Once more on r/Academic Biblical — its getting nonacademic and fundagelical

From a Mac Sticky Note I wrote to myself long before I was banned:

Do people on this channel understand the use of rhetorical questions in headlines? Or snark in comments? And, when did the Zohar become "academic biblical"? It NEVER did in my book.

Obviously, they don't understand the rhetorical or snarky. And, of course, the Zohar is not that. It's not academic at all. This would be like having an Albigensian book called academic. 

And, fundagelical theological questions, as well as exegetical ones, have been allowed there. It's supposedly a rule that such questions aren't allowed. But, in reality, by the backdoor, they are. And, you still have the moaners there, or you did in the past, complaining the site is too hard on fundagelicals. 

That said, to the degree I still drop in there, I don't see such complaints recently. And, this may be part of why. And, given some things some of the newish mods, including but not limited to, Naugrith, said before they took over, I wouldn't be surprised if that is indeed the case.

==

Update, May 19: Clear example here. This post violates Rule 2 and invokes theological beliefs, specificially fundagelical stances on inerrancy. I reported it. We'll see if anything is done. I doubt it. (I'm occasionally reporting other comments, even if I agree with them, for not showing their work as required.)

Update, May 23: r/MasterStrawberry has had comments repeatedly yanked, so they do enforce at times.

The Self-Besotted Philosopher and other political nuttery at Only Sky

Yes, that's you, Jonathan M.S. Pearce. That is, if it's not The Self-Besotted Asshole.

As I told him on Twitter a month ago, his insistence that I had to watch one of his three different daily videos on geopolitics to really understand the Russia-Ukraine war came off like History for Atheists' Tim O'Neill insisting years ago that I had to listen to his podcast.

They're peas on a pod to a fair degree, only Pearce's asshole stretches wider.

This is an expansion of a post about the ongoing nuttery of Gnu and semi-Gnu Atheism at Only Sky, from a month ago.

Specifically, I got into a Twitter spat with him over that post.

And in that post, I linked this: "Putin's Russian sacrifice at the Chinese altar." It's a compendium of modern Western imperialist stances against both countries, something any Nat-see Nutsack, per a term at my main blog, would love.

And, yes, the political bothers me as does the Gnu or semi-Gnu Atheism. Especially given, per one of my previous blog posts, with this link, Pearce is already a documented Islamophobe. As does the fusion of secular humanism and atheism I noted a year ago. None of that is likely to change. (Sadly, Patheos totally 86-ed all atheist blogs when chasing away said bloggers; the Wayback Machine may have them, but maybe not.)

Spanky has since told me all about his separate "channel" for geopolitics and talked about a genocidal dictator. I trumped him with the 2014 Odessa genocide, which he didn't directly refute, the Amnesty International report on Ukrainian war crimes, reading Ivan Katchanovski and more.

He came back with a shitload of shit. After again saying watch my videos he came on with smears. Said I was being a Putin apologist. Called Katchanovski a "Kremlin apologist," and cited this blog with his name on it, full of post-Maidan smears and half truths, plus the Bulwark, as proof. (If the author's proposed name is real, of course a Ukrainian Lt. Gen, retired, Igor Romanenko, is going to make up bullshit.) 

Romanenko's first piece is a repost of Cathy Young at The Bulwark. Second? From Ian Roms at British site The Sceptic. Roms himself appears to be some sort of all-around wingnut, and a Zionist genocidalist. The site he writes at was formerly "Lockdown Sceptics." In other words, COVID bullshitters.

Taras Kuzio, cited in multiple pieces? Much of his early work, per that Wiki link, was funded by the CIA, even if he was personally unaware. He also has beaucoup research ties to neocons and general US (and UK) Nat-Sec Nutsacks,™ 

Later smears on Katchanovski portray him as not really an academic and more. In reality, though not having a Wiki page, sadly, he is very much an academic. He is cited in both the English and Polish Wiki pages about the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists, and is polite enough to describe the OUN as nationalist-fascist rather than Nazi-fascist, as some others do. He also, interestingly, studied under Seymour Martin Lipset, known as "one of the first neocons," when Lipset was at George Mason. Maybe some Ukrainians, and some Nat-Sec Nutsacks, expected a Katchanovski would not turn out as he did?

I've wasted enough time on Romanenko other than to note his slurs extend well before Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

I don't know the pre-war dislike of Katchanovski other than his refusal to spout the post-Maidan party line on the Maidan. The first piece by Romanenko, a massive undigested lump in both English and Ukrainian, is from 2015. 

Here's what seems to be a good, relatively neutral analysis of Katchanovski's claims about the Maidan. The author claims that he overstates some things, like conclusiveness of who fired from the Hotel Ukraine, while adding that a fair amount of his big picture holds up. (That site's "about" calls itself a left-wing Ukrainian media group focused on economic issues. Note that Katchanovski's first book was about labor issues and that's his background with Lipset.)

Spanky Pierce then claimed, contra his OnlySky piece, that he does actual complexity on this issue. Said the AI piece was controversial.

I called him out on the straight smears. Called him out on his "complexity" claims being hypocritical. Said I knew AI had been called controversial and knew by who and why. Muted and exited Twitter convo.

And, since then, I see he's hoist by his own lying petard. A January piece has him openly calling this a proxy war (a rare bit of honesty in his take on something), and going on to say "we" must win this.  

The piece is also disgustingly anti-Kantian, talking about NATO wargaming via Ukraine, etc. In other words, fighting Russia to the last Ukrainian used as an object.

And, late last year, he showed himself in one piece to be both a conspiracy theorist and also either a liar or ignorant about past years of history of Russia-Belarus relations. In fact, on his conspiracy theory, two months later, Belarusian opposition leaders, who would have reason to stoke a Putin poisoning if it happened, admitted Belarussian Foreign Minister Vladimir Makei was a suicide.

And, since you claim to be a philosopher, you want me to watch your videos knowing you wrote THAT?

That said, beyond his Western imperialist blatherings, there's nothing worth reading in Only Sky's whole "war and peace" vertical. M.L. Clark doesn't say anything wrong on Israel, but she doesn't say anything you couldn't find in The New Republic 3 years ago, in The Nation 5 or more, and in Counterpunch 20 years ago. Daniel Sharp claiming the Iraq War was worth it is of course monging for neoconservativism. Andrew Fiala, in arguing for a war crimes tribunal, does admit that Ukraine has committed an apparent violation or two, and then goes on to talk about My Lai and Abu Ghraib trials. Both were actually laughable. The people giving orders generally escaped trial, and even those following them generally got off lightly. Why? The US was trying itself, of course. Interesting that Falia does NOT talk about Slobodan Milosevic being in the ICC dock. Nor does he talk about the hypocrisy of the US not being an ICC signatory. Nor, beyond torture of Iraqis and other war crimes, does Fiala talk about US use of depleted uranium. Let me introduce you to Joshua Frank on that subject.

And, with that, that's enough wasted for many months. The only thing to add is that this is again proof that atheism and secular humanism aren't necessarily the same thing.

No, let me add one other thing.

In that previous post, I misspelled his last name. (I had gotten it correct in previous posts.) He called me out on Twitter. I apologized, said I would correct it, and did. Never a thank-you back.

Self-Besotted Philosopher, or Asshole.

Per Pierce's comment below, and my reply, let's go to this tweet:

What a bizarre situation when someone (@real_gadfly) is incredibly rude about you in a public piece, and when I mention he's spelled my name wrong, then adds a further insult at the end for me not thanking him for correcting my name?!?! How bizarre. (I hadn't even checked back.)

— Jonathan MS Pearce (@ATipplingPhilo) May 21, 2023

Going beyond whether I was rude or not, he doesn't engage with the facts on the ground. Being a conspiracy theorist on Russia-Ukraine issues right there means his opinions on anything associated with the war deserve discounting.

Openly admitting this is a proxy war, plus his Islamophobia? Calls into account any claim of his to be a secular humanist.

And, per my comment below, he utters a shitload of smears on Twitter then accuses me of being rude? 

Tell this to your Jason Boyd fanboi. Or is it sock puppet with 33 following, 0 followers, no tweets, and only replies apparently being to you.

As for Boyd? 

Once a legend always a legend..being rude is ignorance.
Ignore it.

— Jason Boyd (@jboyd49642) May 21, 2023

Since I'm not ignorant, then I'm not rude! Thanks! You're also right on JMSP being a "legend," but probably not in the way he meant it.

Update, June 27: I'm sure JMSP and others at Only Sky are, like US-UK mainstream media and Nat-sec Nutsacks, gloating triumphally over the non-coup (as in, it was a mutiny, not a coup) of Yevgeny Prigozhin and claiming this means Russia is about to fall apart. They'd be wrong.

A religiously sympathetic look at Waco and Koresh

But, is it TOO sympathetic, both in the author's treatment of two religious leaders who attempted to negotiate with David Koresh at the time, and the stance of those two religious leaders themselves? Let's dig in on this extended version of a Goodreads review.

Waco: David Koresh, the Branch Davidians, and A Legacy of Rage by Jeff Guinn
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

This is good to very good but not quite great as pop history, and OK-plus but not quite very good as semi-academic history. It’s also one of those books whose possible rating changed in my mind while writing up this review. (It's really a 4.25, which is what it got at StoryGraph.)

The good? First, Guinn gives a detailed, and accurate, history of Branch Davidian’s history, starting with the foundation of Adventism, then through Davidian’s start as an offshoot of traditional Adventism. Connecting Cyrus Teed to Koresh via Lois Roden getting his one book sent to the Waco-McLennan County Library. (I know Sean Sutcliffe from days of living in Marlin, Texas. I also from days of living in the Metroplex, know Carlton Stowers.) His idiomatic interpretation of “Messiah” as someone chosen by god for a specific purpose is also good, and probably assisted by biblical scholars who helped him. In all this, it's generally a good work.

His description of how ATF’s surprise was blown, not by ATF itself, nor by the Waco Trib’s start of a story series, but by a clueless KWTX cameraman who should have been fired if he wasn’t, is also good. So, too, is the backstory on why ATF pushed to go through with the raid even after local leaders knew cover had been blown. Later in the book, the description of differences between ATF and FBI in hierarchy, organization and lower-level autonomy is important.

Getting ATF people to talk, whether on the record or on background, is also good. That said, with two other new books out for the 30th anniversary, I don’t know if Guinn was any more successful on that than the other two authors.

Really good? His alternative 4 on how the fire started — neither FBI-deliberate (I reject that as he also seems to do), nor Branch Davidian-deliberate (the compound was too disorganized) nor accidental, but Koresh-deliberate, based on a literalistic interpretation of a “wall of fire” from Zechariah. OTOH, that assumes that under that much stress, that Koresh could have popped up such an idea is perhaps questionable.

Issues? And, this is where we extend off the Goodreads review. 

James Tabor is arguably but NOT UNarguably an “esteemed religious scholar.” I would be OK with using "recognized" in an academia sense but wouldn't go further.  J. Philip Arnold isn’t even that.

Tabor believes in a quasi-DaVinci Code David family dynasty theory of a Jesus movement, and also believes that the James ossuary, and others where he has gotten even more scorned, are “real” burial sites of Jesus’ family and disciples. Even where he's better, in talking about Paul vs James, Tabor holds on to old ideas about Pauline thought development. And, in a lot of this, despite the DaVinci Code type angle, he draws support of a lot of people who follow theologically conservative critical scholars, even if he is not one himsel.

Arnold seems to be some sort of quasi-Restorationist Xn. He was also flat wrong in the insinuation I infer behind his statement that Branch Davidian was entitled to First Amendment protection. Said protection does not include violating state child sex abuse or federal gun control law. This is clear in a variety of court rulings up to SCOTUS level. 

Both were probably overly sympathetic to Koresh at the time they were entering negotations. Guinn doesn’t address that, nor does he address the issue of whether Tabor and Arnold might have been not just sympathetic but so overly sympathetic that they thought they really could have gotten Koresh to surrender. 

I personally doubt that could have happened; Tabor seems like he might have been close to gullible on the issue and Arnold might even have inadvertently egged Koresh on, if allowed more contact. Guinn definitely doesn't address that issue. Nor does he address the possibility that not everybody on the FBI team was an urban yokel about these issues.

Nor does Guinn address the likelihood that FBI people were right and the promised exegesis of all seven seals would have become a stall tactic around seal 6 with Koresh saying, “God won’t give me more revelation.” I think this is not only possible but likely.

Also, even though he’s written a book about Jonestown, Guinn doesn’t try to draw parallels. Personally, by the end of the book, I was more reminded of Heaven’s Gate, though it, unlike Jonestown and Mount Carmel, did not end in a battle with government forces. Jonestown, though, had a number of people starting to become disillusioned before the denouement, whereas Heaven’s Gate, like Mount Carmel or even more, had all true believers.

That said, the epilogue, “Clive Doyle is Waiting” was good, illustrating him as the truest of surviving true believers. And it ends with him dying.

As did some people 2,000 years ago, after the "one person" died 30, 40 or 50 years earlier.

And, that's the final missed parallel. Beyond not comparing Mount Carmel to Heaven's Gate, Guinn in general doesn't "play it forward."

 

Update: Correct the previous paragraph, as in an A&E interview, Guinn specifically says that First Amendment religious freedoms have to be placed in societal context, especially when the potentiality of violence is an issue.

 

==

Update: As recently retired NPR religion reporter Jeff Burnett (originally from here in Tex-ass, in Sherman, and for whom the standoff was one of his first big pieces) tells the Texas Observer, David Koresh was also another in a long line of skirt-chasing, money-grifting evangelists.

View all my reviews

Why a secularist ex-Christian thinks an atheist Jew celebrating Hanukkah is silly

 I had written a bit about this in a takedown piece (my second) about OnlySky a few weeks ago. I had been thinking about a more in-depth pullout about this issue anyway, but Jonathan M.S. Pierce, aka The Besotted Philosopher, getting tetchy about that led me to figure that to spite him as a sidebar, this was a good reason anyway.

And, with that, let's dig in.

Paul Golin, not previously critiqued by me, talked about why an atheist Jew celebrates Hanukkah. As I noted last month?

First, as far as being historical? The events afterward didn't play out exactly as presented in 1 Maccabees. I've blogged about that before. I blogged about that more at my main blog. He also ignores, contra Shlomo Sand and many others, as I have also discussed, that Hanukkah is originally pagan. Since the menorah ran dry, as in had no miraculous refill night after night, since Hanukkah has pagan roots and since, per Yonathan Adler, the Torah in general wasn't widely observed until AFTER the Maccabean revolt, if Golin is intellectually honest in act as well as thought, he's just doing a Jewish-tinged solstice event. And, yes, that is exactly what Hanukkah was as a pagan festival.

So, he's like an ex-Christian still celebrating Christmas but not fully secularizing it. 

It would be like me, if I still celebrated Christmas in anyway, not only talking about Santa, but talking about a nativity or religious Christmas carols, but yet saying "I'm a secularist."

Of course, there's a deeper issue at root.

And, that is the tension, and this one is not limited to the English language, between "Judaism" as a religion and "Jewishness" as an ethnic identity. Given that Paul said "there is neither Jew nor Goy," outside of White nationalists trying to exploit Christianity, it's neither a linguistic nor a deeper identity issue that Christians face.

Ergo, it's not an issue that ex-Christian secularists face.

Now, given that, per Adler, Hanukkah eventually led to Judaism as we know it today, but not necessarily Jewishness, is it better to for an atheist Jew to celebrate it than Passover? It also has religious, metaphysical elements (setting aside that it totally didn't happen), but it is arguably as much or more the origin of ethnic Jewish nationalism than is Hanukkah.

Of course, if you're an atheist celebrating ethnic nationalism, there's the deeper question of whether or not you're an atheist who's not a real secular humanist? I celebrate (not too loudly) the Fourth of July, but not German-American Day.