The Daily Bork

April 06, 2005

Glen Reynolds perfectly vile to Pope? Not quite...

What happens when some dopey lefty gets all knicker twisted about eulogies to the Pope on the occasion of his death? Why, take misguided potshots at some other blogger of course.

To wit, Hardon News:

Instapundit, for one, has been very nicey-nicey about the Pope. But, as Justin Raimondo points out in a lovely bit of Google site:searching, Instapundit's Glenn Reynolds has a long record of being perfectly vile about the same beloved religious leader. Surely some mistake?

Now, it seems at first glance to be somewhat fishy as any perusal of Instapundit rarely turns up anything 'vile' written by Reynolds towards others.

Take the first "nicey nicey" link... it is hardly Reynolds fawning over the pontiff. It is in fact a collection of links to other regulars who have essayed on the topic.

The second? Well, the URL of the site (antiwar...) begins to suggest something. Reading the page linked to would incline you to think that Reynolds was truly hating John Paul II. However, follow the links to the relevant Instapundit archives and you find a much different story. Reynolds disagrees with the vatican on the war, but is hardly scathing. He discusses the issues the church has with child abuse, antisemitism and various other topics. However, in all the links there is absolutely no entry that shows evidence of being "perfectly vile about the religious leader".

In other words, as per usual, the linked to antiwar site is a convenient twisting of various disassociated posts about the *church*, not the pope. This is in turn used by Hardon News to twist a set of links discussing the life of the pontiff into some hypocritical pandering by a frothing-at-the-mouth right wing nutter. The Instapundit, post-pope-death, links to articles critical about the pope are strangely omitted (oh yes, a "lovely" google site search will turn them up).

It is difficult to see the relevance of the attack on Reynolds, there must be easier targets out there in the camp of actual "conservative christian republicans we love to hate" who have actually, you know, been vile to the pope on occasion.

"Surely some mistake" indeed. I doubt the plonker at Hardon News even followed the links all the way to Instapundit.

In the fevered imaginings of the paranoid it seems impossible to contemplate the ability of a person to respect someone for their achievements while having disagreed with them on various points during their life. Life is hard.

11 Comments:

  • I got here via the "vile" Glenn Reynolds and have to say thanks for setting the record straight. The professor is one of the most even-handed bloggers around. Case in point is the Terri Schiavo dilema. When it was so easy to leave reason behind in favor of emotional outpouring, Reynolds was a calm voice in the tempest, and regular readers knew he would be.

    Retread

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 3:55 pm  

  • hell, at lil perfessr feller aint got it in him to get two ill with anybodie! i give that instypuntid a bubbalunch while back my on dam sef!

    By Blogger Electronic Bubba, at 4:16 pm  

  • Frankly, I don't care too much about the Pope. I don't find him to be 'the great man' he is lauded to be around the globe, and in many ways, I could find severe criticism of him.

    However, now is not the time given his death and the time of mourning of those that may disagree with me. Therefore, I'll shut up for a while about it.

    By Anonymous DelphiGuy, at 5:10 pm  

  • Should anyone really care what anyone thinks or expresses? We live in the 'age of dilution'-on the way to 'vox populi'. Spending time monitoring the thoughts and writings is like sports. Sometimes your guy/team lifts you up, sometimes he/they let(s) you down. Does it affect your life? Only as much as you let it. In following Reynolds it did come to my attention that he was 'upset' about hatemail, relating to the Schiavo case. He pulled a Malkin maneuver-list some of the choice hatemail to represent those who oppose him or his ideas. He did give emphasis to the religiously oriented, and as one opposed to the Schiavo execution but not religious, felt slighted and categorized. (It is simply my opinion, not fact.)

    He is critical of the pope? I will consider his view. He is critical of the critics, who criticize his view, causing me to criticize? Responding to this(my) post would be criticizing a critic of another critic who is critical of his critics, which he has recently criticized. The beauty of dilution is that it is infinite, but does at some point become irrelevant.

    Some advice to the doctor, if you receive a threat file a report, if you don't like being criticized(even by loonies) for being critical, get out of the kitchen-or start an anonymous blog. Don't ask for pity if you self promote and find that some of the world's population is pretty sick in the head.

    Can't wait to football season.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 5:31 pm  

  • DelphiGuy, am I missing something, or did you post a comment just to tell us you would not be commenting?

    By Blogger Ronald Coleman, at 5:35 pm  

  • Please. Many, maybe most people criticizing Reynolds or anyone else for being edgy about the pope would be conservatives. Give the liberal thing a rest.

    By Anonymous dakota@raex.com, at 9:15 pm  

  • i don't know nothing about that shiavo deal (although i here Imus had a crush on her) but this Raymondo character is skuzbucket material. He's a swooning medievialist trying to pawn himself off to the young, beligerant, and ignorant: as a rational secularist with compassion . . . hoo! What a piece of sh*t, envy ridden, low life, turd bucket of an excuse for an American.

    Trash anyone with more than you under the guise of compassion for the poor. Demand a return to absolute monarchy to appease the avarice of those with less -- eventuating a slave pen of poverty -- while you search for new scapegoats instead of searching your soul and possibly the available intellectual material to appease your demons. Gets old.

    I'm sure there's a flicker of hope in the chap somewhere. But alas, here's he's trolling at the lowest levels.

    Projecting? Could be, yet, let it be said, that a secular marxist commie, coming up for air, as in alignment with the St. Francis Assisi ascetic crowd, is a pathetic sight and should be called so whenever it occurs.

    You want to be poor, miserable, without hope but with an excuse as in the King did not find you in favor, then join that show, just remember to tell your kids or any that might ask: that you sought to wreck prosperity because somebody had more than you. Another words: you were zero-sum, and couldn't imagine it another way -- you were in Darwin's world, you knew the score.

    reader

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 3:44 am  

  • Is there somewhere I can read this "John Stuart Mills" of whom you speak? Any relation to one of the most famous of all philosophers, John Stuart Mill?

    You're a self-satisfied sneering dickhead of the first order. It's a pity you don't have the mental clout to sustain the act.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:53 pm  

  • Thanks for the typo tip Anonymous. Further insightful comments on the topic at hand would be appreciated too.

    By Blogger Chefen, at 1:20 pm  

  • You might want to visit Reynolds' post for March 2, 2003 in which he basically accuses the Vatican of hard core antisemitism and linked to a picture of a special emissary of the Vatican in a photo op with Yasser Arafat. He stated the rhetorical question whether it was possible to imagine that any Vatican official would pose with a leader of a democratic country. I sent him links showing the same Vatican emissary meeting with Israeli officials on the same trip (although Sharon snubbed the emissary) and links to pictures of the pope with quite a few officials of democracies (e.g. certain US presidents). His response was to completely ignore these inconvenient facts and make several choice observations about his Catholic critics. Since then he has referred back to the March post which suggests his opinion has not changed. I suspect he really does have a "problem" with the Catholic Church (and presumably Catholics). I am curious how he can reconcile his claims about antisemitism with the recent statements by the Israeli premier and president praising the late pope. Hell, maybe they're antisemitic too.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2:04 pm  

  • A good man has passed away. It's time to contemplate that, not squabble.

    reader

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6:41 am  

Post a Comment

<< Home