Wednesday, August 27, 2014

"Daily Caller" opinion editor J. Arthur Bloom justifies foul mouth.

Earlier this year I had a post about the comments of Jordan Arthur Bloom regarding myself.

Bloom's comments:

Bloom's comment was in response to my campaign to ask churches no to host neo-Confederate groups. This campaign is documented online at In particular asking the Episcopalian church not to host neo-Confederate groups.

I did a blog on his comments on July 24, 2014 and the following is the link to the blog posting.

Yesterday, August 27, 2014 I got this response from him.

J. Arthur Bloom is actually an Opinion Editor for the Daily Caller. It is a website that seems to specialize in hysteria.

What I pointed out in my original blog posting about Bloom's comments about myself is that Jordan Arthur Bloom couldn't resort to any argument but resorted to scatological name calling.

I said in the post:
What is interesting is that despite all the pretensions of intellect, being Opinion Editor, obscure blog name, etc., the person is just a foul mouth character that has no argument to be put forth and thus resorts to name calling. 
Always swearing, cursing, profanity, obscenity, etc. is a failure of intellect, the failure to express your objection in real terms and it is just ranting. Also, it is ineffective in stinging anyone. It is just noise that people tune out. It really shows the mental incapacity of Bloom.
The title of the post was:
"Daily Caller" Jordan Bloom Opinion Editor's scatological and negative opinion of my Churches of the Confederacy campaign.
In Bloom's response he states:
... and the pearl-clutching, schoolmarmish title of this blog post suggests to me that in your heart you know your actions -- asking denominations to intervene in congregational decisions about what groups have the right to meet on church property -- are wrong.
I am not sure how the title of my blog posting is "pearl-clutching, schoolmarmish" or proves that I think that I am wrong, whether in my kidneys, heart or lungs.  Perhaps Bloom likes to assert that his opponent's opinions are like those of women. My posting simply is a blog posting pointing out that the Daily Caller employs a foul mouthed person as their opinion editor, an editor who uses foul language instead of a reasoned argument. However, if you read the Daily Caller, he probably is a perfect fit for an editorial position with them.

The conclusion of Bloom's essay is that since he really doesn't like my plan to get denominations to not host neo-Confederate groups it justifies him being foul mouthed in his writings.

Bloom denies that there is a neo-Confederate movement and makes other assertions about neo-Confederate groups.

Bloom's primary assertion is that it is "bullying" if I write denominational leaders a letter to consider that their denomination should not be hosting neo-Confederate groups because I don't think it is a good thing to do.

Denominational leaders are tasked with leading. They lead. So asking them to lead on an issue for their denomination by what authority or means granted to them by their denomination seems reasonable. None of my letters ask that thugs be employed. In situations like this you find that a writer has adopted a term with an elastic definition that encompasses the world so what ever you might do or say falls under the term.

Also, if you publicly complained about a denomination's practices without having written the leadership of a denomination about your complaint, people would think you were an idiot and rightly so.

Bloom's response is just over heated rhetoric using phrases like "pearl-clutching, schoolmarmish," and just labeling something he doesn't like with loaded terminology.

Also, Bloom is avoiding the issue in my campaign to get churches to stop hosting neo-Confederates by making up a distraction about "bullying."  This distraction is used by him to avoid discussion of the issues I raise and on which there is no comment forthcoming by Bloom.

Bloom real complaint with my efforts writing the Episcopalians is revealed in the following section of his response.
Your letter comes on the heels of a largely successful campaign on behalf of the bishop, costing tens of millions of dollars, aimed at confiscating the property of congregations that have opted to leave the Episcopal Church rather than obey its slate of progressive priorities.
I don't think I am responsible for the quarreling in the Episcopal church or how they are dividing up the property.

It would be interesting to get Bloom's thoughts on the Confederacy but I doubt that will happen since I think the primary purpose of this claim of "bullying" is to avoid the issues.

No comments:

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Popular Posts Last 30 days

Popular Posts All Time