Friday, January 27, 2017

The Friendly Atheist says Trump isn't a True Christian™

"Friendly Atheist" Hemant Mehta posted today that even though Trump pandered to Christians (he means evangelicals) during his campaign, "it's not like (Trump's) act was ever believable.  The man never lived like a 'Christian' and he sure as hell didn't know how to speak their language."

(That's par for the grammar course at his blog.)

If you or I went on Mehta's blog and asserted that Trump is not a true, or real, or genuine Christian (or just plain not a Christian), we'd instantly be leaped on by his comment section angels for allegedly committing the No True Scotsman logical fallacy.  Which we wouldn't be doing, of course, because a logical fallacy is an error in reasoning, not a false or debatable proposition.  For instance, if I say, "No man loves cats," I'd be guilty of making a universal proposition that happens to be false (and easily falsifiable--simply point to a male who loves cats), but I wouldn't be committing a logical fallacy.

However, by Mehta's standards, any "true such-and-such" claim does count as a logical fallacy, which must in fairness include his own example.  (His use of quotes around "Christian" alters nothing in this regard.)  Heck, Mehta even unfavorably compares Trump's Christian creds to Hillary's, as if to suggest that hers are more authentic.  Why is this a problem, especially since I agree with that conclusion?  Because on-line seculars have been shouting for the past ten years or more that, because there are umpteen differing definitions of "Christian," no one definition is better or worse or more authentic than another.  And that we C.'s are too stupid to dig this.  And here's Mehta, deeming Hillary's brand as better.  As more genuine, even.

My, my--the loud sound of bagpipes coming from the FA blog.  (Secular in-joke.)

I expect better from these folks.  Actually, no, I don't.



Jeep Jockey said...

Is this blog about music or about politics- especially your particular view of the world? If the latter, then my mistake as I do not wish to be harangued by anyone about Trump, Clinton or any other politician. I am sure you put much work into the blog so how about a little more thought to ensure visitors know just what you are offering? Thank you.

Lee Hartsfeld said...

Yeah, your mistake. Take your rudeness elsewhere, please.

garrido said...

Dear Lee, thanks so much for the Mills brothers song: "there's no life on the moon".
let's take care of the lovely world of ours. You stand next to me.

Aging Child said...

Lee, you are both gentile man and gentleman... and thank you for not deleting that jockeying Jeep's comment (nor your respectful response).

I visit first for the music, stick around for the insights, and enjoy petting the cats and listening to them purr.

JJ seems to've sadly overlooked one of the most fundamental principles (precepts?) of a blog: it will always reflect the owner's/owners' outlook, and frequently spotlight it. It's in their nature, and a great part of what makes them enjoyable and instructive.

Dropping by on his own volition and harrumphing over being "harangued" is like visiting a gracious host's home and complaining about the wallpaper... while dragging mud in on one's boots.

Keep the wallpaper just as it is, Lee... and fortunately you already pretreated the carpet, so the muddy footprints vacuum right up without a trace.

Cheers to you, sir!

Kind regards,
A. Gene Childe

Lee Hartsfeld said...

A. Gene,

Thanks! You're absolutely right. Any blog that doesn't reflect the owner's outlook may as well be software-generated. It's an insult to the blogger to ask him or her to butt out. I wonder if this attitude is connected to the old tradition of journalists feigning anonymity by using the third person (to hide the fact that they're speaking in their own voice).

Thanks for the support,

The man behind the blog