There is no deep philosophical, political or even atheist angle to this post. I’m just annoyed at this blog post.
I don’t know much about this guy other than he has a blog on Patheos. I would have just put this in his combox, but he doesn’t seem to want to read anyone’s feedback.
The post is basically just an attack at the Attorney General of the United States for not charging Hilary Clinton for a crime. I haven’t followed the story closely, but even I know that the FBI investigated her, for months, and did not recommend charges… because it did not find evidence of intent, a necessary element of the crime. He either doesn’t know this or doesn’t care, because his post suggests she got special treatment because of her political status. Well this just isn’t the case. What she did, and it was wrong, was not as bad as what General Patreus did some time ago. Clinton sent classified documents over a private server which meant they were more vulnerable to hacks, but she did not intend anyone who shouldn’t see those documents to see them. Patreus intentionally sent classified documents to his mistress and he wasn’t charged. So contrary to Reynolds’ contention, it would have been unequal to charge Clinton in this case. It would have been treating her worse than others.
Of course, none of this context or any link to this context is provided in the piece, he is too busy bragging about how virtuous and fair he and his pastor father were. Money went missing during a collection and he as a kid was the last to hold the plate. His dad asked him if he stole the money. He said he didn’t, and his dad believed him, but still searched him, apparently in front of others so that no one would think he was getting special treatment.
I think this story actually argues for the opposite of the point he is trying to make. He is suspected of a crime, people may trust him but don’t take his word and investigate. The investigation fails to find evidence of a crime and they let him go. Exactly what happened with Clinton.
And the story is not a story of equal treatment. He seems to have been singled out, was everyone searched or just him? Did they pick on him because he was a kid, or a pastor’s kid?
This man calls himself a philosopher, and is president of a school that “aspires” to educate children from preschool to college, which sounds like indoctrination to me. It astonishes me at how much he has underestimated the intelligence f his readership.