Darn Atheist trolls should just shut up

[Hatter23]

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/

Over the last few weeks we’ve have some atheist trolls visiting the combox. I have attempted to answer some of their questions through a series of posts, and regular readers who are more learned than I am have also added comments.

What has emerged from the discussions is how genuinely ignorant most of the atheists are about the things on which they wish to comment. I don’t mind a good debate and am happy to entertain questions and am willing to question my faith and examine the truth. However, more often than not what comes out of the discussions is an atheist throwing wild assertions around–very often accompanied by crude language, poor manners, and aggressive style and an appalling level of ignorance.

Of course I would not expect an atheist to be an expert in New Testament scholarship, medieval church history or Catholic moral theology. What I would expect is that anyone who is not knowledgable about a particular subject would have the courtesy (and the self respect) not to make wild, groundless assertions and then continue the argument by simply stating the same thing over again, but this time a little bit louder.

I am, like all people, ignorant and uninterested in many things. For example, I am not an athlete. I have a very mild interest in football. I know the basic rules and I can sit down with some friends to watch a game, but that’s about it. In fact, if truth be told, I’m not only not an athlete, but I have a bias against athletes and athletics. I sometimes feel it is all a huge waste of money, time and effort. What I don’t do however, is get on an anti-athletic soapbox. I don’t go on to sports blogs trying to show everybody what a stupid, idiotic and wasteful thing sports are. I don’t go into their world spouting arguments about how destructive sport is because so many young children are seriously injured every year or how dumb sport is because it wastes millions on what is just a game when there are starving children in the world or how athletes are all dumb mutts who get paid big money to act like a gorilla or how terrible sport is because there are gamblers and ticket touts and people making money hand over fist with outrageously huge salaries and charging exorbitant prices for crap souvenirs…blah blah blah.

All these arguments could be made, but I would be embarrassed to make them. I realize I’m ignorant and biased against sport. I also realize that millions upon millions of people love sports of all kind. They’re passionate about it. Therefore why should I be right and they be wrong? Maybe what I ought to do is be open minded and learn more about sport. I should probably take up a sport myself. I should go to more games, broaden my world, become a bigger and better person by branching out into something that is new to me. I ought to have some curiosity and learn something from someone else–especially from someone who I have an inclination not to like. That’s where real enlightenment and learning come from.

If I can’t do that at least I ought to be dignified enough to mind my own business and keep my mouth shut.

Maybe atheist trolls should do the same.

________________________________________________________________________________________

So Fr. Dwight Longenecker;

So do sports team require of their fans for their children to be initiated into their fanhood? Are the laws on the books trying to deny people civil rights because of said items aren't in that games playbook? How many wars throughout history we initiated over whose team was better? Have their been people commiting suicide bombings to get on the honored players roster? And which teams are dictating they are the sole source of morality in the world, and people are required to support them with their donations, or they are going to be tortured forever?

Please tell me.

[Zankuu]

Is that your comment that's currently awaiting moderation? If so, good luck.

[Hatter23]

Is that your comment that's currently awaiting moderation? If so, good luck.

Yes and amazingly enough yet another anti-atheist comment got approved since then.

Often enough the more aggressive and assertive atheist commenters are forthcoming enough about their motivations. For example, a logo or banner across the top of a web page may contain something like a birdcage with the door open and the bird flying free. Or it may contain explicit words, phrases, or quotes to the effect that individuals can free themselves of attachment to the ignorance and superstitions of religion and become enlightened. More subtle is the promise of being freed from all those confining restraints on the bundle of authentic desires that are the essence of our selves, so that human happiness can be advanced by smashing of the shackles of religion. Materialism, unrestrained and “guilt free” sexual indulgence, a hedonistic life – beckon. Some atheists, for now, may stop there. Sincere and tragically misguided.

But some are gaining encouragement to advance (as they see it) further, into edgier and more exciting realms. In their thinking, why stop there? Why not confront this hateful thing that is a reproach by its very existence? So, to reinforce the anti-religious meta narrative, religion in general and the Catholic Church in particular are depicted exclusively in terms of coercion, ignorance, gullibility, and violence or threat of violence. Activism, that all-American solution to everything unpleasant in life, becomes a commitment incorporated into everyday life – a reason to get up in the morning. This starts a process, and certainly it is not a necessary consequence that all who start down the road will travel the whole distance. Maybe dialog with a believer, an encounter with the intellectual tradition of the Catholic Church, or something as simple as human kindness will provide them the opportunity to re-evaluate and to step off the path.

But, I believe it is particularly instructive to observe the way the way in which the contemporary anti-religious, and particularly anti-Catholic, narrative lingers, almost longingly, over the theme of violence as a sort of signal of, in essence, “This is what we are going to do to you as payback when we get the chance.”

Wild speculation? Tragically not. The record of what happens when this beast is let loose, such as the early 20th century persecution of the Church by Mexican revolutionaries and a whole list of others, unfortunately probably is not complete yet. The IRA found that first step in training perfectly sane (not crazed) killers is to get them to murder the enemy first in their hearts. They were almost all viciously anti-Catholic. Our current crop of American anti-Catholic bigots often think that they can “domesticate” this hatred – keep it as a “pet” and turn it loose when they wish, and call it back when they like. They believe that they will be immune to the fallout when the hatred and persecution runs riot. Stalin is said to have found the protests of the dedicated Communists that he murdered in the millions particularly humorous and enthralling.

It appears we are in a new era, and at least some of the more militant atheists believe that it is their moment, the culture and power relationships in society have irreversibly shifted in their direction. That analysis makes it all the more outrageous in their minds when they encounter actual Catholic believers, who “should” have disappeared with, well, the Age of Steam. So they reach into their tiny toolkit and apply ever bigger doses of scorn and a cramped, ignorant, and tendentious reading of history that is, and must be, On. Their. Side.

If there is an Earthly apprenticeship for the self-torture of Hell, this must be close to it. We must pray for them, for only the power of prayer can break through such a hard, self-constructed crust. Apparently our calling in this day and age is to offer the witness of a fulfilled life in Christ, confident, courageous, and welcoming. We have nothing to fear and we know that our side wins in the end if we just remain faithful to Him. The sixties are over now.

Yes, it hits all the typical notes; ignoring the actual history of what the church did when it had political power, and what it does where it still has it...slippery slope, they just want to live without consquences, equating atheism with communist dictators, ending with that familiar note of those who have nothing to offer, condecending piety.

[Hatter23]

Is that your comment that's currently awaiting moderation? If so, good luck.

actually it is approved now. And I was told "I do not understand the point"

and with comments like:

The ignorance of the self-identified “atheists” accusing Catholic Church falsely and presumptuously regarding such things as the Spanish Inquisition, persecution of Jews, etc., is quite breathtaking. These propagandist myths and lies have been debunked by all serious historians, whether or not they, themselves, confess a faith in God. There is no good reason to publish such gratuitous and inane insults. God bless your work on your blog, Father.

So we are to think catholicism has nothing to do the the inquisition or persecution of Jews. Because persecution of a religious group couldn't have anything to do with, say, religion

and then when I mentioned I was raised Catholic:

But maybe the problem lies within you since it makes sense to lot’s of other Catholics. I don’t understand higher level math but I don’t go around dismissing it’s validity just because it doesn’t make sense to me. If I really wanted to know if it made sense or not I would invest the time to study it from people who really knew the subject. I certainly wouldn’t just sit down and open a book on quantum mechanics, read a few nonsensical parts then declare it a bunch of whack. Or hang out on math blogs or pop in to a class now and then and listen to the lecture and form my opinion that way. Without the necessary grounding in the subject and will to learn it’s unlikely to make sense.

Being raised a Catholic (nominally or otherwise) and then becoming an atheist virtually forces you to demean and dismiss your prior faith, how else could you live with yourself? It doesn’t make your hostility to the faith true, just understandable.

Oh the problem lies within me because I don't have higher understanding. After all, apparently the higher educated a person is, the more likely the are to be religious....except the opposite is true.

[Nam]

A Christian is as educated in atheism as they are in their own individual sect. Meaning: barely at all.

-Nam

[nogodsforme]

Where and when are those hedonistic sex and licentiousness parties that these religious folks think we atheists go to? I must have misplaced my invite. Maybe I should check my email more often.

We are atheists because we don't believe in god. That's it. It's not because we want to act all wild and crazy. Religious people are doing enough of the wild and crazy for all of us.  Just like those fundies who support anti-gay marriage laws and get caught doing meth with a boy toy. Ooops.

Methinks they protest too much about what might happen if they stop believing in god. And it ain't blogging about atheism on the internet. 

[Red McWilliams]

Of course I would not expect an atheist to be an expert in New Testament scholarship, medieval church history or Catholic moral theology.

Ah yes, the 'sophisticated theology' argument.  Unfortunately this always regresses back to 'mysterious ways' when pressed.  And, really, shouldn't the omnimax creator of the universe (who states explicitly his main goal is to have a relationship with us) have figured out a simple, elegant and obvious way of communicating with us?

Or maybe he has I'm just so hung up on the Super Atheist Sexy Parties that I refuse to listen?

[Hatter23]

Of course I would not expect an atheist to be an expert in New Testament scholarship, medieval church history or Catholic moral theology.

Ah yes, the 'sophisticated theology' argument.  Unfortunately this always regresses back to 'mysterious ways' when pressed.  And, really, shouldn't the omnimax creator of the universe (who states explicitly his main goal is to have a relationship with us) have figured out a simple, elegant and obvious way of communicating with us?

Oh yes in response(more or less) to my post:

 So tell me, what’s the polite way to inform someone that their entire life has been centered around a delusion? A delusion that tells people the an all powerful invisible being had to sacrifice himself, to himself(but only for a long weekend), in order to avoid his own wrath again his own creations that he made in full knowledge they weren’t going to live up to his own standards.
 
we get:

The way you’ve re-stated the theory of the atonement is not totally wrong per se, but it is the reductio ad absurdam tactic: reduce things to a ridiculous minimalistic statement so you can dismiss it. This can be done with anything: to continue my football analogy I could say, “Geesh, people pay good money to watch eleven men in tight pants running around a field knocking each other senseless to chase a piece of inflated pigskin across a white line on the ground?” If someone explained football like that you’d rightly dismiss him as not a serious debater.

Reductio ad absurdam may be used as a rhetorical device when attempting satirical comment however, when an assertion is made without qualifiers or reference to verifiable evidence, ignorance may be assumed to exist. That ‘ignorance’ is a perjorative term is not necessarily a factor to be considered objectively because of the connotative valuations of all linguistic capabilities. Read Florsheim “Connatotive Judgements in Logical Assertions within the Assumption of Negative Capabilities” (Journal of Linguistic Analysis, v.12, p.442. cf. Coggins. 1953) That linguistic limitations within normal cognitive associations are at times misconstrued and that objective valuations of ‘terminology’ are often relativized is, of course, a conclusion that can at times be made while one would not wish to be definitive in an exclusive or a mandatory methodology. Should a negative construction be placed upon objectively valid terminology which was used by the denotator to the receiver of the communication is to be regretted but not necessarily obviated because this may be a prelude to a reconsideration of the truth claims that are being made–albeit in a dogmatic and unproductive process.

Which I think translates to: Stop being so bluntly honest and ignoring our flowery vague language of misdirection.

[DumpsterFire]

I checked out the link and was both amused and disturbed by it. It seems that by simply identifying yourself as atheist, or by expressing anything contrary to Catholic dogma, you are instantly labelled a troll.

What was glaring to me, though, was the complete unwillingness of the theists there to engage in any honest, rational debate about anything opposing their beliefs, just incredulous dismissals and name calling. I encourage anyone who hasn't done so to click on the link Hatter posted and see for yourself, but here's a start:

After atheists are accused of being aggressive, angry, ignorant, and ill-mannered, Hatter (as his alter-ego Doug Fo)
chimes in with:
                                                                                                                                                                                       

Ill mannered? Now some might be, sure. So tell me, what’s the polite way to inform someone that their entire life has been centered around a delusion? A delusion that tells people that an all powerful invisible being had to sacrifice himself, to himself (but only for a long weekend), in order to avoid his own wrath again his own creations that he made in full knowledge they weren’t going to live up to his own standards.

To which the OP responds:

The way you’ve re-stated the theory of the atonement is not totally wrong per se, but it is the reductio ad absurdam tactic: reduce things to a ridiculous minimalistic statement so you can dismiss it. This can be done with anything: to continue my football analogy I could say, “Geesh, people pay good money to watch eleven men in tight pants running around a field knocking each other senseless to chase a piece of inflated pigskin across a white line on the ground?” If someone explained football like that you’d rightly dismiss him as not a serious debater.

At which point I can no longer resist getting involved, and post:

Regarding Fr. DL’s football example, if the totality of an individual’s understanding of the game could be summed up with “Geesh, people pay good money to watch 1. eleven men 2. in tight pants 3. running around a field knocking each other senseless 4. to chase a piece of inflated pigskin 5. across a white line on the ground?”, you are correct that a knowledgeable football fan would most likely consider such an individual ignorant. However, it would take very little effort to inform this individual that:
 1. 2 teams of 11 men each (for a total of 22) are on the field during game play. 2. The players also wear protective padding over most of their bodies, helmets to protect their heads, and differently colored and numbered jerseys to identify each team and player. 3. Well, you pretty much got 3 right. 4. Early footballs were made of inflated animal, including pig, bladders, but present-day footballs are inflated rubber bladders encased in leather. 5. One team (on “offense”) tries to advance the ball over the length of the field to cross their opponent’s goal line in order to score 6 points (a “touchdown”), while the opposing team (on “defense”) attempts to stop them from doing so. If the offense scores a touchdown, they have the opportunity to then score another point (the “extra point”) by kicking the ball between the upright goalpoast erected at the end of the field, while the defense, accordingly, attempts to prevent them from doing so. After a touchdown and extra point attempt, the scoring team will then kick the ball to the opposing team and the teams’ respective offensive and defensive roles will reverse.
 
Now, there are plenty of particulars about football that my description does not explain (field goals, the 4-down system, punts, etc.), not to mention the myriad nuances it usually takes one years to recognize and appreciate about the game. But with a single post I have easily demonstrated and corrected the obvious errors in this person’s assessment of football, and increased his knowledge of the game substantially.
 
Why is it that no one here seems willing or able to do the same regarding Doug Fo’s statement?

My comment is currently being moderated, so we'll see if it makes the cut.

A few questions for you, Hatter. What's the story (if any) behind using the Doug Fo handle rather than just good ol' Hatter?
Who is abb3w? Is it someone already on WWGHA? If not, can we get him here? He's awesome!

[Hatter23]

A few questions for you, Hatter. What's the story (if any) behind using the Doug Fo handle rather than just good ol' Hatter?
Who is abb3w? Is it someone already on WWGHA? If not, can we get him here? He's awesome!

Its what I used on other blog sites because my usual handle is often taken, and Doug is my name.

[Hatter23]

 
Why is it that no one here seems willing or able to do the same regarding Doug Fo’s statement?

but they are certainly willing to say that I don't get the point, am doing a reducto ad absurdam, that I am ignorant, don't understand, proving their point about trolls, they are unwilling to give me statements to mock, and about a half a dozen other insults...but not actually show my statement as wrong.

[jetson]

Invite them here.

[Nam]

I think the best way to argue against a Christian, or almost any person of any particular religion is to use what they hold sacred as one's initial statement of argument. In this case: the Bible.

Of course to effectively do this, one has to be well versed in the Bible.

It shouldn't be used as a tool to show contradictions and/or fallacies, what is deemed literal, or metaphorical, it should be used to counter the statement of the opposition.  If they use, say "Luke", then you use "Luke", not a different book in the Bible.

An opinion.

-Nam

[jedweber]

Who is abb3w? Is it someone already on WWGHA? If not, can we get him here? He's awesome!

If he's the same abb3w who often posts in atheist threads at Fark.com, then yes, he's brilliant. He claimed to be able to prove God's non-existence using formal logic, it would be great if he ever came here and explained it...

[Hatter23]

Invite them here.

Someone has. I rather doubt it will happen. The blog has a weird system of only allowing so many replies before not having the "reply" option for a post. Very frustrating.

[Hatter23]

Damn, I was tempted to post again, and got the usual bullcrap

This is what tempted me:

From them(the atheists) we see manufactured anger, bitterness, a pseudo-intellectual pose that is impervious to actual fact, and a desperate attempt to lay blame on the Catholic Faith in particular that will justify its forced disappearance (read into that what you will) as a means of achieving a genuine panacea – literally a universal cure – for everything bad, or at least everything they do not like.

This global, simplistic compulsion to explain all that is undesirable as having a unique focus and identity was, when taken to the extreme, of course the emotional/intellectual basis for the final solution directed at the Jews. Read the rationalizations of the early 20th century and see the parallels. “If it just weren’t for the Jews and their evil murdering ways …” and compare to the extremist comments Fr. Longnecker is getting “If it just weren’t for this evil Church and its murderous ways …”

so this was my reply:

You think atheists calling out “I think this is a lot of malarkey” is somehow akin to the Holocaust. Amazing.

Malarkey; that’s all I am saying; I think that all god belief is about the same as someone who thinks the are a real spell casting wizard. I am not going to accept linguistic slights of hand, someone going “the ways of wizardry are subtle,” someone stating there’s a tradition of wizard belief, the statement that wizarding as, ” rich, complex and profound,” or them clucking there tongues as to your mind being too small to accept the real nature of the mystical arts and being insufficiently read on the subject.

Because that’s what many of you are doing here.

and the proffesional mendicant who runs the site's response:

You remind me of a woman in England who was my wife’s hairdresser. When my wife told her I wrote books she said, “What kind of books?” “Books about religion.” Big pause. “I thought there really couldn’t be much more than one book about religions!”

Religion is an area of human achievement and knowledge just like many others. The vast majority of the world’s people are religious in some way or another. Religions enshrine for us not only great architecture and music and literature, but they are living repositories of culture, philosophy and learning of all kinds. From the religious impulse have come the greatest (and the worst) things of human culture and history. Theology, folklore, religious legends and stories, customs and scholarship comprise a huge and fascinating aspect of what it means to be human.

And you just sit there and say, “That’s really dumb all that stuff!”

It would be like going into the National Gallery of Art and saying, “Those pictures are nothing but pigment and oil smeared on some old piece of cloth–and then they make people pay good money to see them!”

If you should go into an art gallery and say such a thing do you think you would reveal anything about the art on the walls, or reveal something about yourself?

He seems stuck on assigning me the position; "Stupid and Uncultured" as he has through several posts, never actually addressing what I am saying. What did I say about "clucking their tongues?"

[screwtape]

my comment was approved.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2012/07/atheist-trolls.html#comment-38265

[Seppuku]

This is my comment:

Hello Father,

I think there is some frustration from within the atheist community and there is a reason for it. I think sometimes it's worth asking them about it. I don't think people should just 'hush', because it just means hiding it under the rug, I think discourse is a wonderful thing, language is a great thing, whether you believe we evolved the ability over generations and generations or if you believe it's a God-given gift. I don't think brushing people off as trolls helps either. Yes, some folks are trolls, but generally trolls are there for the specific purpose of winding you up. A troll's purpose is not to convince you of anything, they might not even believe what they say. Their purpose is to annoy you.

I get into discussions with Christians on the internet and to be honest it can be very frustrating, not because they refuse to give in, but for various other reasons, usually in how they engage the discussion. That's not to say it's the case for all, I have got into discussions with Christians who engage in a much more positive way.

Most of the time I find Christians tend to completely misunderstand and misrepresent the opposite side. You wouldn't believe the kinds of misconceptions we read, some of them are actually pretty insulting, yet the Christian may not realise it or realise why somebody is offended, then they assume that you're just being ignorant.

Many atheists were previously Christians and take their understanding of Christianity from their sects and also from Christians they encounter. My knowledge of the bible comes from debating Christians (or just by listening) and from my own quote digging. One of the troubles with Christianity is that there's a lot of sects out there, approx. 38,000, but none have actually been able to demonstrate why their sect is right and why others' are wrong. When I challenge people's view on the bible I will use the views of an opposing sect in hope that somebody can justify why they're right and the other Christians are wrong. In my experience, each sect is able to back their arguments strongly with the bible. So far I have been unsuccessful in determining what a true Christian is. If I knew what a true one was, then I'd be able to pursue that in my discussions and my arguments could be made with a higher degree of accuracy.

But why should I bother engaging Christians as an atheist? Surely I should keep to myself? Belief (or non-belief) is an individual thing, right? Well, I do learn more about others and in the process I also teach others. Education I think is a beautiful thing. Okay, that doesn't necessarily mean debate anybody at any given time. It doesn't mean I tear into my Catholic grandmother every time I visit (in fact, I've never brought up religion to her). I think there's always a time and place and place, for example, the blogosphere is appropriate, because it's a hot bed of opinions, the very embodiment of free expression, assuming it's a blog that allows people to freely express themselves, some bloggers rather stick their fingers in their ear and prevent people from commenting (my opinion counts, but not yours). The other reason is the effects of Christianity on society, I think Christians tend to be oblivious to it and when it is challenged, they often go on the defence, suggest we're being ignorant, intolerant and even trying to deny them their right to freedom of religion, without first trying to understand. That in itself is incredibly frustrating. In fact, on 'angry' atheists, there's a fantastic blog post here. http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2007/10/atheists-and-an.html She states it a lot better than many of us probably could, though (as she says herself) she hasn't covered everything.
If you wish to understand many of the atheists out there who appear angry, it is worth reading that blog post, in fact all of it. It's a bit long, but I think it reflects how many feel with great detail and worth it. Ideally I'd like to see a world where we all get along where people believe whatever they wish without it hurting anybody, without people being ignorant of each other. I think it would be unfair (and completely unethical) to force religion out, I am a big supporter of freedom of thought/belief/expression. If it did die I wouldn't miss it because I think humanity can do fine without it, even if it may be special for an individual. Obviously many religious would disagree, particularly those who openly proselytise looking to 'save' the damned, but then they believe their religion is a direct connection to a deity, which makes it significant through their eyes. But that's my view anyway.

That's my two cents.

I hope it gets approved. I think I've been reasonable enough.

[DumpsterFire]

Hey Sepp, on the plus side, I have made about a half dozen comments there at this point and all have been approved .None of my comments have been especially inflammatory, IMO, but I did accuse the OP of dodging a couple of times. So at least the mods there aren't totally biased and will allow a good bit of discourse.

I am quite disappointed that the good Father doesn't seem inclined to in-depth discussion regarding opposing viewpoints, though. As he is (apparently, even if by title alone) a leader/authority figure in the Catholic church, one would think he'd relish the opportunity to enlighten us and potentially turn us from our wicked ways. You know, kinda like Jesus told him he should.

[Nam]

Seppuku,

Maybe it will, if it doesn't you can just get "angry".



-Nam

[Seppuku]

Seppuku,

Maybe it will, if it doesn't you can just get "angry".



-Nam

That's a nice thought. They're no Plain Jane, so I don't think they'll get on my tits enough to elicit angry thought. But who knows? 

Hey Sepp, on the plus side, I have made about a half dozen comments there at this point and all have been approved .None of my comments have been especially inflammatory, IMO, but I did accuse the OP of dodging a couple of times. So at least the mods there aren't totally biased and will allow a good bit of discourse.

I am quite disappointed that the good Father doesn't seem inclined to in-depth discussion regarding opposing viewpoints, though. As he is (apparently, even if by title alone) a leader/authority figure in the Catholic church, one would think he'd relish the opportunity to enlighten us and potentially turn us from our wicked ways. You know, kinda like Jesus told him he should.

That's a bit hopeful and disappointing at the same time. Hopeful that it allows for discourse to happen, it's amazing how many right wing or Christian blogs (or both) out there that don't facilitate people with 'alternative views'. Prime example, the Liberal Logic 101 blog I was frequenting not so long ago suddenly disabled comments as too many 'liberals' were engaging conservatives in discussion. How dare they share an opinion on a blog! Disappointing for the same reasons as you. I was hoping as he was calling us all ignorant he'd be in a position to justify it *shrugs*.

[LoriPinkAngel]

I notice you mentioned "angry atheists."  I enjoy conversing and interacting with atheists because I find them generally to be intelectual, well read and share a lot of my less common interests. I also rarely notice atheists seeming bigoted, small minded or boring.

[Hatter23]

As he is (apparently, even if by title alone) a leader/authority figure in the Catholic church, one would think he'd relish the opportunity to enlighten us and potentially turn us from our wicked ways. You know, kinda like Jesus told him he should.

But apparently he is also cyber-begging on the site to support his wife and kids. I guess he's not a Roman Catholic, but  I think they allow for conversions nowadays.

[jedweber]

But apparently he is also cyber-begging on the site to support his wife and kids. I guess he's not a Roman Catholic, but  I think they allow for conversions nowadays.

No, he said he's a married Roman Catholic priest. He also mentioned in one of his posts that he's a convert, so he must have already been a married ordained clergyman (probably Episcopalian) before he switched. They can get a special exception from the celibacy vow.

[Graybeard]

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/

...What I don’t do however, is get on an anti-athletic soapbox. I don’t go on to sports blogs trying to show everybody what a stupid, idiotic and wasteful thing sports are. I don’t go into their world spouting arguments about how destructive sport is because so many young children are seriously injured every year or how dumb sport is because it wastes millions on what is just a game when there are starving children in the world or how athletes are all dumb mutts who get paid big money to act like a gorilla or how terrible sport is because there are gamblers and ticket touts and people making money hand over fist with outrageously huge salaries and charging exorbitant prices for crap souvenirs…blah blah blah.

How many sports fans go door to door encouraging others to join? How many street preachers for sports teams are there? How many people react badly to your not being a supporter of their team? How many people insist on you being a sports fan to get a job?

So Fr. Dwight Longenecker;

...How many wars throughout history we initiated over whose team was better?

Football War^Wiki