Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Please let Xrandadu Hutman write Paglia's future columns. Shorter and funnier.
It happens every time she writes a column, and I've yet to understand it. I wrote a letter near the start of this thread criticizing her response to the gay gene issue, and I've criticized her before. But big deal. I certainly can't fathom the antagonism towards her, which largely seems to come from the fact that she rejects some ideas basic to the left and embraces some people favored by the right. So what?
Paglia supports the freedom for people to live however they want. She doesn't paint horns on conservatives or halos on liberals, but she doesn't do the opposite, either. On the other hand, we have Xrandadu Hutman getting an easy laugh by mentioning that Paglia's a lesbian. This put-down of Paglia's sexuality is cheered on by other letter writers. Is this the kind of liberal mentality Salon readers endorse?
A project for next month - a C.P. column totally in Palin-speak.
As a conservative who loves talk radio, thanks Camille for being a liberal who has my respect - you're the only one! Your articles are so interesting, so unlike the typical liberal drone of mindless Democrat talking points.
no I got it your letters are funny too - why didn't you tell us?
Amazing how many people sign up each month, just so they can praise Paglia, the Good Liberal of the East.
Then they vanish off the face of Salon, never to be seen again! I guess they're clicking together their ruby-red slippers, or eating the mushroom that makes them get bigger.
Haha, you have produced the archetypical C.P. fan letter. (This can't be real, can it?)
Until I see stronger evidence, I will continue to believe that climate change is primarily driven by solar phenomena and that it is normal for the earth to pass through major cooling and warming phases.
Did it ever occur to Camille that it's also normal for most of the animal life on earth to get wiped out periodically? Is that no big deal, as well, because it's so gosh-darn normal?
Normality is a stupid argument, when letting nature take its course could mean the death of millions or billions. Really. Dumb.
A. It's Paglia.
B. Paglia's girlfriend
C. Rush Limbaugh
D. Some guy named Bob who's as pale and soft as a slug, but who fancies himself a hardened neocon warrior, fighting the good fight with his keyboard, by writing scores of letters.
Good one.
It's "D". I'd like to think that all of Miss P's fans are named Bob. It just somehow seems right.
Get serious! Take a stroll--or a troll--through any of the lefty websites and note the venom with which any conservative or anyone who has anything complimentary or even mildly supportive of a conservative is greeted. The left wing pack of pit-chihuahuas viciously attacks en masse.
I base this on the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle--though I have my corollary,the Mick Uncertainty Principle. Some people are so uncomfortable with uncertainty (look at the global warming flap just concluded) that they adopt fanatic faith-based positions. Some go to established religion, but that is mocked in Leftyland. So where do lefties go? To fanatic environmentalish,the Church of Global Warming, etc. And they virulently attack anyone who deviates from their dogmas.
The late, great Molly Ivins wrote this seminal take-down of Camille Paglia nearly 18 years ago:
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~erich/misc/ivins_on_paglia
Every syllable is just as true today.
AROUND the world the story of Jesus of Nazareth—a young man who changed the course of human history—is woven into the fabric of society. It is part of people's formal and informal education. Many consider the Gospels to be the fountains of timeless truths and adages, such as, "Let your Yes mean Yes, your No, No." (Matthew 5:37) Indeed, the Gospel accounts may have been the basis for lessons that your parents taught you, whether they were Christians or not.
For millions of sincere followers of Christ, the Gospels have provided the description of the man for whom they have been willing to suffer and die. The Gospels have also provided the basis and inspiration for courage, endurance, faith, and hope. Would you not, then, agree that it should take irrefutable evidence to dismiss these accounts as mere fiction? Considering the immense influence that the Gospel accounts have had on human thought and behavior, would you not demand convincing proof if someone wanted to cast doubt on their authenticity?
We invite you to consider a number of thought-provoking questions regarding the Gospels. See for yourself what certain students of the Gospels think about these issues, even though some of them do not profess to be Christians. Then you can draw your own informed conclusions.
Questions to Consider
Could the Gospels be a masterful invention?
Robert Funk, the founder of the Jesus Seminar, says: "Matthew, Mark, Luke and John 'marketed the Messiah' to make him conform to Christian doctrine that evolved after the death of Jesus." While the Gospels were being written, however, many who had heard Jesus' sayings, had observed his deeds, and had seen him after his resurrection were still alive. They did not charge the Gospel writers with any form of fraud.
Consider the death and resurrection of Christ. Not only do the Gospels contain reliable accounts of Jesus' death and resurrection but so does the apostle Paul's first canonical letter to Christians in ancient Corinth. He wrote: "I handed on to you, among the first things, that which I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; and that he was buried, yes, that he has been raised up the third day according to the Scriptures; and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. After that he appeared to upward of five hundred brothers at one time, the most of whom remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep in death. After that he appeared to James, then to all the apostles; but last of all he appeared also to me as if to one born prematurely." (1 Corinthians 15:3-8) Such witnesses were custodians of historical facts regarding the life of Jesus.
The inventiveness alleged by modern critics is not found in the Christian Greek Scriptures. Rather, it appears in documents of the second century C.E. So certain unscriptural narratives about Christ were produced when an apostasy from true Christianity was developing among communities alienated from the apostolic congregation.—Acts 20:28-30.
Could the Gospels be legends?
Author and critic C. S. Lewis found it difficult to view the Gospels as mere legends. "As a literary historian I am perfectly convinced that whatever the Gospels are, they are not legends," he wrote. "They are not artistic enough to be legends. . . . Most of the life of Jesus is unknown to us, and no people building up a legend would allow that to be so." It is also interesting that although noted historian H. G. Wells did not claim to be a Christian, he acknowledged: "All four [Gospel writers] agree in giving us a picture of a very definite personality; they carry the . . . conviction of reality."
Consider an instance when the resurrected Jesus appeared to his disciples. A good legend maker would likely have had Jesus stage a spectacular comeback, deliver a momentous speech, or be bathed in light and splendor. Instead, the Gospel writers simply describe him as standing in front of his disciples. Then he asked: "Young children, you do not have anything to eat, do you?" (John 21:5) Scholar Gregg Easterbrook concludes: "These are the sorts of touches that suggest a genuine account, not myth-building."
The accusation that the Gospels are legends also stumbles on the strict rabbinic method of teaching that was in fashion during the time of the writing of the Gospels. That method adhered closely to learning by rote—a memorizing process using routine or repetition. This favors the accurate and careful rendering of Jesus' sayings and works as opposed to the creation of an embellished version.
Evidence of Authentic Reporting
SOME years ago an Australian scriptwriter and former critic of the Bible confessed: "For the first time in my life I did what is normally a reporter's first duty: checked my facts. . . . And I was appalled, because what I was reading [in the Gospel accounts] was not legend and it was not naturalistic fiction. It was reporting. First and second-hand accounts of extraordinary events . . . Reporting has a taste, and that taste is in the Gospels."
Similarly, E. M. Blaiklock, professor of classics at Auckland University, argued: "I claim to be an historian. My approach to the Classics is historical. And I tell you that the evidence for the life, the death, and the resurrection of Christ is better authenticated than most of the facts of ancient history."
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
