Bully For The Press, But Boo For Benedict: Why Peggy Noonan and Benedict's Defenders Are Wrong

Timothy Shriver's Washington Post article, Can the pope restore the purity of Catholicism? is a wonderful and insightful piece - except for the title. It assumes that Catholicism has had "purity" for a long time. It hasn't. Catholicism has always been too complex for "purity" of any sort. Ever since the official acceptance of Christianity by Rome (313 CE), The Church has been a curious mixture of conflicting doctrines, artistic beauty, money, immense power, sincere faith and corruption. And perhaps in no other person are those qualities more evident than in pope Benedict XVI. To this man, change in the Church is anathema: Pious XII was his inspiration and John XXIII his enemy. 

That is why his supporters in the latest news about the on-going scandal of sexual abuse have a tough time convincing people that he is not culpable. Take Peggy Noonan of the  Wall Street Journal:

Let me repeat that: The press has been the best friend of the Catholic Church on the scandals because it exposed the story and made the church face it. The press forced the church to admit, confront and attempt to redress what had happened. The press forced them to confess. The press forced the church to change the old regime and begin to come to terms with the abusers...Without this pressure...the church would most likely have continued to do what it has done for half a century, which is look away, hush up, pay off and transfer.

I agree wholeheartedly. Then why would Noonan come up with this statement:

The most reliable commentary on Pope Benedict's role in the scandals came from John Allen of the National Catholic Reporter, who argues that once Benedict came to fully understand the scope of the crisis, in 2003, he made the church's first real progress toward coming to grips with it.

"Fully understand the scope of the crisis." The PRESS made Ratzinger understand. No one else did. Sheer conjecture but still valid: IF the press had not capitalized on the scandal, would Ratzinger have continued the old game of "pass the pedaphile priest"??

Come on, Peggy, Ratzinger knew about the abuse long before 2003; he had resources at his command to find out minute details about every priest in the Catholic Church. A hint of heresy never got past him and neither did a hint of sexual abuse. It's sheer idiocy to think that he knew nothing. And with that knowledge he doth sinned in doing nothing.

And there are Catholic leaders - like Bill Donohue of The Catholic League - think that the press is evil, comparing the "persecution" of Catholicism to anti-Semitism!  His own lame response to the scandal:

wikipedia:

On March 30, 2010, Donohue appeared on CNN's Larry King Live as part of a panel discussing sexual abuse of children by priests. Donohue blamed the decades-old problem on gay priests, claiming they could not be considered pedophiles because most of the offenses involved "post-pubescent" boys (defined in the interview as boys 12-years-old or older) and were thus "homosexual" acts.

Holy twisted reasoning!!

The Catholic Church (indeed, American Christianity as a whole) is infamous for not admitting culpability in past misdeeds. If Pious XII had admitted that he could have spoken out during the Holocaust would he still be (fast-tracked) on the road to canonization? If the Vatican would have voiced regret for its role in the Crusades and the expulsion of Moors from Spain and Portugal, would the radical Muslim world have as much animosity for Christianity as it does today?

As recently as the 1980s and 1990s, the media has forced the Catholic Church to admit to heinous acts against children: the Duplessis Orphan scandal in Canada and the Magdalene Laundry scandal in Ireland. In both cases, nuns were the perpetrators of torture, slavery, sexual abuse and even homicide over a period of decades. And the Church did more than simply cover up the bodies and place them in unmarked graves.

So the widespread cover-up of sexual abuse in the priesthood is not really surprising. And the abuse was around far longer than Joseph Ratzinger's time on earth. To think that he had nothing to do with it because he (re)acted after the media blew the whistle is polite wishful thinking. As head of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, Ratzinger was, in effect, the Church's spin doctor: he was charged to protect the image of the Church as well as its doctrine from heresy. 

And there were times when he acted rather viciously.

Hans Kung was a trusted friend of Joseph Ratzinger in the late 60s. He even helped Ratzinger obtain a professorship at a university in Tubingen, Germany, where Kung was professor of theology. Later, Kung was stripped of his authority to teach theology by (then) Cardinal Ratzinger who was head of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith. The official reason: Kung denied the infalability of the pope. Another reason (according to conspiracy theorists): Kung was too close to John Paul I during his controversial tenure (30 days) and even more controversial death. Kung has since reiterated his criticism of the papacy and in particular of Benedict:

"Joseph Ratzinger has stood still because as a Bavarian Catholic in the Hellenistic tradition, interpreted in Roman terms, he wanted to stand still."

Timothy Shriver of The Washington Post put the scandal and its nuances quite well:

What's needed is a conversion of the bishops and the pope himself. That's right: It's time for the pope and the bishops to convert their culture to one that is centered on loving God from the depths of their souls and to leading a church that is as much mother as father, as much pastoral as theological, as much spiritual as doctrinal. It is time for them to listen to the deep and authentic witness of the people of faith, to trust the spirit that blows where it will, to abandon their defensiveness of their positions and trust only the gospel, and not their edifice of control. Conversion is a total experience -- letting go of the old and putting on the new.

That is something Benedict will never do. And there is no defense of a man who will not progress for the spiritual good of his flock. Benedict is not a shepherd. He is merely an old sentinel who stands guarding an old abusive system.

The Defenestration of The Hypocratic Oath: Doctors Who PreJudge You

Defenestration: to throw something or someone out of a high window, hence the term, "out the window" The most famous defenestration was the Defenestration of Prague, when Protestants threw the Catholic emissaries out of the castle window, starting the Thirty Years War. Defenestration was also a favorite form of execution of Bohemia. It is conjectured  that statesman Anton Masaryk was executed by the Communist Party by being thrown out the third story of the Czernin Palace.

These days, throwing something out the window is to eradicate or nullify it. We throw things "out the window" every day: a diet, an idea, a promise. An oath.

Like the Hippocratic Oath.

These days, doctors are no longer required to take the Hippocratic Oath. That's primarily because the Oath has evolved to suit a society's needs and a culture's norms. For example, the original Oath started thusly:

I swear by Apollo, the healer, Asclepius, Hygieia, and Panacea, and I take to witness all the gods, all the goddesses, to keep according to my ability and my judgment, the following Oath and agreement:

The classic:

I swear by Apollo the Physician and Asclepius and Hygieia and Panaceia and all the gods, and goddesses, making them my witnesses, that I will fulfill according to my ability and judgment this oath and this covenant: 

 The modern version:

I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant: 

Probably the most well-known tenet of the Oath:

I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.

The Hippocratic Oath was really the first of moral statement relating to humanity no matter who the person was or what station he or she held. It is important to note that it was a statement of true compassion in that it denotes unqualified acceptance of a person as a human being. Today, unfortunately, we are seeing the defenestration of the Hippocratic Oath for religious and political purposes.

Enter Dr. Steven Hotze

From Right Wing Watch:

Thin and long-faced, 46-year-old Steven Forrest Hotze has carved out a niche in local politics over the past decade as an unyielding and occasionally strident opponent of abortion and public acceptance of homosexuality... beliefs include the following:

• A wife may work outside the home only with her husband's consent

• "Biblical spanking" that results in "temporary or superficial bruises or welts" should not be considered a crime

• No doctor shall provide medical service on the Sabbath

• All disease and disability is caused by the sin of Adam and Eve

• Medical problems are frequently caused by personal sin

So if you should be so unfortunate as to require the services of Dr. Hotze, you'll be judged a sinner first, a patient second. Makes you kind of uncomfortable, doesn't it? And what if he treats you and you don't get well? Hmmm... In a car accident on a Sunday? Good luck!

Another doctor prejudges you according to your political beliefs:

The sign reads [in his outer office]:  "If you voted for Obama … seek urologic care elsewhere. Changes to your healthcare begin right now, not in four years."

And yet he denies that he's denying anyone healthcare!

Let's hope that throwing the Hippocratic Oath out the window doesn't become ... an epidemic.

Just a thought.

Happy Easter, My Ass!

Easter is probably the most twisted holiday we Americans are forced to endure: we attend church services to honor the resurrection of the Son of God, Jesus Christ, while wearing our finest clothes, eating chocolate bunnies, then coloring, hunting or rolling hard-boiled eggs. It beats Christmas for religiousity, Fourth of July for pride and Valentine's Day for consumption of chocolate. There is no connection between Christ on the Cross and the Easter Bunny except for the concept of spring and the earth's "resurrection" from winter.

Did you know that the concept of a dying-and-rising god was rather passe when Christ was crucified? Huh? Well then, how many could there have been? Try twenty. Yes, twenty. 20. One score. The most famous of these were Osirus and Mithras (who, BTW, was born in a cave of a virgin birth.)

The most original concept related to Easter, however, came with the maturation of Christianity: supreme guilt. The doctrine of Original Sin (attributed to St. Augustine - way to go, Auggie!) made Christians look at everyone in a different light. And they all looked BAD. Christ had died for EVERYONE'S sins. All of us should be extremely grateful! No? Then go to hell! 

Yes, Easter should be a time of rejoicing: because of Christ's death, we are forgiven all our sins. 

I'm sorry, but I can't rejoice. Perhaps because the hypocrites of the world have taken Easter and turned it into a time of extreme self-loathing. Yet what we really need to experience is a time of energy and progression - to a more peaceful and habitable world.

Simply Christians or Simply Terrorists: The Violence of Christofascism Comes Home To Roost

Both Progressive and Regressive Christians (aka Religious Right or Christofascists) are still reeling with the news about "Hutaree", its zeal, its militarism, its expanse and the fact that it views itself as 'Christian'. 

From Right Wing Watch:

"Many mainstream media outlets, like ABC and CNN, are irresponsibly reporting that those arrested in Michigan in the alleged plot to murder law enforcement officers are 'Christians,'" said Dr. Gary Cass of the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission. "Even if they identify themselves as Christians, what they were allegedly planning is absolutely contrary to Christianity. They may have illicitly co-opted the Christian faith to justify their murderous intentions, but it is defamatory for the media to keep referring to them as Christians. They are simply terrorists."

So, were the knights of the Crusades 'simply terrorists'? Is Repent Amarillo really a terrorist group? What about Rev. Rod Parsley? Where is the dividing line? 

Dr. Cass is, of course, grasping at straws in attempting to distance himself and others of his Religious Right flock: it's rather counter-intuitive (much less, hypocritical) to say that anyone who identifies themselves as Christians are not Christians. Christians around the country have been saying that everyone should have the right to call themselves Christians. Also, a strange parallel of intolerance shows itself in the Christian view of the organization known as NAMBLA - National American Man-Boy Love Association. Christofascists point to it as an accepted and almost typical gay rights association - which it is not. They also extend its premise to all gays. What Cass is avoiding is this: militarism and potential violence exist in  today's American Christian landscape. Hutaree is an extreme (but real) version of Rod Parsley's vision of Christian soldiers. It's tone and rhetoric are equivalent to Repent Amarillo. It's hatred of non-Christians (Jews, "pagans," Muslims) is just as bad as Fred Phelp's hatred of gays or Father Charles Coughlin's anti-Semitism seventy years ago.

 

The dividing line, America seems to think, is between words and action. Christian pastors can spout all the military rhetoric they want. They are protected twofold: freedom of speech and separation of church and state. They have nothing to do with the actions taken by fringe groups. 

This is obvious, inane self-deception. Actions are almost always the result of words, especially when they take effect in the brains of an illiterate: the Elmer Gantrys egging on the Elmer Fudds.

HUTAREE

"Jesus wanted us to be ready to defend ourselves using the sword and stay alive using equipment," Hutaree.com reads. "The only thing on earth to save the testimony and those who follow it, are the members of the testimony, til the return of Christ in the clouds. We, the Hutaree, are prepared to defend all those who belong to Christ and save those who aren't. We will still spread the word, and fight to keep it, up to the time of the great coming."

Compare this statement to the one put out by Repent Amarillo:

A soldier for Christ wants to leave no man behind. We will fight unto death for the cause of eternal life through Christ Jesus. We will wage a good spiritual warfare until our King calls us home. May we leave this earth desperately clinging to one more lost soul.

The arrogance of today's Christofascists make them lax in regards to monitoring and censoring fringe groups like Hutaree. That inability to expel groups from more mainstream Christianity before violence starts may lead to a long period when Christian groups spend too much time and effort defending themselves, telling people what they are NOT than focusing on their real goals. This may seem a boon to secularists like myself. The problem with that is that people will have to die to achieve it. 

"Hutaree" is evidently a made up name which means nothing. It may, however, come to mean "violent but stupid Christofascists."


Just a thought.

Publish Post

Sorry Billy, We're Looking For Christians With Good Taste

...Like CNN

“Gangs of machete-wielding Muslims have been blamed for the weekend slaughter of hundreds of Christian villagers in Nigeria, but analysts say it would be wrong to assume the conflict was rooted in religion.”

Remember Charlie the Tuna? He was the mascot for Starkist Tuna who was always trying to lure Starkist into thinking that he had "good taste" when a God-like voiceover said "Sorry Charlie, we're looking for tuna that tastes good." So twist that sentiment around the latest scream of "PERSECUTION!"  that Bill Donohue of The Christian League is ratcheting up about 50 decibals. Twist it in another direction: we need to have Christians who have dignity, consideration and good taste. But Donohue exhibits the opposite. Consider his take on the same incident:

According to The Australian, “dozens of bodies lined the streets” of three Christian villages in northern Nigeria. “Other victims of the weekend’s Muslim fury jammed a local morgue, the limbs of slaughtered children tangled in a grotesque mess.” Children were scalped, “most had severed hands and feet,” and “officials estimate that 500 people were massacred in night-time raids by rampaging Muslim gangs.” According to one eyewitness media account, “They then set homes on fire and attacked men, women and children. Many were decapitated.”

 It was later found out that the attack could have been a response to a massacre in January of the Hausa Muslim Community resulting in 150 deaths. Christian mobs in Kuru Karama were said to blame.

When people started criticizing Donohue, he answered:

Back to CNN. It cited an ugly Muslim-Christian incident in 2001 in the same area. What started the Muslim massacre back then? “A Christian woman had tried to cross the road through a group of Muslims during Friday prayers.” Yeah, that’ll do it every time. 

It’s time to stop viewing Muslim-Christian violence through the lens of moral equivalency. 

Perhaps it's time for Bill Donohue to stop viewing any form of violence through a veil of blood. His style of "journalism" is more than yellow, it's red in the extreme. He conjures in me visions of my old nuns (very, very old nuns) who recounted in nauseating detail Roman orgies, (more bachannal than orgy), savagery of the Goths and the Vandals in sacking Rome, the cruelty of Ghengis Khan, the blood sacrifices of the Aztecs. Of course, their demeanor always changed when mentioning the Crusades (Western Civilization's first genocide along with the Albigensian Crusade), the Pilgrims of Massachusetts (who, after presenting the Massachusetts Indians with a translation of the Bible promptly wiped them out) or Father Junipero Serra (who, along with the California Missions established slavery of non-converts). 

It's time for many proselytizing Christians to own up to the annihilation of so many millions of people in history. And the ones who scream about the supposed atheism of Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot are usually the ones who disavow any knowledge of wrongdoing by Christians in history. Or at least chop history's witnesses down to a few Catholic heretics who minimally staged the auto de fes of a few thousand old women. They seldom mention Torquemada, and while we had to memorize "Columbus sailed the ocean blue in 1492" we never heard about forced conversions of the Moors and the Jews and ultimately the mass exile of those two populations by good Queen Isabella.

"Moral equivalency" may be the only true lens we have. CNN has better taste than to run down a gory list of atrocities. Their viewers are smart enough to envision the bloodletting without detail.

Bill Donohue, however, believes in shock and awe.

Not A Laughing Matter: The Fudds Are Besieging Amarillo, Tx. And There Will Be Bloodshed - Eventually

WEPENT AMAWIWWO!

Always remember:

There are two different kinds of Christofascists: one is the Elmer Gantry and the other kind is the Elmer Fudd. The one to watch out for is the Elmer Fudd. After all, he's the one with the gun.

About 35 years ago, I had the occasion to meet one of my boyhood cowboy icons. I had seen him on the 14-inch screen in black and white, but his portrayal of a Mexican cowboy with a sidekick named Pancho was colorful enough for the imagination. The actor's name was Duncan Renaldo and he played The Cisco Kid. When I met him he was in his sixties and was much shorter than I had imagined him. But his white hair was still as thick as it had been twenty years before and he still had a kind of benign intensity. He was promoting a friend's book of poetry. He talked to me about his early days in movies, when sound was in its infancy. He was in Africa for almost two years filming the classic Trader Horn. He told me that the movie made almost no money at the box-office, but the extensive footage of the Serengeti and its animals was a goldmine in studio rentals. I was anxious, however, to get to the subject of The Cisco Kid."You know, I had Hopalong Cassidy wallpaper when I was a kid," I said. "And I know there were dozens of other promotional toys and whatnot for different shows, but I don't recall seeing anything with The Cisco Kid on them."

He turned very serious. "That's because they wanted me to promote Cisco Kid six-shooters and I wouldn't do it."

"Why not?"

"Because every time you point a gun at someone, even a toy gun, it means 'I want to kill you.'"

I've never forgotten that exchange. As The Cisco Kid, he was totally fearless. In reality, he was compassionate and peaceful. I then realized that his character's quick wit and rather sophisticated temperament was due to his own persona and not just a scriptwriter's attempt to inject something more meaningful into an early TV kids' cowboy program.

"I want to kill you."

Amarillo, TX is under siege. The group called Repent Amarillo is openly targeting businesses, clubs, establishments it considers immoral and/or evil.

The following description of a "soldier for Christ" sounds routinely innocuous, but put it on a website that features gunshots and bullet holes and you have the makings of a hate group armed with guns as well as Bibles. This group will start with extreme intimidation, but only time will tell what it will end up with.

Let's look at the inconsistencies in their description of a "soldier of Christ":

A soldier for Christ fights a spiritual battle. The enemy is not our fellow man but the principalities, the powers, the rulers of the darkness of this world (Ephesians 6:12). (History tells us that a soldier is trained to kill whomever he perceives as the enemy. Flesh and blood humans are painted as evil incarnate by pastors.) Our mission is to do battle with the lies of the enemy. To do battle with the corruption of this world. We do this by personal evangelism, one heart at a time. (Not when you target whole groups for extreme intimidation) The first century church went out into the streets and house to house being personal witnesses for Christ. This we do as well. (No, they did not intend to intimidate, harass or threaten blackmail) The Christian soldier has three weapons in his arsenal, prayer, praise and worship, and the Word of God. (Using Scripture as a weapon in any way is not Christian is it?) The Christian soldier must have the courage to stand where others will not and to go where others fear to tread. If God the Father regarded every person’s value as to be worth sending His only begotten Son to die for then why do so many Christians think that some are not worth preaching to? (Intimidation is not preaching) Regardless of the risk, regardless of the cost, regardless of the place, Christians are called to preach the Gospel to every creature. (Not to animals, since that would be putting animals on the same plane as humans) There is no excuse for cowardice in the face of the enemy. (Again, who is the enemy - how about that guy who runs the porno shop? Or the young couple in a swingers club? Or the gay couple down the street?) Jesus Christ was faithful unto death, obedient unto death and so shall we. The costs of cowardice and apathy are far too high. (Costs to whom?) A soldier for Christ wants to leave no man behind. (Easily qualified by a young soldier’s mind - if a man refuses to go, then what is the soldier to do?) We will fight unto death for the cause of eternal life through Christ Jesus. We will wage a good spiritual warfare until our King calls us home. May we leave this earth desperately clinging to one more lost soul.

"Desperately clinging." In the context of warfare, those words could be taken to mean that while the right hand is clinging to someone, the left hand is searching for a place to stab with the dagger - and turn it.

Of course, this article doesn't do justice to the website. Picture it pockmarked with bullet holes.

Yes, bullet holes.

That's what got to me when I looked at the site. No matter what they say about not targeting anyone, the bullet holes make everything disingenuous. The bullet holes are there to intimidate. The bullet holes are, in fact, very indicative of their modus operandi: intentionally ruining peoples' lives to further their agenda:


From How To Have Sex In Texas:

It was members of this "soldier" group that confronted, harassed, and smeared members of the Amarillo swinger's club, employing such apparently "Christian" tactics as posting names, employers, and license plate numbers of club attendees online, resulting in lost jobs and social ostracism--which, I guess, was the point--for several members.

While I call this ideology of religious militarism Christofascism, some have other names even more sinister. Dan Savage (Savage Love) calls Christofascists The American Taliban:

They're also going after churches they believe to be insufficiently Christian (Episcopalians, Christian Scientists, Unitarians), palm readers, people who practice witchcraft, and anything and everything that might create a "demonic stronghold" in Amarillo. And they're not just threatening to pray for people: Repent Amarillo's "actions" include prayer, according to Repent Amarillo's website, "but [also] may involve more aggressive use of soldiers and prayer warriors." Check out the group's locked-and-loaded website. (Please note: Repent Amarillo's website "is not designed for non-Christians," or the wrong kinds of Christians, so don't look long lest you defile the group's website with your eyes and turn into a pillar of salt.)

So if, heaven forbid, you are ever in Amarillo, remember that Repent Amarillo will be targeting these events:

1. Gay pride events.
2. Earth worship events such as “Earth Day”    
3. Pro-abortion events or places such as Planned Parenthood    
4. Breast cancer events such as “Race for the Cure” to illuminate the link between abortion and breast cancer.   
5. Opening day of public schools to reach out to students.   
6. Spring break events

7. Demonically based concerts.   
8. Halloween events.   
9. Other events that may arise that the ministry feels called to confront


If Repent Amarillo seems like a terrorist organization using God as a front, we should waste no time in monitoring it VERY closely. The Christofascist Right won't do it. Progressive Christians and the rest of us must do it. Someone's life may depend upon our diligence.

Update:

A very confusing investigation into the founder of Repent Amarillo and its "parent" ministry Raven International Ministries reveals that most of the "pastors" associated with its ministries matriculated at World Evangelism Bible College - the college founded by none other than disgraced evangelist Jimmy Swaggart. Neither Todd Bohn's nor (brother) Troy Bohn's profiles state that they actually graduated from WEBC, although Troy's website does state that he received a "honorary doctorate" in appreciation for his work, but does not state the source of the honorary degree. Repent Amarillo's (pastor) David Grisham is not listed with any known theological seminary as far as we know.

The Blatant Bigotry At CPAC: The Anger, The Arrogance And A Distinct Lack Of Reasoning

It's over a week since this event happened. It went viral almost immediately. Millions have already seen it. Why am I writing about it? Simply to state this:

THERE  ARE  MORE  WHERE  RYAN SORBA  CAME  FROM

A young Right-wingnut disguised as a budding conservative ala William F. Buckley (who would NOT have approved) aroused anger, shame, boos, disgust and yes, a small amount of applause. No one had expected his arrogant tirade. He was very proud of it. With the first sentence, he proved that Republicans still have not mastered the art of vetting. The event is best told in short points:

• Alexander McCobin of Students for Liberty thanks CPAC for including GOProud as a sponsor...
• McCobin is booed by several members of the audience...
• Including (admittedly): Ryan Sorba, representing ...
• California Young Americans For Freedom ...
• Sorba is introduced next as the young man who appeared on Glenn Beck's show for the wrong reasons and ...
• Was supposed to tell his story...
• The first words out of his mouth...
• "I'd like to condemn CPAC for accepting GOProud"...
• It was met with a chorus of boos...
• To which he said "I love it!"

Forget the booing. It's PC. Yes, for once, booing was politically correct. A bunch of CPAC arch-conservatives would have cheered, but people were recording his sage words, so how should they have reacted? They also heard the boos for McCobin and didn't want to go down that path by cheering Sorba.

And the saga doesn't end with Sorba's words at the podium.

He gave TWO interviews.

One ended in an ugly manner and should be quoted verbatim by gay reporter Alex Knepper of Race 4 2012.

He [Sorba] said at around this point that he needed to go, and put out his hand to say goodbye. I stared at him, refusing to shake his hand, and he said “Well, I don’t really want to shake your hand, you’re intrinsically evil.”

When we reached the area near the escalator downstairs, he turned on his camera. I put out my arms, striking a mocking pose, but realized he kept holding the camera at me.

“Wait, are you recording or taking a picture?” He was recording.

“Ah! OK…Well, I’d like to say, then, that the person behind the camera is a Hitler Youth waiting for a fuhrer to sweep him off his feet into a grand national project so he can sacrifice individuals like stock-fodder to his own biases.”

He turned off the camera and approached me. I told him he should get his girlfriend to give him a blowjob so that he could experience the joys of sodomy. He put two of his fingers an inch from my face and said that he’d want to fight me if a girl wasn’t around. “Ah, the use of force!” I said again.

The full exchange can be read HERE. This was not the first time Sorba's speech caused a stir. Recall that he cited protesting lesbians at Smith College. He was referring to a three-year-old incident at Smith where he was supposed to speak on the "Born Again Hoax". The theme for his speech was supposedly culled from his "forthcoming" book of the same title. Protesters stormed the hall in which he was speaking and he was ushered out ("for his own safety"). He's been living on that story ever since, it seems.  

The irony here lies in the possibility that the "hoax" may be Sorba himself. The only available copy of his "book" is HERE. It is not listed in Amazon.com (which many times even lists out-of-print books). It was copywrighted in 2007. The first chapter and the last three chapters are labeled "tbc" presumably because they are not under copywright yet, but they are important chapters and are missing. But the biggest problems with this 95-page pamphlet/book: no bibliography and no index. Sorba thinks that his brain and his brain alone should be taken as the temple of truth. This man who prides himself on spewing pure Aristotilian rhetoric is himself unreasonable, expecting everyone to take him and his arrogance at face value simply because HE says he's using reason. He makes statements, then immediately storms off because he is cowardly. Bravado, it seems, is not his forte.
 

The second interview he gave that day is below. Again, his bravado does not extend to allowing himself to be photographed for some inexplicable reason. You are allowed to laugh at his statement "I don't hate anybody."  

Remember this message: Ryan Sorba is not alone. He may seem like a one-man hate group masquerading as an intelligent neo-conservative, but he has supporters out there - somewhere.