winds Of Jihad By SheikYerMami
Brian Macker-
You didn’t read the piece, have no idea what “libel” “bigot” or “gross generalization” means and you no doubt have done exactly what you accuse me of doing, judging entire groups. That’s my point, and your childish tirade helps prove it.
And you meant disbelief in religion.
I read enough. Here’s another gem:
“The Atheist does not simply disbelieve in some form of divinity in the world, he or she seeks the total annihilation of religion and the religious.â€
Another one of your idiotic statements about non-believers.
Here’s another ridiculous and bigoted comment of yours from your prior post you link to from here.
“Atheists believe in a subjective morality. For example they believe that the reason it’s wrong for a 40-year-old to be sexually active with a child is because it’s illegal and society has ruled that it shouldn’t happen.”
People who believe in subjective morality believe in subjective morality. Not all atheists fit that mold. Some, like the objectivists, believe in objective morality. Others, like me think the entire subjective vs. objective morality argument is a false dichotomy.
Since counterexamples exist against both positions they are both false. Morality is neither objective nor subjective in the sense meant by most holders of those positions.
There are many flavors of subjective morality and not all would agree with that. Few would agree that legality or non-legality is how one tells if something is moral.
For someone who claims to have a “academic background in Comparative Religion” you certainly have a poor grasp of ethical philosophy.
That prior article is a long childish rant about things you are ignorant of and apparently don’t have the brain power to understand.
Another of you bigoted comments: “I know many atheists and most happen to be bad people.”
I know more atheists than you do and NONE of them are “bad” people in any sense that couldn’t be applied to my Christian friends.
All right, all right Bryan. I’ll give you the attention Daddy never did.
You Say:
“I read enough. Here’s another gem:
“The Atheist does not simply disbelieve in some form of divinity in the world, he or she seeks the total annihilation of religion and the religious.â€
Another one of your idiotic statements about non-believers.”
A) Non-believers and Atheists are two different groups. I’m a “non-believer” in terms of Christianity, but not an Atheist. Atheism posits a very specific set of beliefs about the universe (some call it rational materialism) where as non-believers is a vague term that literally includes everyone in the world from some perspective. This is a cheap rhetorical device you use to make it look like I’m irrationally attacking all people who aren’t religious, rather than dedicated Atheists.
B) You have claimed again these statements are idiotic but provide no reason why except that you happen to disagree. I happen to think Tabasco is a fairly mild sauce and others disagree, are we being “idiotic?” How about you name three Atheists that haven’t at some point been involved in attempting to drive Constitutionally protected displays of faith from public life, or don’t spend their time ridiculing and demonizing religious people?
“People who believe in subjective morality believe in subjective morality. Not all atheists fit that mold. Some, like the objectivists, believe in objective morality. Others, like me think the entire subjective vs. objective morality argument is a false dichotomy.”
Here you’re confusing the terms objectivism with objective morality. Objectivism philosophically posits that the most moral society allows people to follow their self-interest, which we may both agree on, but Objectivism doesn’t support the idea of a universal right and wrong beyond Rand’s attempt to create a moral system in which my own ambition and self-interest is the highest authority. In essence this is a subjective morality because it changes from individual to individual.
There are a group of pedophiles I have blogged about who have a sort of online support group. They are heavily involved in trying to change sex offender registry laws (most are on the registry) and have infiltrated conservative and progressive websites to spread their message. By Objectivist standards they are in fact acting morally, by my standards they are not. That’s because I think morality and political philosophy are linked but different. I’m a Capitalist, but I give to charity and worked in non-profits for example.
When I use Objective an Subjective, I’m using those terms to reference the idea of there either being a fixed morality and belief that some things (like pedophilia) are intrinsically evil versus the idea that something like pedophilia being socially stigmatizing but no worse than anything else.
“Since counterexamples exist against both positions they are both false. Morality is neither objective nor subjective in the sense meant by most holders of those positions.”
That’s undergrad style circular argumentation. So if the pedophiles I mention above think they’re being moral that invalidates my belief in an objectively true morality?
“There are many flavors of subjective morality and not all would agree with that. Few would agree that legality or non-legality is how one tells if something is moral.”
That’s exactly my point. I once read an essay (back in the 90s I think) which claimed that a solution to child molestation was to take brain dead children and warehouse them in pedophile bordellos. The state would keep them alive on machines and pedophiles could molest them thus “saving” other children. That is a monstrous evil plan that this person thought was morally right. This is an extreme example but when nothing is really wrong (we are according to you rightly guided only by self-interest) then everything is right. Perhaps you can enlighten me as to the Objectivist argument against the above perfidy.
“For someone who claims to have a “academic background in Comparative Religion†you certainly have a poor grasp of ethical philosophy.”
And you have a poor grasp of academia. Comparative Religion is in no way related to philosophy, it is mainly an Anthropological/ethnographic science.
“That prior article is a long childish rant about things you are ignorant of and apparently don’t have the brain power to understand.”
Then be the adult and explain why I’m wrong. What you’re doing is projecting. You call me names then say I’m childish, you misunderstand what I write then claim I’m ignorant. I say back up your claims.
“I know more atheists than you do and NONE of them are “bad†people in any sense that couldn’t be applied to my Christian friends.”
A) You know more Atheists than me? How do you come up with such a conclusion? Through empirical analysis I’m sure.
B) And your Christian friends are the bad people? Why be friends with them? You aren’t a very good one.
Pingback: Stacy McCain Knows I Didn’t Compare Him to John Wayne Gacy : Greenville Dragnet