3 of 40 people found the following review helpful
Another attack on enlightenment values,
This review is from: The Story of the Jews: Finding the Words (1000 BCE - 1492) (Hardcover)
It's unlikely any reputable British historian would have penned this work had he not spent increasing amounts of time professionally working in the United States - a christo-fascist theocracy where no atheist can be elected to any public office. Essentially, the book, inter alia, celebrates the values of supernaturalism over the rationalist values of philosophy and science which in Europe have replaced religion amongst the educated classes. The garbled absurdities, not to mention entrenched sexism, homophobia and racism of this particular brand of belief are not, of course, adduced. The book is a disgrace; to buy it is to condone it.
Tracked by 2 customers
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-6 of 6 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 19 Nov 2013 09:46:57 GMT
A. Reader says:
Do you know what adduced means?
cite as evidence.
"a number of factors are adduced to explain the situation"
In reply to an earlier post on 19 Nov 2013 15:48:19 GMT
Yes, it means 'to bring into evidence' and is used in my review correctly. Why not have the courage to vent [sic] your real grievance; I suppose you must be some kind of supernaturalist.
In reply to an earlier post on 19 Nov 2013 16:24:56 GMT
A. Reader says:
In that case, your sentence would read, "The garbled absurdities, not to mention entrenched sexism, homophobia and racism of this particular brand of belief are not, of course, brought into evidence." So, if I understand you correctly, what you're saying is that Schama doesn't mention the sexism, homophobia, racism and internal contradictions of religion to support his own arguments, since he's a religious believer? Why does that need to be said?
Moreover, by talking about the 'educated classes', you are as guilty of divisiveness and exclusion as you claim Schama to be.
According to the American Humanist Association, few open atheists are elected to public office in the States, and their election is indeed illegal in some States, but that is not the same as your contention that 'no atheist can be elected to any public office'.
If you haven't bought the book, which, according to you would be condoning a disgrace (I haven't bought or read it either, but don't much care one way or the other), why are you reviewing it on Amazon?
You do a lot of supposing, Giles, in my case all of it wrong. I don't have a grievance. I do, however, have an issue with pomposity and inaccuracy.
In reply to an earlier post on 19 Nov 2013 22:21:07 GMT
In reply to an earlier post on 5 Mar 2014 21:25:50 GMT
B. Buckley says:
A. Reader -- In which U.S. states is electing atheists to public office illegal????? Facts please, so we can verify your slanders!
In reply to an earlier post on 6 Mar 2014 00:44:47 GMT
Who said anything about the law. I suggest you first read what you intend to attack.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›