Culture

SCOTUS & The Imposing Your Beliefs Fallacy

The State always, or at least when it does not sleep, seeks to impose its beliefs on everybody. It does this through the creation of laws, which most people (except Eternal Victims, of course) follow because of the threat of State-controlled violence.

Not just laws, but reams of rules and regulations generated in a constant and growing stream by the bureaucracy. All also backed by threatened violence (fines are violence once removed; try not paying one to see). And, for the old folks, a few remaining traditions impose beliefs, carry overs from the old days that have not yet been eliminated.

Beliefs are imposed everywhere, and it must be so. Somebody’s beliefs must predominate. There is also nothing inherently wrong with the threat of violence to back imposed beliefs. Without controlled violence there is only anarchy, which is uncontrolled violence.

Ethics and morality are inescapably embedded in every law, rule, regulation, and of course tradition. You might try and find ways around this by appealing to arguments of pragmatism and utilitarianism, but these are false philosophies. Every pragmatic, utilitarian, or libertarian “reason” for any action always has beliefs that seek to be imposed in them. There just no other way to say “Do this instead of that.”

Scientism also falls under these failed philosophies. We’ve many times described how people who cry “Believe the Science!” often mistake the “solution” to what they have identified as a problem as “the” Science. They mistake moral decisions with empirical observation.

With that out of the way, we turn to the so-called Supreme Court’s latest unanimous ruling, which allowed Catholic Social Services adoption agency of Philadelphia to continue to discriminate—we really must rescue this word and restore its former glory—against same-sex couples (and throuples and higher clans).

In the Court’s slip opinion, we find this description: “CSS seeks only an accommodation that will allow it to continue serving the children of Philadelphia in a manner consistent with its religious beliefs; it does not seek to impose those beliefs on anyone else.”

This is what CSS and its advocates argued, and the Court agreed, but they all lied to themselves. Of course CSS wants to impose its belief that same-sex couples (and larger gatherings) are a farce and bad for children. Any who would deal with CSS must necessarily have this belief imposed on them. If they could get away with it, CSS can and should impose its belief on everybody, not just those who come to them.

They should because their belief is true, and the opposite belief (children for their benefit can be placed with any number of people who practice any kind of sexual activity, even with kids) is false. I won’t here prove this obviousity (you heard me), since the point is tangential to our larger argument.

Yet still the Court says this curious thing, because they don’t want to give the appearance of favoring the theoretical basis behind CSS’s belief. That theoretical basis is religion, and favoring any religion, they suppose, is forbidden by the Constitution.

Well, it’s long been argued, and it is true, that if the State has to forbid all formal religions, it will be left to invent its own and impose it on its people. This we see everywhere. Here’s why.

Increasingly, the argument is used that beliefs deduced from orthodox Christian religion must be banned because the State supporting (thus also imposing them) them is equivalent to officially recognizing orthodox Christianity.

Followed to its logical conclusion, the State would have to forbid all beliefs deducible from all formal religions. That’s a lot of beliefs! Yet it has to get its beliefs to impose from somewhere. So it would have to invent its own. And these would form a religion, because the meaning and purpose of life have to be somewhere in these anti-formal-religion beliefs, either directly, or deducible from what is given.

Our culture thinks it can balance practice of religion with the State also not favoring any formal religion. But to practice a religion is to discriminate and impose beliefs, as the CSS did and does. Not all religions are allowed to be practiced, either. Santaria, for instance, and whatever it is the Aztecs did. The State doesn’t admit aloud it forbids religious practice, but it forbids just the same. So the State does favor certain religions, or at least certain religious beliefs.

This was always true, but not always obvious, especially when most of the country either practiced Christianity, or at least recognized it. Christianity is fading just because its being replaced by the State with other religions.

Here is Justice Alito (he and Thomas flying closet to the light) in the official opinion:

The same fundamental principle applies to religious practices that give offense. The preservation of religious freedom depends on that principle. Many core religious beliefs are perceived as hateful by members of other religions or nonbelievers. Proclaiming that there is only one God is offensive to polytheists, and saying that there are many gods is anathema to Jews, Christians, and Muslims. Declaring that Jesus was the Son of God is offensive to Judaism and Islam, and stating that Jesus was not the Son of God is insulting to Christian belief. Expressing a belief in God is nonsense to atheists, but denying the existence of God or proclaiming that religion has been a plague is infuriating to those for whom religion is all-important.

The State can choose to remain mute on number of gods—the State does not have to have a law for every belief. People can be allowed to decide for themselves the nature of God or of the gods. But if certain practices are deduced from this belief are forbidden by the State—such as proscribing human sacrifice, except by Planned Parenthood—then the State has, in effect, ruled on the nature of the gods or God after all.

The only point being there is no escaping the necessity of imposing beliefs.

Subscribe or donate to support this site and its wholly independent host using credit card or PayPal click here

Categories: Culture

41 replies »

  1. Every question always eventually descends (ascends?) to philosophy. (Religion being applied philosophy, of course.)

  2. People who cry “Believe the Science” are really saying follow the totalitarian government. “Follow the science” is a total lie and they know it. They believe nothing of the science.

    Of course couples who practice sex with children are allowed to and encouraged to adopt. That has been true in Europe for a very long time. There are NO rules now about sex. It can be rape, pedophilia, homosex, ANYTHING. All rules are gone.

    The IRS can “outlaw” beliefs based on religion and just removed the tax exempt status of a Christian charity. This, of course, leaves Satan worship to the Left and that will have to be removed from tax-free status eventually. So good of the IRS to admit the Left is Satan worshipping anarchists who hate humanity, though. The honesty was refreshing.

    Santeria cannot be openly practiced. (The online dictionary says it contains parts of the Catholic religion. That must be the reason, huh?) It is practiced and it’s all over the web. The human sacrifice parts may not be discussed, but everything else is.

  3. McChuck: Of course. Philosophy IS the study of questions. (Never answers, of course). It’s a definition really. So, of course.

  4. Science is not stagnate; it evolves as new truths are discovered, experimented and then brought into the main body of thought as the new fact. The earth is flat, the earth is round, the sun revolves around the earth the earth revolves around the sun, the sun travels through space as one solar system in a galaxy, the galaxy travels the universe, the universe travels through space. The disease came from the air, the bug landed on the plant/food and then the disease came, etc. Science is not settled, it is proven truth until the next iteration.

  5. Briggs: “The only point being there is no escaping the necessity of imposing beliefs.”

    That’s an obviousity.

    I think we Americans got the not-imposing idea from the Founders and their idea of religious liberty. Likely they were hoping to avoid the sort of religious conflict entailed in the Deformation. And their own Protester bias was, ‘you’re not the Pope of me!”. So we got the wrong idea that religion is a private matter, they’re all equal, and our new American civic religion can accommodate everyone, so open the gates and let’s party!

    And now, the morning after the big party we find our home trashed, curtains burned, dirty dishes everywhere, furniture smashed, the car stolen and the dog eaten. What a mess. Let’s call a do-over and this time impose our Christian beliefs from the get-go.

  6. “Certain errors are so common that they merit at least a brief mention. They are the moralistic fallacy, the naturalistic fallacy, the rationalistic fallacy, and the existentialist fallacy:

    * Fallacy: morality determines reality. The moralistic fallacy assumes that whatever seems morally desirable must be true.

    * Fallacy: reality determines morality. The naturalistic fallacy assumes that whatever seems true must be moral.

    * Fallacy: if it seems to make sense, it’s true. The rationalistic fallacy assumes that whatever seems to make sense must be true, even if there’s no evidence for it. When applied to public policy, the result is often ‘Oops, we didn’t think of that.’

    * Fallacy: if you want it to be true, then it is. The existentialist fallacy assumes that reality is whatever you want it to be. It’s also a wild card for the other fallacies. For example, it enables 52-year-old men to claim they are six-year-old girls and make everyone else pretend to believe it.”

    — “Why Sane People Believe Crazy Things: How Belief Can Help or Hurt Social Peace” (Consilience Publishing, 2018)

  7. The problem isn’t really following the science, the problem is discriminating (doing my part Briggs!) between science and unscientific policy decisions promoted as science.

  8. A friend of mine gave me an interesting lesson a long time ago. We were driving around his town. Someone was behind him. My friend pulled over and let the driver pass. My friend said “He has someplace really important to get to”.

    I was still young then and I don’t think I quite understood. I saw a guy placating the dickheads.

    Now I think he was just a guy figuring out how to not be a dickhead.

    His inner peace was greater by avoiding conflicts that do nothing. It was greater because he didn’t try and force his belief of what the other guy was thinking on the situation. He found a reason that made the driver’s hurry be reasonable.

    The problem with being reasonable this way is that the folks being dicks never get feedback that they are being dicks. They just think they get places on time.

  9. OR could be he is heaping coals of kindness moon them and they might pass it forward

  10. Many well know that any country the accepts the puritan ideology that religion aught be private is simply lying as the purpose of making religion private was for the powerful rich who started America to escape condemnation by religion trying to curtail their rapacious greed and it was them bastids who made of America a religion and it was so acceptable that Ronald Reagan routinely was praised for calling America a city on a hill when that Biblical reference identifies that as describing to the Catholic Church.

    Matt 5: 14 Jesus teaches The Catholic Church is a City on a Hill.

    Pope Leo XII was right when he taught that religious liberty leads to atheism.

    America has its own religion – “Liberty” – and its doctrines have changed over time but it still has its Holy Days such as Thanksgiving and its Saints, such as Martin Luther King and George Floyd , and its own hymns, such as The Battle hymn of the republic, We shall overcome etc

    The normal orthodox white male Catholic is the major heretic of the American Religion and the American Religion is using its coercetive power to punish him for his obloquy and sins. That fact is a source of obvious wry amusement to many Catholics because the AmBishops routinely celebrate religious liberty which is in itself a hersey vis a vis the State and the Catholic Faith.

    The AmBishops publicly succored the American Heresy in its 1948 pastoral letter, “The Christian in Action,” but Pope Pius XII was hesitant to act to discipline the clowns and, thus we set out on the road to where we are now – lost in the Heathen Caesearism wilderness.

    Catholics can have Semper Idem Faith or Heathen Caesearism, as the Secretary General of the First Vatican Council, Bishop Jospeh Fessler explained, and we know what the AmBishops and Bergoglio prefer.

    But why didn’t Pope Pius XII support the great Roman, Alffredo Ottaviani against JC Murray?

    Two reasons;

    Pius XII agreed with JC Murray in his religion liberty heresy and the then Pope’s right hand man, Jesuit Father Robert Leiber, was a CIA agent and the CIA, Henry Luce, Murray et all wanted the Catholic Church and its doctrines brought to heel.

    It worked, didn’t it?

    Far too many men think the rot in Catholic Doctrine began with the 2nd Vatican Council. It began long before

  11. Re. Fulton: Though good in its immediate result, it is typical of the Roberts court doing the bare minimum to get a proper result on the facts in one case while leaving bad precedent in place that will endure the issue – and perhaps same parties – is back before the Court before long (I assume he pushed for this in order to get the more radical libs on board for a 9-0 decision, which sounds very strong – perhaps Roberts in “institutional protection” mode here, trying to stave off Democrat Court packing efforts – but is quite weak when you look at the reasoning of all but Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch). Instead of overturning the Smith case (perhaps Scalia’s worst ever majority opinion) and setting forth a robust and expansive defense of First Amendment religious freedom, we get a unanimous result though with a weak and divided rationale that settles nothing. Same thing happened with the Masterpiece Cake shop case a few years back, which basically said to the state officials, “just don’t make your discrimination so blatant next time,” and Jack Phillips is still, years later, being harassed by bureaucrats and lawfare in Colorado. Especially pathetic to see Kavanaugh and Barrett act like Roberts’ poodles (though Barrett indicated she may be open to overturning Smith, just not yet – WTF is she waiting for?). For what, with fear and trembling, Left-wing media and politicians assure us is a Court with a “conservative super-majority,” the results so far have been largely underwhelming (In fact Roberts is essentially a liberal, with Gorsuch and Kavanaugh vying to be the next Anthony Kennedy, swinging both ways depending on the prevailing winds; Barrett so far seems to be in the Kvanaugh-Gorsuch mold, though perhaps she’s too new and we’ve seen too little yet from her to form a definite conclusion).

    On the general theme of the post, however, Briggs is quite right about the “imposing your beliefs” fallacy. As Donoso Cortes, the great 19th century Spanish political theorist, pointed out, all political questions are at root religious questions. All law enshrines some belief and imposes that belief on the general public. One of the great errors of Americanism and liberalism (which all has its roots in the Protestant revolt of the 16th C.) is the notion that religion is a purely private matter of subjective belief that should have no effect or say in general political or social affairs, or how one conducts oneself other than in the privacy of one’s own home. But there is no neutral, “naked public square” devoid of belief, and Secularism is itself a set of beliefs about how political and social life should be arranged and laws enacted. This leads to absurdities such as politicians like Biden who claim to be “devout Catholics” and “pro-life” in private while pursuing the most radically pro-abortion political and social policies in their official capacities on grounds that to do otherwise would be “imposing their belief.” Which in turn leads to the unhinged rage we see from the Left (especially those who portray themselves as “Progressive Catholics,” a contradiction in terms) at the very idea that the Bishops may finally take a strong public stand (i.e. doing their jobs as Bishops and Shepherds of Souls) against such politicians continuing to present themselves for the Eucharist (though it is arguable that such politicians are already in fact excommunicate latae sententiae under Canon Law).

  12. “America has its own religion – “Liberty” – and its doctrines have changed over time but it still has its Holy Days…”

    ABS: If you haven’t read it already, you may enjoy Christopher Ferrara’s book “Liberty, the God that Failed: Policing the Sacred and Constructing the Myths of the Secular State from Locke to Obama” (available from the great Angelico Press, one of several fantastic small Catholic publishers that have sprouted up in recent years).

  13. ||”The only point being there is no escaping the necessity of imposing beliefs.”|| Briggs

    Sadly, Justice Alito (with Thomas) evades any declaration on this essential point. SCOTUS might have ruled much more forcibly by writing: Where matters of religious conscience are concerned, The State will not supervene its authority absent direct and certain harm. As CSS did not have an exclusive contract with the City of Philadelphia, LGBTQ couples were not precluded from seeking foster parenting “opportunities” through other agencies offering similar support services.

    This SCOTUS Opinion (in fashion with our times) mainly provides a hamper-basket full of Woke Washings: {*practices that give offense*perceived as hateful*is offensive to*is anathema to*is offensive to (ditto)*is insulting to*is infuriating to*} instead of crafting an effective precedent for deterring similarly misguided “social justice” lawfare in future.

  14. Deb – “Science is not stagnate; it evolves as new truths are discovered, experimented and then brought into the main body of thought as the new fact … Science is not settled, it is proven truth until the next iteration.”

    I see what you’re getting at. But we need to be more technically accurate.

    If Science is a method of discovering new ‘facts’ that completely contradict the ‘old facts’ then Science was never in possession of facts at all and never can be. Science is a process of competing postulates, guesses, theories and hypotheses. Two theories that completely contradict one another can both account for all of the facts – facts being self evident emperical data that everyone reasonably grees with – for example that the Sun is clearly seen to rise in the East and set in the West. But that by itself doesn’t tell us which body is actually going around the other; hence two cintrasting theories of a stationary Earth and a revolving Sun, or a stationary Sun and a revolving Earth, can both account for that fact in their design.

    Of course at some point, there are more facts that make one more tenable than the other. But one must never underestimate the role religion plays. For the Cult of Heliocentrism and those looking to undermine the Papacy that pointed out the grave error of Church/State separation and Americanism as heresies, the Earth had to move in order to falsify the Church, and Scripture, which meant you could therefore grab power that wasn’t yours to take and you could screw who you want, and you could toss out reason altogether and declare “Do as thou wilt, sin boldly, because Jesus loves you anyway, so as long as you say you have faith you’re saved and virgins await you in Heaven.”

    So there is much to gain depending on what religion you follow, and the same is true of what science you follow that conveniently bolsters your cult’s beliefs.

    Sadly for Heliocentrism, there was never any facts behind it that couldn’t also be accounted for by the Geocentric model, the proper one being Tycho’s whom your children’s school, textbooks, and Discovery Channel documentaries will never mention, only preferring Ptolemy’s as a convenient strawman (and one that still worked better than Copernicus’). And made further devastating by the discoveries of interferometer experiments that found the Earth wasn’t moving, which they then scrambled to explain away as an absence of the aether medium which failed as the experiments managed to find rotation against the aether but no velocity speed around the sun, which was then explained by the magician’s trick of Relativity, as time dilation, mass increasing and space shrinking as a principle of nature that exists solely to f*^& with us and cover up the Earth’s movement around the Sun and make the Pope look good. So shut up, stick out your arm and take your mRNA injection and wear your mask everywhere, because Trust Us we’re scientists and the old facts are not relevant when they inconveniently stand in the way of the new ones.

    So as the Galileo Affair (the real one, not the one commonly told that disregards facts) and our present Covidiocy demonstrates, Science can actually regress in its thinking, and the bureaucracy can actually discard facts and discover new errors to replace them.

    Why? The same reasons as always – money, political expediency, convenience, bad religious faith, sex, and most importantly of all – feelings.

    Therefore now men can be women and vice versa. And the science can be distorted to suit it within the right (actually wrong) philosophical framework. I mean, any other “science” would just be that which is imposed by the white oppressors, just like those Popes, going on about how socialism is bad, and science should be like this, and government should be like that, because they only want to stay rich and keep the coloured and LGBTEES down or something.

  15. “Without controlled violence there is only anarchy, which is uncontrolled violence.”

    Whilst I agree in principle, I believe you have jumped to a conclusion that is not absolute. Without controlled violence there is uncontrolled violence, which *can* cause anarchy. In other instances we can see the that uncontrolled violence can hit an equilibrium. One might argue that this equilibrium is “controlled violence” but I would disagree, since any new entity can introduce a new variable and there is no central “controlled violence” to counter it and the system would not necessarily regain equilibrium (hence not being “controlled”).

    I would point to lawless places in Afghanistan or Pakistan along the Durand line. There are a number of “détentes” between government and other forces, but it is not “controlled violence”. There is no control to the violence and at any time a new action or player can completely destabilize the area. The presence of one player that is possibly larger than others does not satisfy what I would call the “controlled violence” portion of the argument since they have have not suppressed the other players.

    So the other possible outcomes are less clear than “controlled” and “not controlled”. A failed state, civil war, suppression of populations are a number of other conclusions that do not always fall cleanly into “anarchy” or “control”. In fact, I would say that both of those are qualitative descriptions that are not helpful.

  16. Dear Dennis. Yes, its a great book and he is writing a follow-up to it.

    On page 599 he references the essay linked to below, about America’s Civil Religion and its feast days

    https://tinyurl.com/9kj9t3sh

  17. Dear Dennis Galileo, who was both a heretic and the first modernist, is the sole Catholic its enemies can cite to “prove” the Catholic Church is ignorant and anti science.

    Ms Paula Haigh has a few things to say about that…

    http://www.ldolphin.org/geocentricity/Haigh2.pdf

    ABS likes to point out that science has many examples of punishing scientists who run afoul of the “scientific consensus.”

    Dr Ignez Semmelweis discovered that by taking antiseptic precautions puerperal fever could be avoided. The “Scientific Community,” prolly because they had been the ones complicit in the spreading the fever by not being antiseptic, had the poor scientist committed to an insane asylum, where he was put in a straight jacket, beaten badly and died there.

    Yes, trust the science and the scientists

  18. “This is what CSS and its advocates argued, and the Court agreed, but they all lied to themselves. Of course CSS wants to impose its belief that same-sex couples (and larger gatherings) are a farce and bad for children. Any who would deal with CSS must necessarily have this belief imposed on them. If they could get away with it, CSS can and should impose its belief on everybody, not just those who come to them.”

    To impose requires forcing someone or something against their will. CSS probably wishes every adoption be to God fearing Catholics but none-the-less the potential couple must choose to work with them. CSS has no way to impose a belief when the people seeking their assistance can walk away and use another of several agencies.

  19. A u-tube wit:
    A sheep spends its entire life fearing the wolves only to be eaten by the shepherd; and this is how
    the politicians and media control you.

  20. “The Imposing Your Beliefs Fallacy” seems to imply that a “belief” is, ipso facto, not true and, therefore, may not be applied in any regulation of public order. The relativism of agnosticism is the only principle that may be applied according to the autonomy premise formally proposed in the French Revolution slogan (every man will be his own king, his own priest, and his own god) and encapsulated in the “American Constitution” and “Bill of Rights” that presumes some sort of sanctity to the kind of autonomy euphemistically called “freedom”.

    The only real freedom for us creatures “in the image and likeness” is to accept the truth of our nature and purpose and go with it. Anything else is a quicksand of diabolical narcissism.

    Long ago I described agnosticism as the dogma that says “the only thing you can know is that you can’t know”. That silly notion is entirely consistent with the “Evolution” narrative that reality is in an interminable process of “becoming” out of Nothing for no purpose. It’s the only leg that “Modernism” (both secular and “theological”) has to stand on so the notion is frantically defended with all sorts of specious nonsense by “philosophers” of every persuasion.

    For us Catholicky types, though, the whole shebang is created with a nature and purpose in which us miserable creatures may freely choose to accept what’s offered or to reject it in an effort to “be as gods deciding good and evil”. That thing called free will necessarily involves the liberty to reject the natural order “imposed” by that purpose or to run headlong into the Abyss like lemmings; both as individuals and as communities.

  21. Ethics and morality are inescapably embedded in every law, rule, regulation, and of course tradition.

    Ethics and morality aren’t religion. You have no argument.

    children for their benefit can be placed with any number of people who practice any kind of sexual activity, even with kids

    A lie. This isn’t what people opposed to the CSS believe. And if anything, history has shown that it is the Catholic Church which poses a danger to children.

    Christianity is fading just because its being replaced by the State with other religions.

    Just? Are you sure it might also have something to do with paedophile priests, homophobic pastors, scammers like Jim Bakker, covid-denying lunatics, fake prophets who predicted Trump would win a second term, the complete failure of apologetics to produce any evidence for God, and the fact that Christianity today seems to have more to do with hate than love?

  22. You are a tiresome delinquent, Mr noisyfish. I am quite sure that the pooftas and paedophiles that have invaded the institutions of the Church have much more sympathy with your ideology than with the immutable doctrines of Christianity. You weirdos simply categorise any aversion to any perversion as “hate” thus saving you from having to justify your ideological or amoral proclivities in any way at all.

    Of course, you will not have noticed that all the moral and intellectual perverts relentlessly claim that “love” is exclusively exhibited by the propagation and protection of almost any kind of iniquity.

    [quote=fishy] the complete failure of apologetics to produce any evidence for God, [/quote] Apologetics has provided compelling and reasonable evidence for the NECESSARY existence of a preexistent Power, Intellect and Will. Even though that should have been enough for a rational creature to realise his position and purpose in the great reality, the innate weakness of a wounded nature has prompted the GREAT LOVER to provide a few other indications of His power and purpose.

    Flick through this lot, Mr Noisyfish, and consult with your ideologues in B’nai B’rith as to how to relegate the whole lot to the Beelzebub that you thought you ignominiously exterminated on Calvary way back then.
    http://www.catholicapologetics.info/library/gallery/incorrupt/incorrupt.htm

  23. Of all the possible options, that might be the most batsh*t crazy and irrational post yet from Swordfish. Well done.

    “Ethics and morality aren’t religion. You have no argument.”
    All ethics and morality are rooted in religion. Remove religion and you must remove the ethics and morality underlying them too (perhaps only Nietzsche and Dostoevsky truly understood this – and its future implications – in the 19th C., though we are seeing it come to fruition now as more and more people abandon traditional religious belief and political and social decadence runs amok.

    “And if anything, history has shown that it is the Catholic Church which poses a danger to children.”
    Another falsehood. Children are more likely to be abused by teachers than priests or ministers (and Catholic priests no more than Prod ministers, Rabbis, Imams, etc. – they just get more media attention, for obvious reasons).

    “Just? Are you sure it might also have something to do with paedophile priests, homophobic pastors, scammers like Jim Bakker, covid-denying lunatics, fake prophets who predicted Trump would win a second term, the complete failure of apologetics to produce any evidence for God, and the fact that Christianity today seems to have more to do with hate than love?”
    1. Ah, yes, all Christians support televangelist grifters like Bakker, Falwell, and Osteen! Don’t confuse all Christians, especially Catholics and Orthodox, with those who support these products of American Evangelical Protestant prosperity-Gospel shyster snake-oil salesman culture.

    2. “Covid-denying.” A meaningless, nonsense term. “Denying” here just means not accepting uncritically the obviously fraudulent Narrative and “The Science” as peddled by mainstream media and politicians for the last 16 months. Nothing to do with actual Truth of Covid or the weaponized political/medical response to it. You’ve just swallowed the Narrative like a good little gullible NPC in the Oligarch’s game, and then defined as “denying” or “misinformation” anything that confuses you or threatens the worldview you’ve been sold.

    3. “Homophobic.” Another nonsense term. As if traditional and principled ethical and moral opposition to certain acts or lifestyles (especially their public mainstreaming and the indoctrination of kids into them) is a mere “phobia,” some sort of psychological disorder. Are you murder-phobic or rape-phobic by any chance?

    4.”Prophets who predicted…” Well, nothing to do with “prophecy,” just handicapping and predictions that take place in every election on all sides. And Trump did win – if only legitimate, legal ballots were counted. But you and other election fraud-deniers still have your heads in the sand and pretend there is “no evidence” only because you refuse to look. And speaking of ‘evidence’:

    5. “…the complete failure of apologetics to produce any evidence for God.” This tired trope again. By which you simply mean, “scientific evidence deemed suitable by an atheist materialist like me.” How boring.

    6. “…fact that Christianity today seems to have more to do with hate than love?” “Love” and “hate” as defined by one who clearly hates Christianity, and as used mindlessly and tautlogically on Leftist bumper stickers and yard signs (“Love is Love” etc.). If one doesn’t support sodomite “marriage” one is a “hater”; and “Love” is reduced to Eros unchained, but has nothing to do with genuine Agape or Caritas. For Christians, concern for souls, and rescuing people from grave sin that endangers their souls, is in fact the highest form of Love – but you’d clearly know nothing about that.

  24. More interesting McAfee stuff: “ wallet named >EPSTEIN with the tracker ID WHACKD wakes up after being asleep. Starts sending unknown addresses. McAfee may not be bluffing about a deadman’s switch.”

    https://twitter.com/TimeTravelAnon/status/1407885909954019329

    Anyone know anything about the stuff referenced in the bulletin board post shown in the link above from a tech standpoint?

  25. Oldavid,

    You weirdos simply categorise any aversion to any perversion as “hate” thus saving you from having to justify your ideological or amoral proclivities in any way at all.

    I’m married for over thirty years with two kids, yet I’m a “wierdo” because I think people shouldn’t be persecuted just because an old book says (without justification) that they are ‘an abomination’? Fine, I’m okay with that.

    Apologetics has provided compelling and reasonable evidence for the NECESSARY existence of a preexistent Power, Intellect and Will.

    Arguments aren’t exidence, they’re used in lieu of evidence. In fact, the very existence of apologetics is evidence that there isn’t any actual evidence for God. Power, intellect, and will aren’t necessary things, nor is the triune nature of the Christian God, nor can behavior such as commanding the slaughter of the Midianites be necessary.

  26. “because I think people shouldn’t be persecuted just because an old book says (without justification) that they are ‘an abomination’? Fine, I’m okay with that.”

    You’re engaging in typical straw man arguments against positions no one advocates. No one is “persecuting” anyone or advocating the “persecution” of anyone by, for example, opposing the arbitrary re-definition of “marriage,” in the face of thousands of years of human history across all cultures, to suit the whims of a vocal minority of American nutjobs.

  27. Dennis,

    No one is “persecuting” anyone or advocating the “persecution” of anyone by, for example, opposing the arbitrary re-definition of “marriage,” in the face of thousands of years of human history across all cultures, to suit the whims of a vocal minority of American nutjobs.

    Trying to impose your Christian beliefs about marriage on others who don’t accept them isn’t persecution? Of course it is! Imagine if Muslims tried to impose Sharia law on you, and you might understand.

  28. Dennis,

    All ethics and morality are rooted in religion.

    No, they aren’t. Morality is rooted in our evolutionary ancestory, where cooperation meant survival, and which predates religion. All groups of people have had some sort of behavioral rules, even if informal.

    Children are more likely to be abused by teachers than priests or ministers.

    Not true. According to studies, abuse by clergy is about 50% higher than that from teachers. But in any case, it isn’t the existence of abuse which is the issue, it’s the fact that the Catholic Church has conspired to cover-up the abuse. (Note: this is a real conspiracy, not a fake one like your COVID19 or stolen election conspiracy claims.)

    Ah, yes, all Christians support televangelist grifters like Bakker, Falwell, and Osteen!

    A strawman, as I never claimed that *all* Christians support Bakker et al. It’s still clear that the existence of these scammers isn’t helping Christianity.

    “Covid-denying.” A meaningless, nonsense term.

    It seems like you know exactly what it means, as you go on to provide a textbook example of it, complete with obligatory conspiracy theory. There have been many examples of pastors denying the danger of COVID19. (And in some cases, of people in their congregations then dying from it.)

    “Homophobic.” Another nonsense term.

    Everyone knows what is meant by homophobic. Words have useages, not meanings. “Tweet” has a new useage since the advent of Twitter. If your only defence is that homophobia isn’t a phobia, then you’ve got nothing.

    ”Prophets who predicted…” Well, nothing to do with “prophecy,” just handicapping and predictions that take place in every election on all sides. And Trump did win – if only legitimate, legal ballots were counted.

    I’m talking about “real” Christian prophets like Paula “angels coming from Africa” White making failed predictions. Trump won if you only count votes for Trump, not Biden, but 90 judges disagreed that the election was stolen.

    This tired trope again. By which you simply mean, “scientific evidence deemed suitable by an atheist materialist like me.” How boring.

    Yes, it’s so boring to have to provide actual evidence as opposed to anecdotes.

    If one doesn’t support sodomite “marriage” one is a “hater”

    If one uses a gratuitously offensive term like “sodomite”, one is, indeed, a hater.

  29. “Trying to impose your Christian beliefs about marriage on others who don’t accept them isn’t persecution?”

    Don’t be absurd. Has nothing to do with “imposing Christian beliefs.” No society, Christian or otherwise, in the entire history of humanity has ever recognized “homosexual marriage” as legally or morally equivalent to real marriage, or defined marriage other than as an institution between a man and a woman (the only exception being those that allow a man to have multiple wives). This points to marriage being an institution across cultures that reflects deep anthropological truths about the nature of men and women and what’s good for society and the raising of children – not merely some “Christian imposition” as you rabid anti-Christian atheists claim.

  30. The rest is just repeating the same tired BS and tired old tropes – somebody named Paula White I’ve never heard of but apparently is supposed to be a clincher in your argument for something about alleged “real Christian prophets,” claims once again that 90 judges actually adjudicated election fraud on the merits (no they did not, not even close), more misuse of terms like “Covid-denying” which you claim I proved an example of by having correctly noted that it has been weaponized and blown entirely out of proportion (that is not a “conspiracy theory,” or “denial” but Truth; Covid Cultists like you are simply too brainwashed at this point), etc. etc. (not worth my time at this point to continue…off to the park)

    Though this his was a real howler: “It’s still clear that the existence of these scammers isn’t helping Christianity.” Ah yes, apparently there are no scammers or sinners among other religions or atheists, all of whom are always reliable and ethical. But a small minority of American Protestant whackjobs are supposed to stand for Christianity tout court.

    As for “sodomite” it’s merely a descriptive term, like bastard…

  31. Dennis,

    Has nothing to do with “imposing Christian beliefs.” No society, Christian or otherwise, in the entire history of humanity has ever recognized “homosexual marriage” […]

    I simply don’t believe that your oppostion to same sex marriage has nothing to do with your Christian beliefs, nor would it be reasonable to claim that Christianity hasn’t been one of the main forces opposing same sex marriage. Also, it is incorrect to claim that no society has ever recognised same-sex marriage, as there have been numerous examples:

    Ancient Romans, or at least Roman men with power and wealth, could marry same-sex partners, said Elizabeth Abbott, author of “A History of Marriage” (Seven Stories Press, 2011).

    Emperor Nero (ruled A.D. 54 to A.D. 68) castrated a boy named Sporus to make him womanlike, and then married him in a traditional ceremony, which included a bridal veil and a dowry, according to the Roman historian and biographer Suetonius (circa A.D. 69).

    Emperor Elagabalus (ruled A.D. 218 to A.D. 222) married Zoticus, a famous male athlete, and referred to his slave, a man named Hierocles, as his husband, Abbott said.

    Across the world, there were societies in pre-colonial Africa that permitted women to marry other women. These marriages typically helped widowed women who didn’t want to remarry a man or return to their family or their husband’s family after the husband’s death, according to a 2009 research article published in the journal Global South by Marc Epprecht, the professor and head of global development studies at Queens University in Canada.

    There are other examples of same-sex marriage: The Muxe of southern Mexico were biological males who lived as women and were allowed to marry men; the Fa’afafine of Samoa have a similar setup, as do the Hijra in India and Pakistan, and the Kathoey in Thailand, Boyd said. [LiveScience May 2015]

  32. Dennis,

    somebody named Paula White I’ve never heard of

    Paula White was (and maybe still is?) Trump’s ‘spritual advisor’. You claiming not to have heard of her doesn’t make her not exist, or invalidate the fact that absurd “prophets” and other assorted snake oil salesmen are part of mainstream Christianity, like it or not.

    claims once again that 90 judges actually adjudicated election fraud on the merits (no they did not, not even close)

    In a sense, you’re right. Few were willing to stand up in court and claim there had been actual ‘fraud’, as that is a serious allegation which requires solid supporting evidence (which they didn’t have), so they would have risked prosecution themselves. But is is simply a fact that almost all the legal cases were rejected by judges. Even Briggs seems to have given up on this nonsense.

    Ah yes, apparently there are no scammers or sinners among other religions or atheists, all of whom are always reliable and ethical. But a small minority of American Protestant whackjobs are supposed to stand for Christianity tout court.

    You’re misrepresenting my position again. The fact is that Christianity makes it easy for scammers by promoting unquestioning faith as a positive virtue. (It could be argued that Christianity is itself a scam which sells you something you can’t claim until after you’re dead.)

    As for “sodomite” it’s merely a descriptive term, like bastard.

    “Bastard” is most commonly used as an insult, which completely undermines your point.

  33. “‘Bastard’ is most commonly used as an insult, which completely undermines your point.”

    Thanks you, with your take on the last line of my previous post, for once again proving that liberals and strident atheists have no sense of humor.

    “You claiming not to have heard of her doesn’t make her not exist…”

    No, but it hardly bolsters your claim that she is a figure whose name all would know and is somehow representative of some mainstream of Christianity. I have about as much regard for most American evangelical mega-church prosperity gospel types as you do so, so using them against me or other Catholics doesn’t really help your case.

    “I simply don’t believe that your opposition to same sex marriage has nothing to do with your Christian beliefs, nor would it be reasonable to claim that Christianity hasn’t been one of the main forces opposing same sex marriage. Also, it is incorrect to claim that no society has ever recognized same-sex marriage, as there have been numerous examples”

    I never said it wasn’t “part” of it, but limiting marriage to a man and woman is universal, historically rooted in fundamental human nature across all societies, and not some exclusively Christian idea.

    The bizarro examples you cite above – surprised no mention of Hadrian and Antinous (a cut-and-paste job, I might add, from a source pushing an agenda and misconstruing the nature of ancient sexual relationships, especially those among master and slave rooted in power relationships, and where no Roman male would ever take the passive role, which was reserved for slaves) hardly makes your case. In none of those examples would such relationships have been recognized as true “marriage” with inheritance rights, etc equivalent to a true marriage between and man and woman. Same goes for the more recent examples of things like the Bacha Bazi boys in Afghanistan and Pakistan, which are abusive relationships along the lines of ancient pederastic master-slave relations, and not “marriages” in any commonly understood legal or moral sense. People who claim these are examples of ancient “gay marriage” are anachronistically reading back into ancient history their current agendas and confused sexual fantasies.

    Caligula allegedly had sex with his sister (and perhaps wanted to marry her as siblings Kings and Queens of Egypt did), and Nero with his mother – would you cite these as evidence that ancient Romans recognized incestuous relations with siblings and parents as legitimate as well? How about Caligula naming his horse Incitatus a Senator as evidence ancient Rome recognized equine-human equality?

  34. Dennis,

    No, but it hardly bolsters your claim that [Paula White] is a figure whose name all would know and is somehow representative of some mainstream of Christianity.

    I didn’t claim that “Paula White is a figure whose name all would know”, but she is is well known. I’ve heard of her, and I’m an atheist! The fact remains that she and other “prophets”, scammers, and televangelists are *PART OF* Christianity. Incidentally, I forgot to include in my original off-the-cuff list young Earth creationists, flat Earthers, evolution deniers, QAnon supporters, and Christian nationalists, including those who tried to storm the Capitol.

    I never said it wasn’t “part” of it, but limiting marriage to a man and woman is universal, historically rooted in fundamental human nature across all societies, and not some exclusively Christian idea.

    This is all irrelevant as to whether Christianity is the main source of opposition to same sex marriage NOW.

    The bizarro examples you cite above – surprised no mention of Hadrian and Antinous (…) hardly makes your case.

    You claimed that, “No society, Christian or otherwise, in the entire history of humanity has ever recognized “homosexual marriage” as legally or morally equivalent to real marriage, or defined marriage other than as an institution between a man and a woman (…)”, I cited examples of that exact thing, so your claim has been refuted. Describing the examples as “bizarro” is a poisoning the well fallacy. It’s also misleading to include things like “inheritance rights” in your definition of marriage, as marriage has been defined in many different ways, including completely informally for the vast majority of human history.

    In none of those examples would such relationships have been recognized as true “marriage” with inheritance rights, etc equivalent to a true marriage between and man and woman.

    The African example I cited was specifically to allow inheritance rights to pass from a woman to another woman, so that claim is wrong also.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *