John Gruber of Daring Fireball fame points out this article on speaking in tongues and opines:
Hard to believe The New York Times ran this piece of claptrap on their op-ed page. “We” don’t speak in tongues; religious nutjobs do, and they do it because they believe in superstitious nonsense. I’ll bet my bottom dollar that there is a high correlation between tongue-speakers and climate change deniers and creationist “science” school curriculum pushers — people who are doing real and genuine harm to our society and the planet.
Sometime after this, he added the following update:
UPDATE: As a perusal of my (and @daringfireball’s) Twitter replies will show, this post was, I suppose unsurprisingly, controversial. One word I’ve seen from those whom I presume to be Pentecostals or other evangelical Christians is “hate” — examples here, here, here, here, here, here. A lack of respect is not hatred; I do not respect superstitious nonsense. But this framing — equating lack of respect with hatred — is what keeps many from criticizing nonsensical religious views.
I haven’t bothered to copy over the links in the original update. See Gruber’s original post if interested. I’d recommend reading the original NYT article at the link above, if for no other reason than to contrast it with Gruber’s disrespect.
Gruber, I think, hangs himself pretty well in the update:
… A lack of respect is not hatred; …
No, I suppose it isn’t. But it’s not much of an improvement either, especially for someone who likes to consider himself so enlightened. Politically, speaking, Gruber is a liberal and one of the most oft repeated charges liberals bring against conservatives is the latter’s lack of respect for other cultures and many things liberals hold dear. Similarly, conservatives charge liberals with lacking respect for certain traditions and institutions that conservatives tend to hold dear. Last I checked this “lack of respect” wasn’t exactly resulting in a great deal of comity between liberals and conservatives. So the fact that Gruber is trying to draw a distinction between “hate” and “lack of respect” in his defense is pretty thin. Fine, his commenters in this case accuse him of “hate” and he’s playing a silly game of “Gotcha” pointing out he doesn’t “hate.” Roger that. He just totally doesn’t respect them. I’m sure they are assuaged.
I also note this line:
… “We” don’t speak in tongues; religious nutjobs do, …
Here, Gruber has setup the oft used “other” construct. But it’s more than that. By labeling one group as “religious nutjobs,” he’s implying that the other group, which Gruber is clearly a member of, is the normal, enlightened group. While I think that’s perfectly consistent with “lack of respect,” it’s hardly consistent with being tolerant, a typical source of pride for the enlightened.
Having read the original article, I’d personally go with labelling tongue speakers as “different” and leave it at that. No, I’m not about to start speaking in tongues, but that doesn’t automatically make me better than those that do. If I had a friend who spoke in tongues, it would certainly be a sort of curiosity to me. I might even think it weird; but, I wouldn’t lose respect for someone who believes in something like speaking in tongues. I find it hard to believe Gruber could make the same statement. Then again, perhaps some of Gruber’s best friends are tongue speakers…
Finally, as a form of justification, Gruber says:
I’ll bet my bottom dollar that there is a high correlation between tongue-speakers and … — people who are doing real and genuine harm to our society and the planet.
I suppose I should note that the “people doing harm” that Gruber specifically names are climate-change deniers and creationists. More of the “other” construct, along with some helpful labels! Gruber offers no support for his “enlightened” hunch- I’d take his bet.
As to the charge of “doing real and genuine harm to our society”, again I find that pretty thin. Gruber is a speaker all over the world. I’d refer him to this article about the actual real damage he’s doing flying all over the world, as opposed to the supposed damage his “other” is doing. No doubt, he’ll say how he doesn’t fly “that” much as his defense. That or I’m sure he gets the “Enlightened Group Discount” on damage.
So, enlightened people damage the planet as well. As for society? Gruber voted for President Obama, I’d bet my bottom dollar. I’ve got two words: “surveillance state”. Here’s two more: ’nuff said.
Consider this a shining example of “let he who is without sin cast the first stone”- shoot, spoke in tongues there.
From a broad perspective, Gruber thinks himself as a “non-bullshitter.” A straight talker that tells it like he sees it based on available evidence. When it comes to computers and technology, he’s often quite good at the schtick. But in this case, he’s confused his strong opinion about how he thinks the world works for “truth,” a common mistake for the “enlightened.” Ultimately, in this instance, he’s not a straight-talker, just another disrespectful jerk.