Another “Progressive” bans Sabio

John Shore, a “Progressive Christian” on Patheos with his own blog called non-other than “JOHN SHORE” and quoted advertising saying, ““John Shore is America’s preeminent non-douchey Christian. His blog is a must-read for anyone, Christian or otherwise.” ”

Being pre-eminent, great writer, he is also runs another Progressive Christian blog called, “Unfundamentalist Christians: Above All, Love“. I recently challenged his post on Islam and promptly got called a bigot and banned on his site. That is two bannings in 2 weeks — an all-time new for me.

Before they delete my comments on that post, let me show you just what horrible material got me censored — and then you judge:

Glaringly missing in this outline is Violence and Islam.
He only touches on it in his “Plurality of Faiths” quote.
Yet the Qur’an is polluted with violence against non-believers.
See a whole list here.

Human rights violations abound in Muslim countries. It is no surprise if you read the book they put top value on.

To which Dan Wilkenson, another Progressive Christian and moderator on the site, responded:

The Bible is also “polluted” with violence against non-believers, and Christians certainly have a shameful history of human rights violations.

And so I responded:

Oh, very true — mostly the Jewish Bible. And Christians who still value that book literally are a danger. Just as Muslims who value their own book literally are dangerous:

According to a recent Pew Poll, the percentages of Muslims who agree that apostates (those who decide to leave Islam) should be killed are as follows (to name a few, see the poll for more):

86% in Egypt
82% in Palestinian territories
46% in Lebanon

And Muslims who approve stoning as a punishment for adultery:

89% in Pakistan
85% in Afghanistan
84% in Palestinian Territory.

Does that sound like a peaceful religion? The believe it because they literally believe a ridiculous book!

To which John Shore vehemently jumped in:

Sabio: I’ve been searching and searching that study to find the statistics you’re using, and I simply don’t find them there. Where are they?

Ah. I found the one on stoning as punishment for adultery. You forgot to mention the “Among Muslims who believe that sharia should be the law of the land …” part.

If you’re going to present statistics, present them within their context. If you don’t, you can’t help but seem like a person much more interested in what you want to be true than you are in what’s actually true. Your manipulating these statistics as you have destroys the credibility of your opinions on Muslims.

[John changed his comment several times because Disqus allows people to edit their comments.  But in previous editions he said that I conveniently did not mention that these stats were for those who wanted Sharia as the law of the land.  He said I was showing myself as a bigot and should leave if I don’t stop.]

To counter John Shore accusing me of being a bigot, I made this comment which was deleted:

Concerning those who favor making Sharia the Law of the Land:

Afghanistan 99%
Iraq 91%
Palestinian Terr 89%
Niger 86%
Morocco 83%
Egypt 74%

So you can see that the vast majority of Muslims in these countries would like to see adulterers stoned and people who leave the faith executed.  If the statistics bother you, it is no reason to call me a bigot.

John deleted that comment AND then banned me from commenting on that site any more.  Here is how he phrased it so he could have the last sweet word with his readers in the best holy light:

[Sabio: I deleted your follow-up email about the regional popularity of sharia because it invites a conversation based on the Pew statistics too complex to go into here: I simply don’t have time right now, and didn’t want to leave your comment standing alone. And I thought your response to my calling your opinions bigoted fair enough, so I removed that from my statement above.]

It has been my experience on blogs and in real life that “progressives” — political or religious — are the quickest to ban the opinions of those they do not like.  With all their nice talk of “LOVE” and “DIVERSITY”, they can be surprisingly intolerant!

Question for Readers:  What do you think?


Filed under Philosophy & Religion

29 responses to “Another “Progressive” bans Sabio

  1. Mary Bren

    Thank you!!


    Mary Bren

  2. Nicole Marie Story

    Welcome to my world. I get banned by woe-is-me anorexics and bulimics almost daily! 😉

  3. Good job, Nicole! Maybe you irritate them into health!

  4. That’s too bad. Shore was one of the progressives who had the biggest influence on my eventual deconversion. Early in my questioning phase his ideas challenged some of my evangelical ideologies and really made me think. I haven’t read anything by him in a couple years but I always enjoyed him and think he has done a lot of good in a lot of areas. It’s fascinating to me how an effort to be tolerant towards people gets conflated with tolerance towards ideas.

  5. Herro

    I don’t understand why John Shore and the “unfundies” call themselves “unfundamentalists”. They’re basically fundies (e.g. believe in inerrancy and the authority of the Bible), but they just interpret it to fit with modern ideas like gay rights and biology.

    But congratulations are in order! 🙂

  6. Boy, you really are on a role. You big bully.:) Just can not play nice, eh?

    Perhaps their tolerance has become their Sharia? An extreme tolerance that ironically will not allow someone to comment to another in fear of offence being taken. It is the tyranny of tolerance. They know not what they do.

  7. It takes some serious vitriol and profanity to get banned from my site, and even then I simply hold the comments in moderation because I’ll publish them if they bring it back to reality.

    I think dissent makes for more interesting discussion.

    I think progressives in general always want to see the good in people to the exclusion of any bad they have. Islam is a nasty religion, when it comes to human rights. The problem is people like Shore want to point to their Muslim co-worker or neighbor and not the Muslim countries in the middle east. When a country becomes majority Muslim, they begin to look like The middle east.

  8. @ MichaelB,
    Yeah, pretty weird encounter. I was merely putting out stats. Pretty threatening, apparently.
    Hey MicahelB, I did not understand your last sentence — care to flesh it out?

    @ Herro,
    I hadn’t been on his site long enough to know about the continued adherence to inerrancy and Bible authority — I guess “progressive” is a broad term with pro-gay allowing you into the fold even when you are still pro-Yahweh!

    Funny. (yeah, I guess it was meant to be a feel good party there and I was not welcome)

    John Barron,
    Yeah, I know some fine Muslims too — but that’s because they don’t really follow their religion either. Heck, if Jews or Christians still followed Yahweh’s OT commands, we’d have to put them in prison — killing children for cursing and all.

  9. Here’s the thing about that Sabio. (not to get really off topic, but sorry I never let this go without an explanation) Theologically speaking, a large majority of the OT Laws have been abrogated by the institution of the NT (Jer 31:31), they arent Laws. They were prior to the institution of the NT. Gentiles were never expected to follow the ceremonial, or civil laws, for example, only the moral laws. Only the Jews were not to mix fabrics (as symbolism of keeping the Jewish blood genetically pure and separate), it didnt matter if Gentiles did. Same with dietary laws. Those werent for non-Jews. And now that the Messiah came, with the New Covenant, the Jews need not either. Moral laws are still effectual as far as how we should conduct ourselves, but because there is no theocracy, we arent to be instituting the OT punishments (being under the NT) for them

    However, abrogation with the Quran is dictated by the chronological order commands were given to Muhammad. So if two conflicting commands are given (no compulsion in religion, and kill the infidel) which ever command and associated punishment came most recently is the one the Muslim is supposed to follow.

    This is the problem. The violent commands to kill infidels, stone homosexuals and raped women are the newer commands (the Quran is not compiled chronologically, the longest Suras are at the begining, getting shorter toward the end). The ones which say its ok to lie to infidels if it furthers the cause of Islam is a newer command. The ones that say not to be friends with infidels is a newer command.

    This means the “moderate” Muslims are ignoring direct commands of violence toward nonmuslims. Whereas Christians and Jews should be following the dictates of the NT, but while moral laws are still in effect, the system of punishment is not. So rape, homosexuality, thievery, lying, etc. are all still sins, we arent to punish those crimes against the moral law.

  10. Well done! Being banned is a badge of honour!

  11. Mike aka MonolithTMA

    I was banned by The Christian Left Facebook page for questioning some of their mocking posts. My friend Brian wrote about it here:

    Back when I was blogging, I would occasionally block people due to personal attacks directed at other posters, or other poor behavior, but never for asking questions or posting opposing info.

  12. @Sabio, I simply meant that “tolerance” often of becomes a catch-all umbrella that doesn’t allow one to criticize ideas for fear that it will be construed as criticizing the people who hold those ideas or their right to hold them. I get that people like Shore want to help Xians break down stereotypes towards gays, Muslims, etc., but that shouldn’t occur at the expense of exposing bad ideas or ways of thinking.

  13. It is interesting to note, that the more violent the backdrop of a culture is, the more violent the religious doctrine tends to be. So do we blame the religion or the people? Obviously both, but the religion, from a humanistic perspective, becomes non-existent when the people cease to give it life.

  14. rautakyy

    I think that in general good people are more willing to find the good and natural ethics from their cultural heritage be it a religion, or what ever.

    The underlying problem is, that religions with their arbitrary commands from imagined ultimate authorities tend to make people subject to the most horrible systems of tribal moralism. The “progressive” religious people are more aware of that then the fundies. The fundies accept the ancient logic of might makes right at face value while the more “progressive” religious people seem to struggle with it. And that is propably why you ended up being banned. Because the “progressive” religious people are more aware (than their fundie counterparts) of the fact that the absurdity of one religion makes all religions look that much more idiotic. They stand closer to the reality, but do not want to hear about it, because it is allready straining their faith.

    There is no question, that the fundies are the more dangerous group, because they are more easily led to questionable acts. In more ignorant countries with less education any main religion (the leading humans) has more political power. However, it is difficult to point a finger at individual people being truly fundamentalists. It is by their own admission, by wich we may do so. For example would not a “true fundamentalist” sticking to the actual scriptural teachings of the New Testament sell all their property and give it to the poor? I have yet to meet such a Christian. For sure this “self improvement” would be more important issue to a “true” Christian literalist, than abortion, or gay marriage.

  15. Earnest

    I would like to know if anyone else on this thread has been banned for statistical analysis.

    Although it would have been nice to know the percent of a given region who self-describe as sharia adherants. There are certainly many moderate muslims in the quoted nations, so he does have a small point about the need to clarify what exactly “89% Pakistan” actually means. Sabio you have taken me to task about my verbosity, but sometimes, especially with stats, the laboriously specific labels do matter.

    I would guess he got some perceived hostility from moderate muslims to ban you, and in a paroxysm of apologism tossed out Sabio the gadfly. I think the comment that he did not have time to respond to you is especially telling. A great example of the tyrrany of the middle.

  16. @ Earnest,
    Good points. I agree largely with your analysis.

    @ Calledto Question,
    Yep, I think it was assumed that I categorically blamed every Muslim for the bad ideas of the majority — in those countries I listed.

    @ MichaelB
    Ah, I agree totally.

    @ Mike aka,
    I have blocked a few for name calling and attacking also — never for ideas.

    @ john zande,
    Thanx! LOL

    @ John Barron,
    Yes, I know the Christian dispensational thinking. So why aren’t Jews confused like Muslims and still slaughtering unbelievers and children who lie. They’ve got no NT.

    I think you mistyped when you wrote:

    Whereas Christians and Jews should be following the dictates of the NT…

  17. I would say the same about Jews who truly dont believe the Messiah has come and do believe they are still under the Mosaic law. But I didnt mistype. Jews should be following the new testament given that the Messiah has come.

  18. @ John Barron,

    John, the vast majority of Jews do not believe in following the commandments of Yahweh in the OT. Why do you think that is so?

  19. So you were banned by a Christian for saying things against Islam?

    Happy New Year!

  20. Yes, remember, lots of flavors of Christians. These fellahs are pro-gay, pro-abortion, but still feel the Bible is inspired and reliable, I guess. But they are politically left — and very correct. So the facts are uncomfortable for those folks. I they only love inclusivity if you drink their Kool-Aid (or swallow their pill). They are a flavor of Progressive Christians.

  21. CHope

    Ha ha, Sabio, I personally believe that there are NO “progressive” Christians because the Bible is NOT “progressive”. That’s why that adjective they give themselves is such a joke! I also know from personal experience that their leadership HATES questions and cannot handle any kind of criticism. I should know, I was more less kicked out of a Church like that in Hawai’i.

    Years after said event, I tried my best to be a Progressive, but that actually sent me down the road of deconversion instead. I think Michael B and I are much alike in that area.

    Hope you’re having a great New Year!

  22. Sorry for your being banned on the “patheos” blog; but you are welcome to express your views with reasons on my blog.

  23. Gun

    You wrote:”It has been my experience on blogs and in real life that “progressives” – political or religious are the quickest to ban the opinions of those they do not like”.
    In which category do you put yourself?

  24. @ Gun,
    I am fairly conservative in terms of economics, fairly liberal toward’s government rule in personal ethics, pretty anti-war on a national security level and pretty harsh on crimes (but I want tons of stuff decriminalized). But I am ready to change on any of that — I have many times.

    So, does that help. Does it change your read of this post? Do you care to share your opinions?

  25. Gun

    My question was: Are you tolerant with the views of others or are you yourself quick to ban the opinions of others if they don´t match with yours?

    I am very willing to share my opinions in many issues like politics, ethics, health care, education etc. In discussions the goal is never to change anyone (the only person I can change is myself) but I have learned a lot
    by being a commentator for two years in blogs referring to a radio program
    where there were Christians, Atheists, Buddhists etc.

    At the time being I am interested to follow the outcome of the new movement OPPT One People´s Public Trust in USA. ´Very astonishing goals these people have – to set all people free!!! They have found that a lot of laws are against the Constitution. Today I was reading interesting facts on
    The video The Federal Reserve Fraud on Youtube gives the details of “the worst legislative crime of the ages” in a shorter form.

  26. Well, I guess you have to read my stuff and talk to me in order to answer your question. My self-evaluation is untrustworthy. But I shan’t be exploring too many political conspiracy issues — true or false — ain’t my thing!

  27. Herro

    John Shore just banned me too 😦

    The offending comment was the following and it was posted here

    >John Shore: How can you be so certain when it comes to the eternal fate of the sender’s mother? How can you possibly know that?

  28. @ Herro,
    Yep, many Christians are afraid of open dialogue and honest questioning. And certainly, like John Shore, don’t want to appear weak before their flock.

Please share your opinions!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s