First they came for the universalists, and I did not speak out – because I was not a universalist;
Then they came for the neo-Darwinist, and I did not speak out – because I was not a neo-Darwinist;
Then they came for the inclusivist, and I did not speak out – because I was not an inclusivist;
Then they came for the biblical errantist, and I did not speak out – because I was not a biblical errantist;
And what's wrong with that?
Who are "they", what does he mean by "came for", and to do what with?
ReplyDeleteI get that he is trying to make an analogy to the famous Niemöller quote, but his situation isn't analogous even on his own terms. No one is "coming for" any of the viewpoints he listed for the purpose of systematically torturing and murdering them.
It seems to me that disanalogous arguments by analogy are one of Rauser's favorite tools.
First they came for science, and were clearly unscientific about it so I didn't think I needed to speak out.
ReplyDeleteThen they came for reason and were clearly unreasonable about it, so I didn't think I needed to speak out.
Then they came for logic and were clearly illogical about it, so I didn't think I needed to speak out.
Then they came for the monotheists, and I figured the Muslims would fight that battle, so I didn't think I needed to speak out.
Then they came for the Biblical Christians but by then it was the persecution of the last days and speaking out just got you tortured more quickly. But since by then we'd already had our speech, gun, civil, and religious freedoms taken away, so there was no ability to resist.
...
At least when they came for the presuppositionalists, they had to presuppose something and lost. :D
They won't be coming for Randall; far more likely that Randall would be one of those coming for people.
ReplyDeleteHe is a true Neville Chamberlain Christiant, kissing the behind of John Loftus to complete their forthcoming book deal even as Loftus smears him on his blog.
What a collaborator.