Monday, September 24, 2012

Rev. Peter Morales succumbs to Bulverism

Rev Morales via Huff Po, Link below,

I read that the "Values Voter Summit" recently took place in Washington. I went to the web site and looked at the list of speakers. Of the 73 speakers listed, only 13 were women. Only a tiny handful could be described as people of color. Even more amazing in a political gathering in 2012, I found only one Hispanic surname. One. ¡Dios mío! Take a look for yourself:

White. Male. Politically ultra conservative. Religiously fundamentalist evangelical. This is a summit of angry white reactionary men. Is this what passes for "values" voting in America? Whose values are being advanced here? And whose values are being rejected?

Rev. Peter Morales: The Real Values Voters Summit

And that’s about the extent of Rev Morales examination of whatever was said at the summit.  His review only his take on the gender, ethnicity, and temperament of the Value Voter participants, and nary on word on their ideas.  All dismissed as the work of angry white men.

A perfect example of the past century’s great ill via C. S. Lewis in God in the Dock,

You must show that a man is wrong before you start explaining why he is wrong. The modern method is to assume without discussion that he is wrong and then distract his attention from this (the only real issue) by busily explaining how he became so silly. In the course of the last fifteen years I have found this vice so common that I have had to invent a name for it. I call it "Bulverism". Some day I am going to write the biography of its imaginary inventor, Ezekiel Bulver, whose destiny was determined at the age of five when he heard his mother say to his father — who had been maintaining that two sides of a triangle were together greater than a third — "Oh you say that because you are a man." "At that moment", E. Bulver assures us, "there flashed across my opening mind the great truth that refutation is no necessary part of argument. Assume that your opponent is wrong, and explain his error, and the world will be at your feet. Attempt to prove that he is wrong or (worse still) try to find out whether he is wrong or right, and the national dynamism of our age will thrust you to the wall." That is how Bulver became one of the makers of the Twentieth Century.

A pretty shameful piece to have published as representative of our Churches and Faith.


Robin Edgar said...

I fell off my chair laughing when I saw how President Morales completely contradicted himself within the space of that rather opinionated Opinion Editorial piece in The Huffington Post. There is a well known colloquial phrase about doing two totally contradictory actions at the same time which succinctly describes President Morales' rhetoric here; however, in that the Peter Morales' UUA administration would have people believe that this English idiom constitutes "sexual harassment", I will refrain from using it here.

Here is a new and improved version of the second follow-up comment that I submitted in response to President Morales' "political language" which has yet to be published and may not be in that it was submitted soon after my initial comment which Huff Post moderators subsequently saw fit to publish -

UUA President Peter Morales said:

"If we are to be compassionate and if every person matters, then it follows that we should accept one another. For me, that means I need to accept you as you are, whether gay or straight, white or brown, male or female, smart or simple, able bodied or handicapped, Arab or Chinese or African or Indian."

Unless of course you happen to be "White. Male. Politically ultra conservative. Religiously fundamentalist evangelical" aka "angry white reactionary men". . .

Right Peter?

I sense some classic psychological projection going on here, only it's coming from an angry Latino reactionary man. . .

Bill Baar said...

The shame here for me Robin was Rev Morales avoided engagement all together with whatever was voiced at the Value Voters Summit. No attempt to discern, analyze, or argue.

He just dismissed the participants on the basis of race, creed, and gender, and walked away from it all.

That intellectual flabbiness hurts us.

Robin Edgar said...

Don't worry Bill I *got* that even before seeing your post here, but it is not simply "intellectual flabbiness" that President Morales is guilty of, as my comments here and on the article itself make clear. I have been dealing with U*U "intellectual flabbiness" for a decade and a half now and it keeps on coming. I mean it doesn't get much more intellectually flabby than the poorly thought through legal BS in the cease and desist demand letter that President Peter Morales' UUA administration had served to me in June courtesy of Stikeman Elliott attorney Marc-André Coulombe. . . I mean what on God's Green Earth are Unitarian Universalists doing accusing *anyone* of the crime of blasphemous libel even if they actually have some proverbial "reasonable grounds" to do so? Which BTW the most certainly do not have in this instance. . .