I had debated about whether or not to add him to my updated blog roll. He's a good writer, which shows through in his pieces. But, as I've noted here before, on issues that generally involve something metaphysical, while he "presents" as a skeptic, he isn't always totally that way in enthusiasm.
And, sometimes, he's just wrong.
April 9: It's news to me that yuccas allegedly aren't native to the US. Rather? Per Wiki, the reality is that many species of yucca, including the Joshua tree, are indeed native. Given that he's been wrong about matters biological before (even though being a retired high school Advanced Placement-level science teacher) this is not surprising.
April 10: He omits French (wrongly, per Wiki, and weirdly per his own ethnicity) from the top eight languages of the world.
May 8: Calling cynicism no better than gullibility is a laugher. It's also a misframing of cynicism. Good cynicism is not universal, it's subject-specific, and like a generalization vs a stereotype, is based on a reasonably honest assessment of a whole class as a class. Like politicians. And, the fact that Bonnet chose C.S. Lewis as source for his examples in this piece is yet another illustration that his skepticism isn't as rigorous as it could be or as he thinks it is.
May 10: No, Pope Leo I (the Great) did NOT NOT NOT convoke the Council of Chalcedon. Per the Wikipedia link in his own piece, Eastern Roman (not yet Byzantine) Emperor Marcian, NOT Leo, called the council. In general, popes were pretty much ignored by all seven of the "ecumenical" councils. I had commented on his Facebook on No. 2, but not 1 and 3, and debated this one, but eventually did so, using my profile page set up for my blogging, not my personal page.
The real issue is that Bonnet, while LOL-ing on Laura Loomer's "woke Marxist pope" missed the real issues, such as Prevost's role in Catholic clergy sexual abuse covering up and more:
I wish all the best to this century's Pope Leo. Like I said, he looks like a great choice, and a lot of my Catholic friends seem happy with him
You need to ask your presumably church-librul Catholic friends about what's at my link. I don't go openly looking to bash the religious impulse myself, either, but I don't cut blank checks to religious facts on the ground, either.
May 16: At least he redeems himself with honesty, per me having wondered once if he was a closeted believer.
In fact, for a skeptic, I have to admit I'm pretty damn suggestible.
There we are.
BUT?
One more goof and I'll drop him from my updated blogroll.
AND?
June 6: This did it. His post was about Henry VIII (whom Bonnet uses as a stand-in for Trump). He then wants to compare some of Henry's retainers and such to Trump's sycophants, and introduces a list with this:
But Henry was surrounded by nobles (both of the to-the-manner-born and the up-and-coming nouveau-riche types) who were desperately elbowing each other out of the way to capture the king's approval. Even though one after the other, they ended up paying for it.
Here are a few examples:
On that list are Sir Thomas More and Thomas Cromwell.
I know enough about More, and have seen "A Man for all Seasons" more than once. I've read a bio of Cromwell. Bonnet's hot takes are way off base.
On More, there's no indication he connived to replace Wolsey. And, his rectitude in Parliament under Henry VII already showed he wasn't a suck-up.
Cromwell? Pushed the Reformation further and faster than Henry VIII wanted, including pushing the marriage to Anne of Cleves. He did, before that, use the dissolution of the monasteries as a patronage tool to work closer to Henry, tis true.
He does note that Henry was as he was "especially toward the end of his life" while ignoring that Wolsey and More both met their fates long before the end of Henry's life.
Anyway, Gordon, you're gone.
No comments:
Post a Comment