Bobby Jindal’s Special Pleading

Remember a few years ago when a local official in Louisiana refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple? That was the one where the guy said he wasn’t racist because he lets black people use his bathroom. Guess what Bobby Jindal said about that situation?

The actions of a justice of the peace in Louisiana who refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple have prompted some top officials, including Gov. Bobby Jindal, to call for his dismissal.

Jindal said the state judiciary committee should review the incident in which Keith Bardwell, justice of the peace for Tangipahoa Parish’s 8th Ward, refused to issue a marriage license to Beth Humphrey, 30, and her boyfriend, Terence McKay, 32, both of Hammond.

“This is a clear violation of constitutional rights and federal and state law. … Disciplinary action should be taken immediately — including the revoking of his license,” the Republican governor said.

Yes, that local official must lose their job and their authority to issue marriage licenses! It’s outrages that he would engage in such discrimination and pick and choose which citizens he would allow to avail themselves of the equal application of the law! But now that it involves gay people:

Gov. Bobby Jindal’s administration has said Louisiana court clerks and other state employees who don’t want to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples because of religious objections won’t have to do so.

Jindal’s office has said the governor’s religious freedom executive order as well as state and federal law will protect clerks and state employees who have moral objections to gay marriage and don’t feel comfortable handing out licenses to same-sex couples.

“We believe the U.S. Constitution, Louisiana Constitution, Louisiana’s Preservation of Religious Freedom Act, as well as our Executive Order prevents government from compelling individuals to violate sincerely held religious beliefs. We will continue to fight to protect religious liberty,” said Mike Reed, spokesman for the governor’s office.

So one form of discrimination is absolutely terrible, while another is not only fine but must be given legal protection. And it can’t be for the reason he states; after all, there are lots and lots of Christians whose religious beliefs include racism and opposition to interracial marriage. But apparently when Bobby Jindal says that the government must protect people from having to violate their “sincerely held religious beliefs,” what he really means is “sincerely held religious beliefs that I agree with.”

There’s a reason for this special pleading, of course, and it has nothing to do with principle. If he were to be consistent, Jindal would only have two choices. He could take the position that no government officials can refuse to do their jobs if and when they have a religious objection to doing so, in which case he can’t pander to all that fear of Christian persecution he’s been pushing. Or he can take the position that all government officials can refuse to do their jobs if it violates their religious beliefs and then he’s stuck having to defend allowing the government to discriminate on the basis of race, which is opposed by the overwhelming majority of people, even in Louisiana. So he chooses instead to be a hypocrite.

POPULAR AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • John Pieret

    So he chooses instead to be a hypocrite.

    But … but … that is his religion!

  • sigurd jorsalfar

    That’s not fair, Ed. Jindal didn’t chose to be a hypocrite. Liberals forced it upon him.

  • D. C. Sessions

    So he chooses instead to be a hypocrite.

    It’s the American Republican Way.

  • http://healthvsmedicine.blogspot.com cervantes

    Hypocrisy is his core principle. If he weren’t hypocritical, that would make him a hypocrite.

  • abb3w

    A lot of contemporary Christians aren’t happy recognizing how many Christians (both historically and into the modern day) consider racism integral to their sincerely held religious beliefs.

  • D. C. Sessions

    abb3w, the Egnore Option is always available; just deny it. If necessary, blame it on the Democratic Party.

  • theDukedog7 .

    Refusal to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple is morally abhorrent, obviously illegal, and the guy should be fired on the spot. There’s no place for the Democrats’ party platform for a century and a half in today’s America.

    Refusal to issue a marriage license to a gay couple is merely respecting the definition of marriage. The Supreme’s ruling is lawless, and should not be obeyed. There is no constitutional right to gay marriage, anymore than there is a constitutional right to squaring the circle.

    A monogamous sodomy license or long-term-friendship-with-intimate-physical-contact license would be fine.

  • dingojack

    Lil Dookie — what law(s), specifically, are being broken? And by whom?

    There’s no constitutional basis for the Air-force, Internet monitoring or marriage of any kind. Yet there is a constitutional basis for applying the law equally to all.

    Dingo

  • daved

    The more I read Egnor (theDukedog7), the more I think he’s angling for a talk radio program. I mean, he’s perfect for it. Stupid, ignorant, and utterly convinced of his own brilliance. Plus, he’s a doctor, thus giving him a veneer (admittedly thin) of credibility. I can’t understand why Fox hasn’t come a-calling already. I mean, this guy could be the next Bill Kristol.

  • ‘smee

    This is a PSA: Dukedog aka Egnorator aka fuckwit extraordinaire is a vile racist fuck.

    Thank you for your attention, and now back to our regular programming.

  • ‘smee

    This is a PSA: Dukedog aka Egnorator aka fuckwit extraordinaire is a vile racisthomophobic fuck.

    Thank you for your attention, and now back to our regular programming.

  • theDukedog7 .

    @dingo:

    “Lawless” means without law–the Obgerfell ruling is not based on an law or credible interpretation of the constitution. Sort of lawless like:

    “Supreme Court in 5-4 decision declares raindrops to be candy gumdrops.”,

    only the SSM decision is less credible.

  • zenlike

    So now theDukedog7 doesn’t even know what quite simple words like ‘lawless’ mean.Yawn.

  • anthrosciguy

    That’s not fair, Ed. Jindal didn’t chose to be a hypocrite. Liberals forced it upon him.

    Rammed it down his throat, no doubt.

  • dingojack

    Well, except for that whole 14th Amendment thing and all the other quoted precedents –

    Yep, ‘totes without law’.

    @@

    Dingo

  • theDukedog7 .

    Actually, Jindal’s right, even if he insisted on following the Supreme Court to the letter.

    The court ruled that “established by the states” means “not established by the states”.

    Laws mean the opposite of the words that comprise them.

    So the law that Jindal has to obey the Supreme Court means that Jindal does not have to obey the Supreme Court. He has to follow precedent.

    Do you disagree with the Court’s shiny new jurisprudence? If you don’t, you’re an racist and a homophobe.

  • Doug Little

    The Supreme’s ruling is lawless

    Lucy Lawless?

  • Erk12

    Hi, I don’t post much, but I do read the comments to most articles. Am I missing something, or are the people who think this troll is Egnor only going on a guess that he’s Egnor, which he then didn’t deny, and so it was assumed to be correct? That’s the only exchange I saw regarding who he is (not that his identity really matters or makes him more or less worthy of a response). AFAIK Egnor posts under his own name (see for instance, starting at comment 3: http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/creationism-are-we-winning-the-battle-and-losing-the-war/) and only trolls posts on evolution. I know Egnor is very conservative, but ID-creationism using his own name seems to be his thing, not general ultra-con trolling.

    I see some of you like playing with Duke and I don’t begrudge you smacking him around, I just don’t get this thing about him supposedly being Egnor which I’m guessing gives him amusement.

  • Sastra

    theDukeDog7 #7 wrote:

    Refusal to issue a marriage license to a gay couple is merely respecting the definition of marriage. The Supreme’s ruling is lawless, and should not be obeyed. There is no constitutional right to gay marriage, anymore than there is a constitutional right to squaring the circle.

    Question: if the entire issue of religion/spirituality is removed from the definition of marriage, is “gay marriage” still like squaring a circle? Does the law involving secular marriage eventually boil down to whether or not God exists?

  • http://www.facebook.com/eo.raptor.3 eoraptor

    Killfile is a wonderful browser addon! Now I can see when the dukePuppy poops in the living room, but I don’t have to smell it, or clean it up. Insofar as it is a good thing to know what your opponent “thinks” (intentional scare quotes), I can usually infer that from the responses given by those with more fortitude than me.

    OTOH, since there is about as much evidence The Puppy is capable of thinking as there is for the existence of any sort of supernatural being, I propose that everyone get Blog Comment Killfile, or similar, and that as a community, we all block him. I mean, the ban-hammer stings, but also provides fodder for attacking the moderator. A community banning, like shunning, really has to hurt.

  • theDukedog7 .

    “It is so ordered…” means “It is not so ordered…”

    I love this Court. Finally they’re making sense.

  • dingojack

    Except, Lil Dookie, you can’t establish the truth of any of those statements. Or at least, you don’t seem to be able to show any argument, nor any evidence to support them.

    But by all means keep repeating them — it’s sure to make even more truthier if you do! (Plus, it’ll give us a schmuck to mock mercilessly).*

    Dingo.

    ———-

    * if you don’t you’re a racist, homophobe, and your mother smells of Elderberries!

    So there!

  • theDukedog7 .

    @Sastra:

    [Question: if the entire issue of religion/spirituality is removed from the definition of marriage, is “gay marriage” still like squaring a circle? Does the law involving secular marriage eventually boil down to whether or not God exists?]

    Good question. Justice Roberts addressed this question, quite specifically.

    He said that it didn’t make a shit bit of difference what the Court thinks of gay marriage as policy or philosophy or anything except law.

    Justices must follow the Constitution, not write new laws or make up stuff to pretend is in the Constitution or delve into profound metaphysical questions. Writing new laws and amending the Constitution and contemplating profound metaphysical questions is a job for citizens and the legislators they elect, not a job for nine unelected lawyers whose only job is to apply the (fucking) law.

    And of course the Constitution doesn’t answer any of your questions about the metaphysical implications of gay marriage, so it’s none of the Court’s fucking business.

    Roberts didn’t say “fucking” but that’s what he meant. And he was right.

  • sigurd jorsalfar

    eoraptor, there is no reasoning with someone like dookdog so I see no point in reading his comments. I am very pleased with the killfile addon.

  • http://artk.typepad.com ArtK

    I thought his mother was a hamster and his father smelled of elderberries. Not that it makes any great difference.

  • Trebuchet

    I love this Court. Finally they’re making sense.

    Unlike you.

  • dingojack

    Lil Dookie except they’re not making any new laws are they?

    Their job is to determine how the law is interpreted, that’s not the job of legislators or voters (unless they are also on the bench).

    Do try and learn some civics, it’s embarrassing when a stupid foreigner knows more about US government and how it works than you, a citizen of the US.

    Dingo

  • theDukedog7 .

    @Sastra:

    Your question is a good one. Marriage is a sacrament–a temporal expression of a eternal truth.It is the image of God in a human relationship. That is the definition of marriage.

    Now you can remove religion from the definition. But that means that you are removing the definition from the definition.

    In which case marriage becomes anything you want it to be– a method for canning strawberries, a purple unicorn, a revokable agreement to shack up for a while. Which is sort of what it’s becoming.

    Don’t you love Paganism?

  • Sastra

    theDukeDog7 #23 wrote:

    Good question. Justice Roberts addressed this question, quite specifically. He said that it didn’t make a shit bit of difference what the Court thinks of gay marriage as policy or philosophy or anything except law.

    My question was a philosophical one, about gay marriage being like squaring the circle. If Justice Roberts ignored philosophical questions involving what marriage is, then he didn’t address my question.

    So how would you answer it? If the entire issue of religion/spirituality is removed from the definition of marriage, is “gay marriage” still a contradiction in terms, like squaring a circle?

    Also — is the legal issue really separate from the philosophical one? If same-sex marriage is for all critical intents and purposes “marriage” can the government continue to justify stepping in and denying it to some citizens?

  • Sastra

    Heh — it looks like our responses crossed!

    theDukedog7 #28 wrote:

    Marriage is a sacrament–a temporal expression of a eternal truth.It is the image of God in a human relationship. That is the definition of marriage.

    That’s the religious definition of marriage or “holy matrimony.” But of course there are secular definitions which work on the secular level.

    Shouldn’t the law deal only with the secular definitions? Otherwise, the government is getting involved in deciding which religions or spiritualities are “right” and that gives it too much power.

  • John Pieret

    Egnore:

    Don’t you love Paganism?

    A hell of a lot better than your brand of theocracy.

  • theDukedog7 .

    @Sastra:

    [If the entire issue of religion/spirituality is removed from the definition of marriage, is “gay marriage” still a contradiction in terms, like squaring a circle?]

    If religion is removed from the definition of marriage, then the definition of marriage is removed from the definition of marriage.

    Then the fun begins. What do you want marriage to be? Between two guys, or two women, or two anything? Between three or four or any number of folks? Why restrict it to people? Between people and animals, objects, ideas? How about just between animals–can my cat marry my dog? (they’ll need a pre-nup!)

    If you take religion out of marriage, then gay marriage is not at all like squaring the circle. Gay marriage is like picking your favortie candy from a box or picking your favorite fairy tale. The sky’s the limit! Heck, maybe you can marry the sky!

    Justice Kennedy thinks you ought to be able to.

  • zenlike

    Sastra

    That’s the religious definition of marriage or “holy matrimony.”

    Not even. Marriage is bigger and more universal then christianity. Dukie seems to think marriage is a strictly christian institution, but to come to this conclusion he has to be unaware of other religions, and most of world history. Which he probably is.

  • zenlike

    Wow, I thought theDukedog7 didn’t make any sense before, but this ruling seems to have broken his brain.

    Hey Dukie, have you already found which laws where exactly broken by the SCOTUS? Or are you going to keep tap-dancing around that question? Liar.

  • scoobygang

    theDukeDog7 #28 wrote:

    Marriage is a sacrament–a temporal expression of a eternal truth.It is the image of God in a human relationship. That is the definition of marriage.

    Keep your sulky adolescent god out of my loving relationship. My marriage is not, and never was or will be, anything to do with your imaginary psychopath.

  • theDukedog7 .

    @Sastra:

    [Shouldn’t the law deal only with the secular definitions? Otherwise, the government is getting involved in deciding which religions or spiritualities are “right” and that gives it too much power.]

    The “Law” doesn’t deal with anything. Citizens deal with things, by writing laws (via their legislators). Citizens can (and do) use any reason they want to advance any law they want. Citizens may hew to their religious beliefs, or their prejudices, or their good or bad feelings about an issue or candidate, or they may decide based on what they had for breakfast. Folks voted for Jim Crow because they hated blacks or were afraid of blacks or wanted to do what all of their friends were doing or whatever.

    Folks voted for civil rights laws because they liked blacks or weren’t afraid of blacks or believed that God wanted them to vote for civil rights or because it was fashionable.

    People vote for all kinds of things for all kinds of reasons. Some of the reasons are religious. That’s usually good.

    The Constitution doesn’t prohibit voters from voting according to religious motivations. I may vote for civil rights laws because I believe that is what Christ wants me to do. That’s my business, and no one else’s.

    The Constitution says very little about religion, except that the government can’t restrict its free exercise and the government can’t establish a national church.

    Scores of millions of people vote largely in accordance with their religious beliefs (I do), and we have a right to do so. The Constitution constrains government, in narrow ways, but it doesn’t constrain voters from voting their consciences.

    The Supreme Court does that, and that is why the Obergefell decision is lawless.

  • zenlike

    theDukedog7,

    Just replace ‘Obergefell’ in that last screed of yours with ‘Loving’, and it makes as much sense. You are a wilfully ignorant bigoted piece of shit fool, and a lying scumbag.

  • Sastra

    theDukedog7 #32 wrote:

    If religion is removed from the definition of marriage, then the definition of marriage is removed from the definition of marriage. Then the fun begins. What do you want marriage to be?

    But marriage isn’t a strictly religious ritual like communion or confirmation. You can certainly insert it into a religious or spiritual framework — but the concept is clearly and firmly anchored in worldly relationships and contracts between people. Here’s a description from anthropology:

    “A nonethnocentric definition of marriage is a culturally sanctioned union between two or more people that establishes certain rights and obligations between the people, between them and their children, and between them and their in-laws.”

    I’m pretty sure that excludes marriage to animals, objects, ideas, and things like “the sky” — and it doesn’t sound anything like purple unicorns or canning strawberries. Polygamy or polyandry is going to be very legally complicated in a modern society. Marriage between people of different races, different religions, or the same sex however won’t need to make any changes to current laws or effect current marriages.

    It seems to me that rational discussion and analysis on the secular common ground — one which is guided by Enlightenment principles of equality and rights — is far more likely to come up with fair and reasonable standards for an institution engaged in by people of many religions and none. Passionate appeals to arbitrary faith-based views of the supernatural are far more likely to lead to the madcap pick-and-choose anything-goes situation you’re obviously worried about.

  • Sastra

    theDukedog7 #36 wrote:

    Scores of millions of people vote largely in accordance with their religious beliefs (I do), and we have a right to do so. The Constitution constrains government, in narrow ways, but it doesn’t constrain voters from voting their consciences.

    You’re running into a problem here — the government is also We the People. If the Constitution constrains government, then it also constrains the majority from voting their religious consciences into law. That is, they can do so — but the Supreme Court provides a check and balance to correct unjust laws.

    Folks voted for civil rights laws because they liked blacks or weren’t afraid of blacks or believed that God wanted them to vote for civil rights or because it was fashionable.

    But that’s just it. In most cases civil rights laws weren’t voted in: the courts ruled that discrimination was unconstitutional. Minorities should not and do not have to wait around for the majority to get around to feeling like handing them their rights. The burden is on the State to show why exclusions are justified. Otherwise, it’s tyranny of the mob and you can’t want that.

  • Al Dente

    When Egnor says Obergefell is “unconstitutional” what he means is “I don’t like this decision.” The actual Constitution has nothing to do with Egnor’s “unconstitutional.”

  • ‘smee

    Sastra@39: Otherwise, it’s tyranny of the mob and you can’t want that. [in reference to teh egnorant one]

    I think you’ll find from his previous rants that, yes, he DOES want that. As long as it’s his mob, of course.

  • scienceavenger

    Dukedog: If religion is removed from the definition of marriage, then the definition of marriage is removed from the definition of marriage.

    You know dude, when I masterbate, at least I have something to show for it at the end. But I do admit your foaming-at-the-mouth ignorant tantrums does give me hope, because it means we are winning, and you deep down know we are going to win some more. The little fantasy world in your head – where religions are pure and sweet and Democrats are the harbingers of racism and ignorance – gets more and more removed from reality all the time. And that’s what galls you so.

  • theDukedog7 .

    @Sastra:

    What a pleasure to find someone on this blog who can carry on an thoughtful discussion.

    [But marriage isn’t a strictly religious ritual like communion or confirmation. You can certainly insert it into a religious or spiritual framework — but the concept is clearly and firmly anchored in worldly relationships and contracts between people. Here’s a description from anthropology:

    “A nonethnocentric definition of marriage is a culturally sanctioned union between two or more people that establishes certain rights and obligations between the people, between them and their children, and between them and their in-laws.”]

    But all real marriage and marriage laws are ethnocentric–they are rooted in particular people and a particular culture. And the “non-ethnocentric” view is essentially one of a merely legal contract, which is most assuredly not what marriage is in any actual society. Even people who don’t accept the Catholic notion of “sacrament” nearly always have some inkling that marriage is something that transcends mere contractual obligations, at least in our culture (in the european middle ages, among the upper classes, arranged marriages were to some extent merely contractual). We all kind of know that marriage is special. Catholics know why it is special.

    [I’m pretty sure that excludes marriage to animals, objects, ideas, and things like “the sky” — and it doesn’t sound anything like purple unicorns or canning strawberries. Polygamy or polyandry is going to be very legally complicated in a modern society. Marriage between people of different races, different religions, or the same sex however won’t need to make any changes to current laws or effect current marriages.]

    Perhaps a realistic look at the mechanics of marriage law, perhaps not. Marriage is changing rapidly, and SSM is only a small part of that change. Divorce and cohabitation and childbirth prior to marital committment are becoming quite commonplace.

    [It seems to me that rational discussion and analysis on the secular common ground — one which is guided by Enlightenment principles of equality and rights — is far more likely to come up with fair and reasonable standards for an institution engaged in by people of many religions and none.]

    The Enlightenment was a Christian project through and through. The notions of equality and natural rights are Christian notions. Other cultures lack such views–the caste system in india, tribal affiliations in many non-western cultures, and class warfare and extermination is atheist states like the Soviet Union. The Enlightenment is not “secular ground”–it is Christian ground (“All Men created equal… Endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights…”).

    [Passionate appeals to arbitrary faith-based views of the supernatural are far more likely to lead to the madcap pick-and-choose anything-goes situation you’re obviously worried about.]

    Democracy can be messy, but traditional Christian principles of marriage have served us quite well. It’s coming apart at the seams over the past half-century, and the result is not pretty. Especially for children, who pay the biggest price for divorce and unwed parenthood.

    I’m gonna to keep voting my conscience, which is Catholic. I believe that the Catholic view of man is the truth. And I believe that these issues in our democracy should be worked out as we are doing here–thoughtful discussion, then we all go an vote our beliefs and live with the laws enacted.

    I am not surrendering my rights to five unelected lawyers who lied about what the constitution says, because they want their votes to count and our votes to be ignored.

  • tfkreference

    Now we’re getting somewhere. The government licenses marriages and churches consecrate them. The minister serves two roles – one secular and one religious. You can get married in a church without a license, but the law will not view you as married (I’ve heard, but not verified, that some Mormons do this – e.g., Sister Wives). You can get married by a judge (or by me) with a license, and the law will recognize it. Whether a religion will depends on whether its adherents believe their ineffable god likes it (apparently they CAN eff him).

    No surprise that it comes down to forcing religion onto others.

  • theDukedog7 .

    @Sastra:

    [but the Supreme Court provides a check and balance to correct unjust laws.]

    No. It is most emphatically not the role of the Supreme Court to correct “unjust” laws. That is the role of voters and legislators and executives who do actual legislation.

    The role of the Court is to apply the law, and to interpret it in light of the Constitution as necessary to apply it. No more. Lots of laws can be construed as “unjust”, but it is not the business of the Court to make that judgement–that is a legislative judgement, not a judicial judgement.

    The power of the Court to nullify laws is not based in the Constitution, but in the precedent of Marbury v Madision, and the Court has no authority whatsoever to create new laws. The Courts cannot lawfully create laws or nullify laws without Constitutional warrant, which is utterly lacking in the SSM decision.

    The legal and proper ruling was given by the four dissenting justices: ‘our personal opinions about SSM are irrelevant. SSM is neither constitutionally mandated nor constitutionally prohibited. The Constitution is silent on SSM, and the matter must be lawfully decided by the legislatures.’

  • daved

    I’m gonna to keep voting my conscience, which is Catholic. I believe that the Catholic view of man is the truth.

    The Catholic view of man also includes a belief in evolution. How do you feel about that?

  • theDukedog7 .

    @46:

    Of course I believe in evolution. Populations of living things have changed over time.

    Evolution manifests teleology, and Darwinian evolution, which denies teleology, is an empty “theory”–not much more than a tautology.

    Jerry Fodor had a great book on the nonsense that is natural selection.

  • scienceavenger

    Dukedog: Darwinian evolution, which denies teleology, is an empty “theory”–not much more than a tautology.

    Tell that to all the scientists doing research on its implications.

  • zenlike

    So no answer then on your slanderous lies about the ‘criminal’ SCOTUS.

    Isn’t lying against your religion Dukie?

  • scienceavenger

    Dukedog: Jerry Fodor had a great book on the nonsense that is natural selection.

    Here’s a great quote from a review of Fodor’s work, and it would apply just as well to the Duke’s droolings:

    “The overall problem with this book is that the authors are playing a semantics game in a field where empirical observation governs the advancement.”

  • theDukedog7 .

    @48:

    [Tell that to all the scientists doing research on its implications.]

    Presumably you’re doing science in between masturbation sessions (@42).

    It’s a nice metaphor for Darwinism–‘what Darwinists do when they’re not masturbating’.

  • EnlightenmentLiberal

    But all real marriage and marriage laws are ethnocentric–they are rooted in particular people and a particular culture.

    No true Scotsman.

    Even people who don’t accept the Catholic notion of “sacrament” nearly always have some inkling that marriage is something that transcends mere contractual obligations, at least in our culture (in the european middle ages, among the upper classes, arranged marriages were to some extent merely contractual). We all kind of know that marriage is special. Catholics know why it is special.

    Actually, I have no such inkling. Rather than just an inkling, do you have any compelling evidence?

    The Enlightenment was a Christian project through and through. The notions of equality and natural rights are Christian notions.

    The Enlightenment was a direct rejection and objection of traditional Christian values of divine right of kings and the prevailing anti-scientific attitude of Christianity since the founding of Christianity.

    http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2006/11/science-and-medieval-christianity.html

    For many hundreds of years, the Catholic church ruled with an iron fist, and kings ruled with the approval of the Catholic Church under the doctrine of divine right of kings.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_right_of_kings

    It comes from the notion that children are the slaves of their parents, and wives are the slaves of their husband, and we are all slaves to Jesus. These Christian values date back to the founding of Christianity. It’s right there in your bible. It says that Jesus is our lord and master, which means that we are his slaves. It also says that women should obey their husbands like the husbands obey Jesus, which means that wives are the slaves of their husbands. The core of Christian morality is that of slavery. That is what it means to be an informed Christian.

    The notion that everyone is equal and deserves equal consideration is a complete rejection of these Christian values.

    In summary, one can make a good case that John Stuart Mill in his book On Liberty was the synthesis, the end result, of several strains of moral improvement. In that book, he lays out and defends his thesis, which is often titled The Harm Principle. It’s been variously phrased and restated. For the purposes of this conversation, I’ll quote Thomas Jefferson when he invoked the same principles when he said this:

    The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

    That’s a very anti-theocracy notion. By that same reasoning, it also does not harm to me if my neighbor has gay sex, sex outside of wedding, or has a divorce. Government has no business in dealing with such things.

    I know you’ll cite bullshit arguments and statistics otherwise – but that’s the rub, isn’t it? Your arguments are bullshit. It’s not about the well-being of society. It’s all about the fact that women are no longer slaves to their husbands, and the sexual aspects of women are no longer controlled by men. That’s what it’s all about. It’s about the emancipation of women as full human beings.

    In another light, if the government allows straight marriage but disallows gay marriage, then that’s textbook sex discrimination. That’s what marriage the institution originally was in the Christian world – a form of slavery of the woman to the man. That’s why we largely reject your traditional marriage where it’s a master-slave relationship. Instead, we’re moving it to a higher, better kind of relationship, a voluntary relationship between equals.

    I’m gonna to keep voting my conscience, which is Catholic. I believe that the Catholic view of man is the truth.

    Does that mean you’ll vote for theocracy?

    I asked above, and I’ll ask again. Do you have sufficient evidence for your belief that Jesus existed and performed capable of magic, e.g. miracles? Can you describe that evidence with me and share it with me?

    The legal and proper ruling was given by the four dissenting justices: ‘our personal opinions about SSM are irrelevant. SSM is neither constitutionally mandated nor constitutionally prohibited. The Constitution is silent on SSM, and the matter must be lawfully decided by the legislatures.’

    Again, 9th amendment. The clear, unambiguous original intent and original understanding of the 9th amendment was to guarantee their understanding of common law rights, which is the result of that European Enlightenment, which can be best summed up with:

    The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

    The entire purpose of the 9th amendment is to ensure that the judges do step up and invalidate laws like same sex marriage. The purpose of the 9th amendment is to restrain government power. The 9th amendment is a reminder that the rights – enumerated and unenumerated – that we as the people enjoy, shall not be restricted by the government without a compelling government purpose. Restricting gay marriage but allowing straight marriage serves no government purpose. It is a restriction of the rights of a portion of the population, and it’s based on pure animus, e.g. it’s based on pure disapproval. Perhaps the most importance principle to come out the Enlightenment is The Harm Principle, and the entire point of that is that mere disapproval is never sufficient warrant to stop informed consenting adults from doing what they wish.

    In summary: You claim to support the Enlightenment, but you don’t even understand the Enlightenment. Arguably the most important moral advancement of the Enlightenment was The Harm Principle which says that governmental restrictions based on mere disapproval should never be done. The scientific advancement of the Enlightenment is also important, which says that we should have sufficient evidence for our beliefs, and you do not have sufficient evidence for your religious beliefs.

  • theDukedog7 .

    @50:

    [“The overall problem with this book is that the authors are playing a semantics game in a field where empirical observation governs the advancement.”]

    I don’t blame you for only reading the review and not the book itself. It’s hard to read a book when the pages stick together.

    Fodor’s analysis is cool, precise and on target. Natural selection is empty–it lacks intensionality, a term you obviously know nothing about and never will.

    Empirical observation is useless without logical analysis. A nice summary of a century and a half of Darwinian “research”.

  • EnlightenmentLiberal

    @theDukedog7

    Want to try to explain it to me? Can I ask this simple question: Is there any intensionality to gravity and the orbits of the planets around the Sun (specifically the point of average mass which is inside the Sun)? Does gravity have intensionality? Do I need to know about intensionality when studying gravity and the orbits of the planets? I hope that the answer is no.

    Why should I need to study intensionality when studying evolution? Life and mind is just biology, which is just chemistry, which is just physics, and physics is just the mindless interactions of particles according to simple mathematical formula. It could have been otherwise, but the evidence strongly indicates that this is the way that it happens to be.

  • theDukedog7 .

    @Enlightenment lightweight:

    [The entire purpose of the 9th amendment is to ensure that the judges do step up and invalidate laws like same sex marriage]

    Huh?

    The purpose of the 9th amendment is this: to point out that the Bill of Rights is not an exhaustive list of God-given rights held by man.

    “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”

    Note “By the People”, not “by the Unelected Five Lawyers”. The 9th amendment points out that the people may invoke other rights not included in the Constitution. The method by which these rights can be invoked is given in the Constitution–elections, legislation, etc.

    Oddly, the Constitution does not grant the Supreme Court the power of judicial nullification of laws, so obviously the Framers weren’t talking about five unelected lawyers substituting their votes for the votes of the people.

    The SSM decision is a specific and egregious violation of the 9th Amendment–which gives the People, not the Unelected Lawyers, the authority to invoke rights not enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

    You really are an asshole, Enlightenment Liberal.

  • whheydt

    Re: Erk12 @ #18…

    There have been two instances (that I know of…there may actually be more) in which tDD7 was associated with Michael Egnor. In neither case did he say anything to contradict that identification. In another instance, when it was suggested that a different nym was also Egnor, he immediately stated that it wasn’t him.

    So…it’s circumstantial evidence. He’s had plenty of opportunity to dispute the identification but has never done so. Draw your own conclusions and assign whatever probability of correctness to it you like.

  • theDukedog7 .

    @Enlightenment asshole:

    [Want to try to explain it to me?]

    It’s like trying to explain relativity to a goldfish.

    Here goes: intensionality is the property of a sentence that defines something descriptively, as contrasted to extensionality, which is the property of a sentence that defines something by example. “A bachelor is a man who has never married” is intensional. “A bachelor is a man like my neighbor Joe (who is a bachelor)” is extentional.

    Fodor points out that natural selection is extensional, not intensional, and thus it cannot distinguish between linked traits as explanations for survival. Since nearly all traits are linked functionally or genetically, natural selection is “empty” and meaningless as a scientific theory. NS is not a level of explanation, in Fodor’s words.

    Read the book–“What Darwin got Wrong”. You’ll learn something.

  • EnlightenmentLiberal

    Oddly, the Constitution does not grant the Supreme Court the power of judicial nullification of laws, so obviously the Framers weren’t talking about five unelected lawyers substituting their votes for the votes of the people.

    Are you really disputing the concept of judicial review itself? Simple question: Is there any circumstance in which you would think it’s proper for SCOTUS to rule that a law passed by the federal congress is against the constitution and is void?

    For example, do you think DC vs Heller is rightly or wrongly done? Do you think SCOTUS overreached its authority? (That’s the SCOTUS decision which overturned a handgun ban.)

    The SSM decision is a specific and egregious violation of the 9th Amendment–which gives the People, not the Unelected Lawyers, the authority to invoke rights not enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

    I am still not sure if A- you dispute the very notion of judicial review of laws passed by the federal congress, or if B- you think that the 1st amendment, 2nd amendment, and others, do give authority to SCOTUS for judicial review but not the 9th for some unexplained reason. Which is it? And if you’re taking option B, by what reasoning did you conclude that the 9th doesn’t give judicial review authority to SCOTUS?

  • whheydt

    I can see why Jindal would feel so strongly about objecting to someone refusing an inter-racial marriage, Not only did the decision come down years before he came on the scene, but he has a dog in that hunt. I can also see why he’s willing to stick his neck out over same-sex marriage. He’s running for President and he needs to cater to what he thinks is the base that can get him nominated (and, it is worth noting, it is decidedly unclear that it’s going to help any candidate that takes that tack), plus it is an article of his religion to be opposed to same-sex marriage. His current action plus that last point make him clearly unfit for the office he wants, though.

    In the mean time, his executive action is–according to what I’ve read–actually unlawful as he has exceeded his authority. His executive order is an attempt to put into effect a bill that failed to pass the LA legislature, and thus directly usurps legislative power. Where it differs from Obama’s actions for enforcing aspects of immigration law is the Congress explicitly passed a law that gives the President the authority to do what he has done.

  • scienceavenger

    @51 Dukedog: Presumably you’re doing science in between masturbation sessions

    That might just be the most logical fallacies per word I’ve ever seen. I guess answering the charge was just too much for you wasn’t it?

  • tfkreference

    Ironically, the task of interpreting the 9th Amendment falls on those justices.

    Can we take it that you concede EL’s other points?

  • zenlike

    What PZ thinks of Dukie’s book recommendation.

    It’s breathtaking in its foolishness, and is sufficient to show the two authors are parading about quite nakedly unashamed of their lack of acquaintance with even the most rudimentary basics of modern evolutionary biology.

    This is what makes Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini’s ideas so embarrassingly bad. They seem to know next to nothing about genetics, and so when they discover something that has been taken for granted by scientists for almost a century, they act surprised and see it as a death-stroke for Darwinism.

    It also should be obvious that a fact of genetics that has been known for almost a century and that was part of the neo-Darwinian synthesis from the very beginning isn’t going to suddenly become a disproof of the synthesis when belatedly noticed by a philosopher and neuroscientist in the 21st century.

    It’s also embarrassing to a developmental biologist that they should try to ride our field as if it were a refutation of that big picture of evolutionary biology. They can talk about constraints and gene regulatory networks and developmental mechanics all they want, but don’t be fooled: neither Fodor nor Piattelli-Palmarini are developmental biologists. Their authority is that of the bystanding dilettante, and while they mouth the words, they don’t seem to grasp the meaning.

    You are embarrassing yourself Dukie, as if that was still possible.

  • EnlightenmentLiberal

    @theDukedog7

    Weird, when I was reading Hume, Kuhn, and other greats in philosophy of science, that never came up. Rather, the closest thing to a consensus on the difference between science and non-science is the criterion of falsifiability. If your claim is falsifiable, then it’s a scientific claim. If it’s not falsifiable, then it’s not a scientific claim.

    I’m not really sure what intensional and extentional has to do with anything. It seems like a non-sequitir.

    Modern evolutionary theory is totally falsifiable. For example, the infamous example of a fossilized rabbit in the pre-Cambrian is an example of hypothetical evidence which is conceivable that we may find which will totally blow away evolution.

    Now, you seem to be in a nit about natural selection. Are you familiar with population genetics? IIRC, our closest species relative is the chimp, and gorilla next. Did you know that like 33% of the human genome is closer to gorilla than to chimp? Did you know that many creationists like to claim this as evidence against evolution? Rather, this is a direct prediction of evolution and natural selection. Natural selection makes falsifiable predictions like how much of the genome should be closer to gorilla than to chimp. It’s called population genetics. Natural selection leads to models of population genetics, which is totally falsifiable.

    For example, when we sequenced the genomes of human, chimp, and gorilla, and if we found that 100% of the human genome is closer to chimp than to gorilla, then that would be evidence against natural selection and evolution.

  • EnlightenmentLiberal

    >Weird, when I was reading Hume, Kuhn, and other greats in philosophy of science,

    And Popper. How did I forget that name.

  • scienceavenger

    Dukedog: it lacks intensionality, a term you obviously know nothing about and never will.

    I know a good deal about idiots who try to hide flawed ideas behind a wall of polysyllabic pedantry, and I’m looking at one right now. If Hawking, Feinman and Einstein can convey their ideas without resorting to such, why can’t you?

    We all know the answer, don’t we? Loser.

  • Sastra

    theDukedog7 #43 wrote:

    … the “non-ethnocentric” view is essentially one of a merely legal contract, which is most assuredly not what marriage is in any actual society.

    “A union … which establishes certain rights and obligations” may be a simple concept, but a lot is packed into that — mutual agreement and long term, close, relationship. I think we can both agree that the transcendent element of marriage in modern culture is “love.” That may or may not involve divine love; it may or may not involve romantic love. But without love then yes, marriage is less special. As someone once wrote “No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were.”

    We all kind of know that marriage is special. Catholics know why it is special.

    Yes. Love is patient; love is kind. One of the meanings of “catholic” is “diverse and all-inclusive.” We go beyond both religion — and God — to discover what’s special because it’s universal and secular.

    The Enlightenment was a Christian project through and through. The notions of equality and natural rights are Christian notions.

    The Enlightenment involved an emphasis on reason over faith with a focus on this world. The “Creator” could be the God of Nature — or a godless nature — and it works the same. If natural rights only exist if God exists, then they’re not inalienable. They’d be built on the shifting sands of religion and belief, which can grant and remove them arbitrarily. Our laws then must transcend revelations such as Catholicism, which are irrelevant and must be ignored for the common good.

    I am not surrendering my rights to five unelected lawyers who lied about what the constitution says, because they want their votes to count and our votes to be ignored.

    The ruling on gay marriage protected your rights as a Catholic — even though they went against your beliefs. If in the future your deeply-feared apparition of militant U.S. atheists in the majority ever pass a law grounded in the undeniable fact that there is no mention in the Constitution of a right for Catholics to marry, the same reasoning which allowed Adam and Steve to ignore the votes of dogmatists would allow you to ignore them, too. Be careful which rights you’re surrendering when you appeal to religion.

  • theDukedog7 .

    @goldfish:

    Read Fodor’s and Piattelli-Palmarini’s book. It is a decisive demolition of natural selection as a meaningful scientific inference.

    Fodor is an atheist. He has no theistic axe to grind. He merely points out–methodically–that NS is an empty concept, and is not a level of explanation. Not a single one of the critical reviews I’ve read addressed Fodor’s points, which are irrefutable.

    Read the book if you want to discuss it.

  • EnlightenmentLiberal

    Just noticed this too. It deserves a better response.

    I am not surrendering my rights to five unelected lawyers who lied about what the constitution says, because they want their votes to count and our votes to be ignored.

    Also, what rights are you surrendering here … exactly? You still have the right to get married. You do not have, and never had, the “right” to prevent other informed consenting adults from doing something because you think it’s icky, or sinful, or self-destructive, etc. That’s the Harm Principle. That’s the 9th amendment. That’s the Enlightenment. Welcome to 1799.

  • EnlightenmentLiberal

    @theDukedog7

    I don’t care about intensionality. I care about falsifiability. Dittos for the rest of the scientific community. Falsifiability is what separates science from non-science. Is your position that natural selection is unfalsifiable? If you consent that natural selection is falsifiable, then you don’t have a leg to stand on. If you argue that natural selection is unfalsifiable, then I again invite you to better yourself by understanding population genetics and how population genetics makes plenty of falsifiable predictions.

    Still waiting on whether you accept judicial review as a proper thing proscribed by the constitution in any case.

    Depends on your earlier answers, I’m still waiting for you to explain why SCOTUS can review laws passed by congress on the basis of the 1st amendment and 2nd amendment but not the 9th amendment.

    Still waiting for you to present evidence and reason that the Jesus of your religion existed, was a real person on Earth, died, was clinically braindead for 3 days, and rose up and started talking. Or reason and evidence for any of the miracles attributed to Jesus.

  • theDukedog7 .

    @Sastra:

    [If natural rights only exist if God exists, then they’re not inalienable.]

    There are no natural rights if God does not exist, because nature has no mind and can confer no rights. If there is no God, then the only minds that exist are human, and we don’t have rights that transcend human opinion. If a “right” is only a human opinion, it is no right at all.

    [The ruling on gay marriage protected your rights as a Catholic]

    You can’t be that naive. The SSM ruling will lead to an onslaught of attacks on Christians and churches. That’s the fundamental reason for the SSM movement–it is a remarkably potent way to drive Christianity from public life. Brilliant.

  • EnlightenmentLiberal

    There are no natural rights if God does not exist, because nature has no mind and can confer no rights. If there is no God, then the only minds that exist are human, and we don’t have rights that transcend human opinion. If a “right” is only a human opinion, it is no right at all.

    Ok. From my perspective, it seems to work out well enough in practice to build a society based on consensus and mutual self interest.

    Another question to add to my list: You implicitly that rights and morality cannot exist without a god. You stated that without a god, rights and morality are just the opinions of humans. Why does the existence or non-existence of a god change anything? Why should I care about a god’s opinions any more than the opinions of one of my fellow humans? Might does not make right. God’s opinions are just that – opinions. God’s opinions are no more binding or authoritative than any human’s opinions. I am not a slave to god.

  • theDukedog7 .

    268:

    [Also, what rights are you surrendering here … exactly?]

    My right to vote on SSM. When I vote, I vote for candidates who I agree with, and in doing so I play a (small) role in deciding SSM, along with 300 million of so of my fellow Americans.

    Justice Kennedy & the 4 stooges just said this: “To all you Americans who voted and want to vote on SSM–fuck you. We have decided all of the SSM laws of the land, and you no longer have a say. Not much you can do about it, huh?”

    This is a voting rights case. My right to vote on SSM was taken away by 5 criminals.

  • theDukedog7 .

    @EL 71:

    [You implicitly that rights and morality cannot exist without a god]

    Neither natural rights nor moral law can exist without God. Without God, there are no rights or laws that transcend individual human opinions.

    [God’s opinions are no more binding or authoritative than any human’s opinions. I am not a slave to god.]

    So jump off a building, if you disagree with God’s opinion about gravity.

  • theDukedog7 .

    @69:

    [I don’t care about intensionality. I care about falsifiability. Dittos for the rest of the scientific community. Falsifiability is what separates science from non-science. Is your position that natural selection is unfalsifiable? If you consent that natural selection is falsifiable, then you don’t have a leg to stand on. If you argue that natural selection is unfalsifiable, then I again invite you to better yourself by understanding population genetics and how population genetics makes plenty of falsifiable predictions.]

    Fodor’s argument is about natural selection, not population genetics. NS doesn’t reach the level of falsifiability, because it’s not a level of explanation in biology.

    The reason that it’s not a level of explanation is the topic of Fodor’s book, which you have to read if you are to say anything intelligent about it.

  • RickR

    “Justice Kennedy Warren & the 4 8 stooges just said this: “To all you Americans who voted and want to vote on SSM interracial marriage–fuck you. We have decided all of the SSM interracial marriage laws of the land, and you no longer have a say. Not much you can do about it, huh?”

    This is a voting rights case. My right to vote on SSM interracial marriage was taken away by 5 9 criminals.”

    Exact argument made by racists in the wake of Loving v. Virginia. But I’m sure Egnor will vomit up an excuse why his right to vote on someone else’s rights is totes OK and thus completely different because reasons.

  • EnlightenmentLiberal

    Also, what rights are you surrendering here … exactly?

    My right to vote on SSM. When I vote, I vote for candidates who I agree with, and in doing so I play a (small) role in deciding SSM, along with 300 million of so of my fellow Americans.

    But that’s the whole point. You never had that right.

    In a democracy, often the majority will oppress a minority. We don’t live in a democracy. We don’t live in mob rule. We live in a constitutional representative republic, with checks and balances on the 3 branches of government and on the people themselves. In our mode of government, you never have the right to oppress a minority based on mere animus. The 9th amendment is a codification of this rule, which has been expressed in various ways, including The Harm Principle by John Stuart Mill in his book On Liberty, and by Thomas Jefferson when he said this:

    The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

    You never had that right. It’s not even a right. The ability to oppress others on the basis of mere animus is the exact opposite of a right. It’s tyranny. Arguably the major improvement of the Enlightenment is to recognize that no one has the authority to oppress others on the basis of mere animus.

    The reason that it’s not a level of explanation is the topic of Fodor’s book, which you have to read if you are to say anything intelligent about it.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courtier%27s_Reply

    So jump off a building, if you disagree with God’s opinion about gravity.

    That’s not god’s opinions about gravity. That’s a material fact. Perhaps you will argue that gravity only exists as long as Allah wills it, but it does not change the matters at hand. The fact of gravity is an objective discoverable fact. The claim that same sex marriage is wrong is not an objective discoverable fact. It’s the is-ought dichotomy. God may have an opinion about the goodness of me killing myself, or raping someone, or murdering someone, etc., but that’s just god’s opinion. God may also enable the rules of physics that say I will fall and die if I jump out of the 10th floor of a building, but at that point it’s no longer a mere opinion because it’s an objective discoverable fact about reality.

  • EnlightenmentLiberal

    PS: I’m still waiting on reason and argument why I should value the opinions of a god on matters of morality any more than the opinions of any random human.

  • Anri

    theDukedog7 @ 32:

    If religion is removed from the definition of marriage, then the definition of marriage is removed from the definition of marriage.

    Which religion?

    If all you need is some religion – any religion – to allow marriage between two people with similar genitalia, I imagine finding one wouldn’t be hard. Want me to try?

    Because once I do that, you’re down to having to legislate on truth of one religion versus another. Do you believe that falls within the purview of the US government?

    Then the fun begins. What do you want marriage to be? Between two guys, or two women, or two anything? Between three or four or any number of folks? Why restrict it to people? Between people and animals, objects, ideas? How about just between animals–can my cat marry my dog? (they’ll need a pre-nup!)

    What’s the age at which a dog becomes a citizen?

    What’s the age at which a gay person becomes a citizen?

    See if you can tell the difference.

    If you take religion out of marriage, then gay marriage is not at all like squaring the circle. Gay marriage is like picking your favortie candy from a box or picking your favorite fairy tale. The sky’s the limit! Heck, maybe you can marry the sky!

    Again, which religion?

    Just yours?

    Do you want litigation about the truth of one religion versus another?

    Justice Kennedy thinks you ought to be able to.

    Here’s some excerpts from what was actually said, rather than the lies from theDukedog7 (emphasis added in places):

    The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State

    (no mention of threesomes, cats, dogs, or the sky)

    The Court now holds that same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry.

    (no mention of threesomes, cats, dogs, or the sky)

    In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were.

    (no mention of threesomes, cats, dogs, or the sky)

    theDukedog7, I was under the impression there was something in your religion about lying.

    Maybe I was mistaken.

  • theDukedog7 .

    @77:

    [That’s not god’s opinions about gravity. That’s a material fact.]

    Moral law is more of a material fact than gravity. Ignoring gravity has immediate but temporal consequences. Ignoring moral law has delayed but eternal consequences.

    God makes laws. Some govern matter, some govern morals. We are free to disregard moral law, unlike physical law, but disregarding God’s law has consequences, inevitably.

    Disregarding God’s moral law is like jumping off a building, but you don’t hit the ground until the moment after you die, and the impact is forever.

  • Sastra

    theDukedog7 #70 wrote:

    There are no natural rights if God does not exist, because nature has no mind and can confer no rights. If there is no God, then the only minds that exist are human, and we don’t have rights that transcend human opinion. If a “right” is only a human opinion, it is no right at all.

    Rights can’t “transcend” human minds — if they did, then they would be imposed by an alien outside source and would have no intrinsic value to us. Instead, they’re the rational recognition of the duties and obligations which are entailed in just relations between equals. Humans are a part of nature, as are our minds. So it’s not one opinion against another, but a striving towards a consensus of opinion based on what we share together and an agreement to try to treat one another justly.

    “Rights” which are based on authority and ownership — such as a King granting his subjects the “right” to cross his property — aren’t grounded in the same principles of human equality and can thus go anywhere. That’s why your Catholic “Enlightenment” can’t embrace same-sex marriage, mired as it is in undemonstrable ideas concerning sin and purity, hierarchy and submission. A right is the flip side of a duty: if God has no duties towards us, then instead of human rights you’re really talking about “divine permissions.”

    The SSM ruling will lead to an onslaught of attacks on Christians and churches. That’s the fundamental reason for the SSM movement–it is a remarkably potent way to drive Christianity from public life.

    I don’t remember which thread it was in, but you recently wrote something I respected. You said something to the effect that to you, Christianity wasn’t a form of personal therapy to make you feel good — it was the truth, the real truth. If this is what you believe, then you should welcome criticism and debate IN public life, in the public square. No longer hiding behind a demand that your “faith” be protected as personal belief, your views will stand or fall on their merits.

    The “attacks” won’t be physical, they’ll be rational. I can understand why you might be afraid of that.

  • EnlightenmentLiberal

    @theDukedog7

    For the sake of argument, I’ll grant that there is a god named Allah who will send me to hell for not being a Muslim. In this hypothetical, it would be an objective discoverable fact about reality that there is a god who goes by the name / title “Allah”, and when a human dies on Earth, he takes their consciousness and sends it to a place called hell where the person suffers for eternity. That’s not a moral claim. This is a material fact about reality. It’s just as material as the motivations and psychology of any human on Earth. For example, it may be that there is this person who will readily overpower me, capture me, and torture me if they see me committing certain acts which they find distasteful. For example, the police. It is a material fact that smoking marijuana in front of certain police in certain areas will result in suffering being inflicted to me. This is not a moral fact. This is a material fact.

    In this hypothetical, not praying 5 times a day and not fasting during Ramadan will lead to certain material consequences, and that is a material fact. It may be good. It may be evil.

    These would all be material facts. None of this has anything to do with morality. Allah may be real and do these things, but just because Allah does it does not make it moral. In this case, the materials facts would simply be that there is a god which exists. The moral facts of the matter are that the god regularly performs incredibly evil actions.

    PS:

    The joke of course is that you are repeating the same anti-science attitudes of Islamic scholars like Al-Ghazali.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Ghazali

    Before Al-Ghazali, the Islamic world was the center of learning and education. They were doing science, improving science, etc. Then Al-Ghazali came on the scene and declared that an apple falls to the ground only because Allah wills it, and that trying to learn about the laws of gravity is to try to put a limit on Allah’s power, and that is sinful. Arguably, Al-Ghazali and his anti-science theology was a significant part of the reasons when the Islamic world has fallen into the anti-science and anti-intellectualism that it still finds itself today. You are repeating the same anti-science and anti-Enlightenment attitudes. You would have us repeat the mistakes of the Muslim world and descend the west into the same pit of anti-science and ignorance.

  • theDukedog7 .

    @Sastra:

    The attacks on Christianity will be brutal. Livelihoods will be (and are being) ruined, and eventually there will be physical violence. Spain in the late 30’s, Mexico in the 20’s, and the communist world since 1917 are obvious examples. It will happen here, and probably more violently than we imagine now (America, as much as I love(d) her, is an astonishingly violent nation).

    The attacks on Christianity won’t be all bad for Christianity, just as the martyrs of the first few centuries were the soil from which the Church grew. We will be smaller in number–the faux-Christians will fall away. It will be good for the Church in that respect. It will foster a more impassioned and cohesive Church–many of us are already contributing to funds to support our brothers and sisters (bakers, florists, etc) who are under judicial assault for living according to our Faith. It has certainly strengthened my faith–I understand much better in a visceral way the evil and hate we are facing. Christ is even more beautiful when you get your face pushed in the alternative.

    Cardinal George in Chicago said it well “I will die in bed, my successor will die in prison, and his successor will die a martyr in the streets.”

    The door into prison for Christians just cracked open with the Obergefell ruling.

  • scoobygang

    theDukedog7 #79 wrote:

    God makes laws

    Ah I see where you’re confused. It’s “god makes slaw”, not “God makes laws”. In the original hebrew “Yod” had the extension of including the set of all makers and purveyors of vegetable goods, hence yod makes slaw (or coleslaw). A little mis-scribing led to the understandable misinterpretation that persists to this day. But Hebrew scholars agree that Yod has no intension, so it’s all meaningless anyway.

  • RickR

    Egnor @82-

    Wow, that was some intense Martyrbation! Tell me, does it feel better when you use a vibrator? Do you look at pictures of Jesus when you do it?

  • Sastra

    theDukedog7 #82 wrote:

    The attacks on Christianity will be brutal. Livelihoods will be (and are being) ruined, and eventually there will be physical violence.

    Would you care to place a time frame on this?

    I mean, if this doesn’t happen in __ months or years, you’ll (happily) admit you were mistaken. Because I very much suspect this won’t occur — not in any widespread, extreme way, one which creates a more “impassioned and cohesive Church” as the faithful are martyred. My guess is that you’re more likely to see fellow Catholics increasingly explaining that the religious were largely responsible for gay marriage, grounded as it is in divine love.

    Of course, I’m not sure what would qualify as “brutal” … and I’m not sure you’re sure either.

  • EnlightenmentLiberal

    Livelihoods will be (and are being) ruined, and eventually there will be physical violence.

    If your faith demands that you violate the public accommodations act, then I don’t care, and having your livelihood ruined seems like an appropriate outcome. If your need to hate demands not serving blacks, or people in mixed racial marriages, or people in gay marriages, then that outcome sounds about right.

    The rest of it is pure fantasy. Almost everyone in this thread will be right there to fight alongside you against that kind of tyranny.

    Voltaire is famously paraphrased as saying: I might disagree with what you have to say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it. Another high point of the Enlightenment.

  • tfkreference

    c’mon, dukey, you were starting to present actual arguments and address some of the objections. Why the retreat from reason? No objections to the other objections? Why the retreat to paranoid martyrdom scenarios?

  • Anri

    tfkreference @ 87:

    c’mon, dukey, you were starting to present actual arguments and address some of the objections. Why the retreat from reason? No objections to the other objections? Why the retreat to paranoid martyrdom scenarios?

    We got off-script by continuing to ask tough questions. Every Good Christian knows that we’re supposed to find the first set of questions unanswerable and curl up impotently cursing god.

  • theDukedog7 .

    @Sastra #85:

    [Because I very much suspect [violence against Christians] won’t occur — not in any widespread, extreme way]

    Recently captured slaves in a slave ship heading to America: “We have nothing to fear from these whites. Certainly no violence. Because I very much suspect this won’t occur — not in any widespread, extreme way”

    American Indians: “We have nothing to fear from these American settlers. Certainly no violence. Because I very much suspect this won’t occur — not in any widespread, extreme way”

    Americans just prior to 1860: “We have nothing to fear from this impending conflict between North and South. Certainly no violence. Because I very much suspect this won’t occur — not in any widespread, extreme way”

    Blacks after 1865: “We have nothing to fear from these white fellow Americans. Certainly no violence. Because I very much suspect this won’t occur — not in any widespread, extreme way”

    Blacks, Catholics, Republicans, Jews in the KKK eras “We have nothing to fear from these guys in sheets. Certainly no violence. Because I very much suspect this won’t occur — not in any widespread, extreme way”

    Handicapped people during the eugenic era: “We have nothing to fear from these settlers. Certainly no violence like forced sterilization. Because I very much suspect this won’t occur — not in any widespread, extreme way”

    Japanese-Americans in 1941: “We have nothing to fear from Americans. Certainly no internment. Because I very much suspect this won’t occur — not in any widespread, extreme way”

    Civil rights activists in the 1960’s “We have nothing to fear from our neighbors here in the South Certainly no violence. Because I very much suspect this won’t occur — not in any widespread, extreme way”

    America has unleashed extraordinary violence against despised groups. And I point out a remarkable fact: in each of these American pogroms, the perpetrators have been the same group–progressive Democrats (or their predecessors), of one stripe or another–the same group from which violence against Christians will come.

  • Anri

    theDukedog7 @ 89:

    …and none of the perpetrators have ever been Christians.

    Not even one.

  • theDukedog7 .

    Example of the hate:

    From Enlightenment Liberal:

    “If your faith demands that you violate the public accommodations act, then I don’t care, and having your livelihood ruined seems like an appropriate outcome.”

    If you won’t bake one cake in demand, you lose your business, pay a massive fine, and are threatened with jail. EL is ok with that–“having your livelihood ruined seems like an appropriate outcome.”

    Enlightenment Liberal, the night of November 9-10, 1938, to business owner whose shop windows he just shattered: “If your faith demands that you violate the law and betray Germany, then I don’t care, and having your livelihood ruined seems like an appropriate outcome.”

    Enlightenment Liberal:

    “Almost everyone in this thread will be right there to fight alongside you against that kind of tyranny.”

    You’ll be the first to light the shops on fire. You already think that destroying a Christian family’s livelihood for asking to not bake a cake that would violate their faith is an “appropriate outcome”.

    All you have to say is “live and let live”. But that is not your agenda. Destroying Christian livelihoods is.

  • Anri

    theDukedog7 @ 91:

    the night of November 9-10, 1938, to business owner whose shop windows he just shattered

    …those guys totes weren’t Christians either.

    Because if they were, it would make an utter laughing stock of the person trying to use it as an example.

  • theDukedog7 .

    @Enlightenment Liberal:

    [Voltaire is famously paraphrased as saying: I might disagree with what you have to say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it. Another high point of the Enlightenment.]

    Voltaire died in 1778. In 1789, there began a decade of ‘fighting to the death’, but it was to deny the rights of people with whom the “Enlightened” class had a disagreement. The Reign of Terror is the archetypal Enlightenment principle.

    Only fools believed Voltaire. He presaged a bloodbath. And I certainly don’t believe your protestations of good will. Your hate of Christianity is plain enough. You’ll revel in giving Christians “an appropriate outcome”.

  • theDukedog7 .

    Anri:

    {…those guys totes weren’t Christians either.]

    Thanks for the opportunity to bring this up.

    Krystallnacht was coordinated by the SA, which ironically, was an organization founded and heavily staffed by homosexuals (SA founder was Ernst Rohm, a homosexual who was second only to Hitler in the Nazi party until Hitler eliminated him in the Night of the Long Knives because Rohm was so powerful and was a threat to Hitler’s supremacy).

    No, Anri, the SA weren’t Christians. It was in its inception probably the largest homosexual-run organization in the world.

    October 9th 1938 was a Sunday, and presumably the SA didn’t have to hurry home from church to get the pogrom going.

  • EnlightenmentLiberal

    I fail to see any relevance in your quotes in 89. We’re here. You’re going to have to live with us. You should consider us by our past actions, such as the past actions of the MRFF, ACLU, etc., and we have a long history of defending the rights of the religious against undue state action.

    For example, you know that famous letter by Jefferson talking about the wall of separation of church and state? He was writing to the Baptists of Danbury Connecticut. The Baptists first wrote to express their worry about state oppression of their religion. Jefferson wrote back that they should not worry because there will forever be a wall of separation between the church and the state. Do you know who the Baptists were afraid of? That’s right – the Congregationalists of Connecticut. Connecticut had established Congregationalism as the official religion of Connecticut, and Jefferson assured them that such nonsense was contrary to the principles of the first amendment, and that freedom of expression should be maintained.

    We’re here defending your religious liberties against the next Congregationalists of Connecticut, or “militiant state atheists”, or whomever. Our principles are that of the Enlightenment, best exemplified by the likes of Voltaire, Mill, Jefferson.

    All you have to say is “live and let live”. But that is not your agenda. Destroying Christian livelihoods is.

    I’m all for live and let live, unless you’re running a public business that is is governed by the public accommodations act. If you want to run a shop, you cannot refuse service to black people, nor people in an mixed racial marriage, nor gay people, nor people in a gay marriage.

    Only fools believed Voltaire. He presaged a bloodbath.

    What? Because Voltaire preached tolerance, that caused the massive horrid killings of the French revolution? That totally makes sense (sarcasm).

    Your hate of Christianity is plain enough. You’ll revel in giving Christians “an appropriate outcome”.

    But I am a fool who follows the wisdom of Voltaire. If your rights of expression are ever denied, if you are ever unduly persecuted, I’ll stand up for you. I’ll be the first to be there. So will the MRFF, the ACLU, and many other organizations who already frequently serve religious people against undue interference by the state in their religious affairs.

    PS:

    Do you evidence that your religious beliefs are true? Do you have evidence that your god exists, that Jesus was a magic man who performed magic, died, stayed dead for 3 days, and rose again?

    Why should I care about the moral opinions of a god? It’s just the opinions of one dude. Might does not make right. God might exist and punish me for violating its opinions, but that’s also equally true of the police. Might does not make right. God’s opinions about morality are no more important than any random human being.

    Do you hold that evolution by natural selection is falsifiable or unfalsifiable?

    Do you hold that all cases of SCOTUS review of law is contrary to the constitution? Or only some of them? If SCOTUS can void laws passed by congress on the basis of the 1st and 2nd amendment, why not the 9th?

  • Sastra

    theDukedog7 #89 wrote:

    America has unleashed extraordinary violence against despised groups.

    Thanks for your examples, they give me a better idea about the level of “brutality” you expect will soon be unleashed against Christians in general, and Catholics I assume in particular (despite Justice Kennedy being Catholic.)

    Again though — how soon? Is there some period of time which, if passed without “extraordinary violence” on the level of slavery, the Indian purges, the Civil War, etc., will convince you that your fears were ungrounded — or at least exaggerated? A year? Two? Five years from now and no blood of the martyrs running in the streets? Will it be a slow escalation of a century … or more?

    It’s all very well and good to say that one day I’m going to rue the day I was so naive as to doubt you — and so one day I might — but without some kind of time frame to go by it’s going to be hard for either one of us to know when to admit we were wrong.

  • tfkreference

    Careful of the slippery slope, dukey, it’s probably the water from your poisoned well, but at least your straw men should cushion your fall.

  • tomh

    @ #28

    “Marriage is a sacrament–a temporal expression of a eternal truth.It is the image of God in a human relationship. That is the definition of marriage.”

    That’s the definition of marriage? In what universe? That’s the most insane thing I ever heard.

  • tfkreference

    I suspect dukey’s reply will be:

    “Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done.”

  • sabrekgb

    in each of these American pogroms, the perpetrators have been the same group–progressive Democrats

    This is stupid partisan hackery. You should feel bad for having let such a silly system go to your head. Democrat/Republican/Bull Moose/Whig…as if the damn label matters, as opposed to the issues.

  • tomh

    DD7:

    “Disregarding God’s moral law is like jumping off a building, but you don’t hit the ground until the moment after you die, and the impact is forever.”

    And you know this how? Perhaps you know someone who has done this? Or, more likely, you just believe what someone has told you. Someone with a heck of an imagination.

  • theDukedog7 .

    @EL:

    [If your rights of expression are ever denied, if you are ever unduly persecuted, I’ll stand up for you. I’ll be the first to be there. So will the MRFF, the ACLU…]

    Oops. The ACLU just announced that it will no longer defend religious freedom laws:

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/30/aclu-we-can-no-longer-support-federal-religious-freedom-law/

    This is almost funny. You should keep up with the daily news. The ACLU already threw us overboard.

    But of course the ACLU has been waging a war on Christianity for a century–no organization has dragged Christians into court more than the ACLU. Now at least they’ve made it official.

  • kyoseki

    Funny how it’s only ever religious freedom when it comes to denying gays the same rights, isn’t it?

    Telling churches they can’t marry gays even if they want to, somehow, that’s also “religious freedom”.

    Telling gays they have no right to the legal institution of marriage (as opposed to whatever asinine religious definition different churches might be using) is “religious freedom”.

    Government doesn’t get to define marriage for churches any more than churches get to define marriage for the government.

    THAT is religious freedom.

  • EnlightenmentLiberal

    @theDukedog7

    That’s because the act is a misnomer. It’s not a religious freedoms act.

    The ACLU will continue to defend jehova’s witnesses who don’t want to say the pledge. Etc.

  • EnlightenmentLiberal

    Oh, and I guess I’ll just maintain a growing list of questions which Duke is ducking:

    PS:

    Do you evidence that your religious beliefs are true? Do you have evidence that your god exists, that Jesus was a magic man who performed magic, died, stayed dead for 3 days, and rose again? On what basis do you hold these beliefs?

    Why should I care about the moral opinions of a god? It’s just the opinions of one dude. Might does not make right. God might exist and punish me for violating its opinions, but that’s also equally true of the police. Might does not make right. God’s opinions about morality are no more important than any random human being.

    Do you hold that evolution by natural selection is falsifiable or unfalsifiable?

    Do you hold that all cases of SCOTUS review of law is contrary to the constitution? Or only some of them? If SCOTUS can void laws passed by congress on the basis of the 1st and 2nd amendment, why not the 9th?

  • theDukedog7 .

    @Sastra:

    [Again though — how soon?]

    Persecution is advancing much faster already than anyone predicted. Who would have imagined even ten years ago that Christian businessmen would be destroyed for not accommodating gay weddings?

    We have no reason to trust the persecutors.

    In Engle we were promised “This will never mean the legal suppression of Christian practice”

    In Griswold we were told “this will never mean the legalization of homosexuality”.

    In Lawrence we were told “This will never mean the legalization of gay marriage”

    In gay marriage state court decisions we were told “this will never mean the criminalization of Christian refusal to participate in gay marriages.”

    In Obergefell we are promised “this will never mean the closing of churches and the criminalization of Christian teaching and practice”

    Every guarantee of future non-aggression has been a lie.

    My prediction: within a decade some churches will lose their tax exempt status and have to close because they will not perform gay weddings.

    Within a generation (20 years) teaching Christian doctrine on homosexuality will be a hate crime punishable by imprisonment.

    Violence will come, although I can’t be as certain as to when–it will come with general breakdown in American society, ala Ferguson and Baltimore. The Left will start going for the churches–like they’ve always done (Mexico, Spain, Russia, Eastern Europe, Cuba) when they’ve gained power.

  • tfkreference
  • EnlightenmentLiberal

    My prediction: within a decade some churches will lose their tax exempt status

    Well, I do hope that happens to all churches.

    My prediction: within a decade some churches will […] have to close because they will not perform gay weddings.

    I largely hope this does not happen. It may be a technical violation of public accommodations act, but IIRC there are exceptions for private clubs, which I think is largely morally correct. If a bunch of haters want to organize a private club around their hate, I want them to be legally allowed to do so, and I want them free from legal interface. For example, I want the KKK to legally be allowed to hold private meetings and to be legally allowed to exclude blacks from membership in their private club. However, when a KKK member works at a public accommodation, then they better serve black people.

    However, if you try to run a public-facing business under the guise of a church, then again I’ll have to invoke the public accommodations act, then I’ll have to cry foul.

  • theDukedog7 .

    @107:

    Free exercise of religion is a real constitutional right, unlike gay marriage.

    The ACLU refuses to defend the real right, and rushes to defend the fake one.

    The ACLU hates Christians, and has worked for a century to suppress Christian practice.

  • EnlightenmentLiberal

    Every guarantee of future non-aggression has been a lie.

    When you’re beating someone with a stick, and I take away the stick, I’m not aggressing. I’m preventing you from beating that other person with a stick.

    Sure, SCOTUS lied or were mistaken in some of their opinions. Did you look at what the spokespersons of the progressive left were saying? I’m pretty sure they were making no such promises.

    Within a generation (20 years) teaching Christian doctrine on homosexuality will be a hate crime punishable by imprisonment.

    I hope that never happens. It almost certainly will not happen. First amendment free speech and all. In other countries in Europe which lack the first amendment – oh yea it’s already happened. I hope the USA doesn’t follow down that dark path.

  • EnlightenmentLiberal

    unlike gay marriage

    It is a constitutional right. Again, 9th amendment.

    The ACLU hates Christians, and has worked for a century to suppress Christian practice.

    Name one.

  • theDukedog7 .

    At EL:

    [My prediction: within a decade some churches will lose their tax exempt status

    Well, I do hope that happens to all churches.]

    Do you hope all non-profits lose their tax exempt status–including charities, universities, political organizations, private foundations, etc, or just churches?

  • tfkreference

    In Engle we were promised “This will never mean the legal suppression of Christian practice”

    In Griswold we were told “this will never mean the legalization of homosexuality”.

    In Lawrence we were told “This will never mean the legalization of gay marriage”

    None of these affect your right to believe as you do. The others are a big leap.

  • theDukedog7 .

    @111:

    [Name one.]

    http://littlecatholicbubble.blogspot.com/2011/05/christians-aclu-is-not-your-friend.html

    Posting the full length of ACLU lawsuits against Christians would break the internet.

  • EnlightenmentLiberal

    @theDukedog7

    Just churches.

    If a church wants to obey the same rules that other secular charities do, include open books on finance, then go for it. The church can even maintain a separate legal entity for charity purposes and get tax exemption for that purpose.

    I’m not sure what my understanding of constitutional law says regarding churches and tax-exempt status. I’m trying to think how an equivalent secular community could claim the same tax exempt status, and thus I’m coming up empty, which means it’s a government policy favoring religion over non-religion, which means it has to go. Or it has to cover equivalent non-religious groups – whatever that means. What if the government gave subsidies to groups that collect stamps, or trading cards, or figurines, etc. What would it look like for a non-collector group to ask for the same subsidy? Weird.

  • tfkreference

    For me, just churches – most of the budget of my former church went to staff and utilities.

  • theDukedog7 .

    @113:

    Asshole. The Constitution guarantees Free Exercise, not mere free belief.

    That’s becoming the new trope–“We’re not stopping you from praying in private, we’re just going to fine and imprison you for exercising your faith in public.”

    Free Exercise is our Constitutional right, asshole, not just free belief.

  • Anri

    theDukedog7 @ 94:

    Ah, good to see I’ve got your attention.

    I assume it’s too difficult for you to answer the obvious exposure of your lies at my 78, right?

    But thanks for the asinine argument that none of those working-class Germans in the SA were Christian. In this case, I’m honestly not sure if that’s stupidity or dishonesty on your part.

  • theDukedog7 .

    @115:

    [just churches]

    You piece of shit. I don’t need to know any more about you.

  • tomh

    @ DD7

    How about if churches just had to follow the same rules that other non-profits do? Instead of being automatically exempt from regulations that secular non-profits have to follow. Would you object to that?

  • EnlightenmentLiberal

    @theDukedog7

    http://littlecatholicbubble.blogspot.com/2011/05/christians-aclu-is-not-your-friend.html

    Let’s see…

    Your link contains a few outright lies, a lot of distortions, and a few unofficial offhand remarks of some members of the ACLU. I did a little digging regarding the cited cases of the ACLU, and I found the following cited lawsuits: lawsuits to get religious symbolism removed from public lands and/or to follow the rules for limited public forums, lawsuits to get people to obey the public accommodations act, lawsuits to prevent sexual discrimination / sexual-preference discrimination for adoption services, lawsuits to prevent compulsory proselytization to students in school, and some case about preventing harassment of people who use abortion clinics – insufficiently cited which made it hard to look up the details.

    It looks pretty up-and-up to me. I don’t see why you should be complaining about any of that. You should be cheering all of those cases on, lest you be the Baptists of Danburry Connecticut and the Congregationalists of Connecticut take over and start oppressing you by forcing Congregationalist creeds on public land, in public schools to students in a compuslory way, etc.

    Want to pick one in particular that we can talk about?

  • EnlightenmentLiberal

    You piece of shit. I don’t need to know any more about you.

    I’m sorry – why should we be giving tax exemption to all churches? It’s non-obvious to me.

  • EnlightenmentLiberal

    Asshole. The Constitution guarantees Free Exercise, not mere free belief.

    That’s becoming the new trope–“We’re not stopping you from praying in private, we’re just going to fine and imprison you for exercising your faith in public.”

    Free Exercise is our Constitutional right, asshole, not just free belief.

    The case law has always been that a sufficiently compelling government interest trumps non-speech free exercise. For example, IIRC Sikhs have the religious duty to carry a small knife with them everywhere. Normally courthouses ban bringing knives into them. IIRC there was a court case where a Sikh asked for the right to carry that religious knife into a courthouse. The Sikh lost that suit.

    By the Harm Principle, you’re welcome to practice whatever crazy stuff you want in your own time. However, if it harms other people, then you lost your protections. If you have a positive moral and legal duty for the benefit of others, such as the public accommodations act, then you lost your protections. Again, if you’re beating someone with a stick, and I take the stick away, you’re not being oppressed.

  • tfkreference

    And how does SSM affect your exercise of religion? Citations of canon law would be appreciated.

  • tfkreference

    dukey:

    That’s becoming the new trope–“We’re not stopping you from praying in private, we’re just going to fine and imprison you for exercising your faith in public.”

    No, only if your need to feel righteous affects others. As for praying in private:

    Matthew 6:5-7 KJV

    [5] And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. [6] But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly. [7] But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. …

    (I threw in the last verse because dukey is Catholic.)

  • Nomad

    Duke, you are an embarrassment to your religion.

    You’re seriously using the argument that the only reason gay people want to get married is so that they can somehow remove Christianity from the public square.

    The projection is absurd. You’ve embraced the religious culture war so long that you really think that the other side thinks the same way. You’ve based your religious identity on hatred of others for so long that you can only understand LGBT rights as an assault in your religious identity.

    In any case, I’ve got another question for you that you know you can never dare answer. You think your bible is the sole definition of marriage that matters? So why aren’t you fighting for polygamy to be supported by law. You should know that your bible approves of polygamy. Just as it approves of soldiers forcibly taking orphaned virgins of conquered cities as brides. Just as it commands women to be married off to their rapists. The law should be enforcing that too, shouldn’t it? I mean it was the definition of marriage long before this country was formed, and we know what a stickler you are for tradition.

    I’ll believe you give a shit about your religion when you support these things as well. Until then, I’ll know that Christianity is just an excuse.

  • kyoseki

    Free exercise of religion is a real constitutional right, unlike gay marriage.

    So if a church wants to marry gays, as the Episcopal church just voted to do, then their right to do so is constitutionally protected and the government has to recognize it?

    Or does the church’s view have absolutely no impact on government recognition of marriage, which is ultimately just a contract with the government, which can’t deny recognition of that contract simply because the participants are gay.

    Either marriage is a religious institution, in which case the 1st amendment applies, or it’s a secular institution, in which case the 9th and 14th amendments apply.

    Pick one, either way, the government has to recognize gay marriage, or as we shall now refer to it, marriage.

  • dingojack

    So Lil Dookie (#72,45) – (I ask yet again) — what laws are being created and what laws broken by these ‘black-robed tyrants’ – specifically? You never did get around to telling anyone (gish-galloping away to another topic in the hope no-one would ask, I’d guess)

    Dingo

  • Crudely Wrott, lurching towards recrudescence

    Hmmm. “DukeDog7”. According to my understanding of how the innertubes assign screen names, there must be six other DukeDogs ahead of the one who insists on posting here.

    DukeDog7, you are not only a copycat, you are not very good at it. Get a clue, son. Stick to what you are good at and stop doing what you are a rookie at.

    Also, on the website of the hospital that employs you, why is your profile missing?

  • dragon

    tDD7 @43:

    The Enlightenment was a Christian project through and through. The notions of equality and natural rights are Christian notions. Other cultures lack such views–the caste system in india, tribal affiliations in many non-western cultures, and class warfare and extermination is atheist states like the Soviet Union. The Enlightenment is not “secular ground”–it is Christian ground (“All Men created equal… Endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights…”).

    tDD7 @93:

    Voltaire died in 1778. In 1789, there began a decade of ‘fighting to the death’, but it was to deny the rights of people with whom the “Enlightened” class had a disagreement. The Reign of Terror is the archetypal Enlightenment principle.

    Egnor is arguing both sides. He claims sans evidence, the Enlightenment was entirely Christian, egalitarian, ensured equal rights, and was awesome. Less than 4 hours later, he argues that it was horrible, created a caste (class) system, denied rights, and produced the Reign of Terror. He has been hoisted on his own petard.

    Proof positive that he just makes up his arguments out of pure cloth with no shred of honesty.

    He also keeps saying the ACA stated ‘established by the States’, when it actually says ‘established by the State’. ‘States’ has an implication of the 50 states, while State has an implication of the government as an organized political community. The capitalized singular version is anathema to his argument.

    Another firm example of blatant dishonesty by Egnor. He modifies quotations to suggest his desired result.

  • whheydt

    *IF* any churches lose their tax exemptions, it is far likelier to be because the IRS grew a pair and starts enforcing the rules against partisan politics by that church than anything having to do with same-sex marriage. As things have gone so far, you can see how unlikely it is to happen.

  • whheydt

    Re: dragon @ #130…

    Just to lighten things up a trifle…a minor grammatical nitpick.

    That should be “hoist _by_ his own petard”. The full phrase is “the enginer hoist by his own petard”, or in modern usage, “the sapper blown up by his own demolition charge.”

  • dingojack

    In fact, ACA (H.R. 3590) mentions ‘established by the State’ fifteen times, it mentions ‘established by the states’ precisely zero times. SOURCE.

    Lil Dookie – ‘… you don’t even get a copy of our lousy board-game — you’re a COMPLETE LOSER!!!’

    Dingo

  • dragon

    whheydt @132:

    Darn it! I was just going by memory, late at night. I should have checked the colloquialism. At least I didn’t use it in the wrong context or change its meaning.

    Thank you for the correction.

  • Reptile Dysfunction

    Jeez all I can think of in relation to the presence in this thread which appears under the

    name of DukeDog7 is “ain’t you glad/ he’s not your dad”. Whew.

  • D. C. Sessions

    My, aren’t we special?

    My right to vote on SSM. When I vote, I vote for candidates who I agree with, and in doing so I play a (small) role in deciding SSM, along with 300 million of so of my fellow Americans.

    Are you equally incensed by not having the right to vote on the national religion, to which all must conform?

    How about the right to vote on elimination of the Senate?

    The right to vote on bills of attainder?

    There are a great many things that you don’t have the right to vote on, and have lacked that right for your entire life — yet suddenly the idea that the 14th Amendment might apply to people not like you has you demanding a vote.

    How unsurprisingly telling.

  • tfkreference

    Yes, dragon, I would have asked John Kerrry to file a brief. It would be brief: what’s the name of my department? (That’s why I’m a geologist and not a lawyer.)

  • colnago80

    Re D. C. Sessions @ #136

    Schmucknor also glosses over the fact that, in 2014, referenda supporting same sex marriage passed in Maryland, Maine, and Washington State. Since the voters voted thumbs up, I guess that Schmucknor has no problem with SSM in those states. Ho, ho, ho, and need I say ha, ha, ha.

  • dingojack

    Maybe the voters of those states made, then broke some soooper secret law(s) (that the first rule of Fuckwit Club won’t let Lil Dookie speak about) just like those ebul ‘black-robed tyrants’ in the Supreme court did…

    @@ Dingo

  • D. C. Sessions

    Why the retreat from reason?

    It wasn’t going where he wanted to go.

  • D. C. Sessions

    Free Exercise is our Constitutional right, asshole, not just free belief.

    That helps explain all of those Aztec pyramids going up and the corpses I saw yesterday morning hanging from the branches in an oak grove.

  • http://motherwell.livejournal.com/ Raging Bee

    Refusal to issue a marriage license to a gay couple is merely respecting the definition of marriage.

    That’s what the racists used to say about interracial marriage, moron. That was back when marriage was DEFINED as non-interracial.

  • Nick Gotts

    Not a single one of the critical reviews I’ve read addressed Fodor’s points, which are irrefutable. – Michael Egnor, liar, ignoramus and fool

    Then you should read one or two more.

    Fodor makes the same elementary error as Egnor does here:

    Fodor points out that natural selection is extensional, not intensional, and thus it cannot distinguish between linked traits as explanations for survival. Since nearly all traits are linked functionally or genetically, natural selection is “empty” and meaningless as a scientific theory. NS is not a level of explanation, in Fodor’s words.

    He fails to distinguish clearly between the process of natural selection, and the theory of natural selection. The process is simply that organisms with features that assist survival and reproduction in their local environments will on average produce more offspring than those lacking those features; and if those features are heritable, their prevalence in the population tends to increase. If organisms actually show heritable variation that influences the ability to survive and reproduce (which is, incidentally, not tautological – it is logically possible, for example, that the features of offspring might be directly determined by a powerful agent, or drawn at random from a fixed pool of possibilities for each species), natural selection must occur. The theory of natural selection is that this process is primarily responsible for both the observed diversity of life, and the adaptive features of organisms.

    It’s worth noting that until the neo-Darwinian synthesis of the early 20th century, this theory had a serious problem: Darwin, like most of his contemporaries, believed that heredity was a process of “blending” between parental attributes – but such a process would be a strong homogenising force, reducing the heritable variation for selection to operate on. Fodor’s confusion between the process and the theory is manifest in his objection that because there is no mind deciding what to select for (natural selection is not “intensional” in Egnor’s term), and because traits are genetically linked, the theory is non-explanatory – it can’t tell you what is being selected for. But of course the theory of natural selection tells evolutionary biologists precisely that they need to use observation and experiment to discover what traits are actually linked, and which of a set of linked traits do actually favour survival and reproduction in specific environments: like any sufficiently high-level theory, it motivates a research program – and one that has been astonishingly fruitful and successful.

    Egnor’s claim that the theory of natural selection is unfalsifiable is rubbish (it’s truly amazing how one person can believe so much utter balderdash). As I’ve already pointed out, if Darwin had been right about heredity, the theory would have been in serious trouble. Many early evolutionary biologists believed that species were subject to “orthogenesis” – a process by which change in a particular direction has a momentum which can drive them to extinction. If that were true, the theory would have been falsified, or at least required extensive modification. And in fact, the theory has been shown to require fairly serious modification, both with regard to neutral mutation (it turns out that most change at the genetic level and some at the phentypical level is random, not adaptive), with regard to horizontal gene transfer, and with regard to the evolution of eukaryotic cells, which occurred by symbiosis.

  • http://motherwell.livejournal.com/ Raging Bee

    Egnor is arguing both sides. He claims sans evidence, the Enlightenment was entirely Christian, egalitarian, ensured equal rights, and was awesome. Less than 4 hours later, he argues that it was horrible, created a caste (class) system, denied rights, and produced the Reign of Terror.

    Thanks for summing it up, dragon. Short answer: Egnor/Dukedog is nothing but a hateful piece of filth who can’t control himself, can’t understand reason or history, and has no place in anything resembling adult conversation.

  • http://motherwell.livejournal.com/ Raging Bee

    (it’s truly amazing how one person can believe so much utter balderdash)

    He doesn’t believe it all at once — he just believes whatever snippets he needs to justify his mindless hatred at a given second; then forgets it and moves on to whatever snippet is needed in the next second. If he had the brainpower to hold all of that balderdash together in his head at the same time, he’d probably be using it to actually come up with a more coherent worldview.

    This isn’t an actual discourse we’re seeing from Egnor/Dukedog here; it’s an extended temper-tantrum.

  • colnago80

    Re Nick Gotts @ #143

    Schmucknor also is, apparently, ignorant of other engines of evolution. In particular, neutral theory/random genetic drift. This despite the fact that he used to visit Larry Moran’s blog where it is explained in considerable detail.

  • dingojack

    I note he still hasn’t explained what laws were broken or modified by the Marriage Equality ruling, nor has he explained why the phrase in the ACA that he relied on so heavily doesn’t actually appear in it anywhere.

    Too cowardly, I guess…

    Dingo

  • zenlike

    dingojack,

    Dukie is currently too busy leaving his droppings all over today’s posts. As I already said above he didn’t make any sense before, but this ruling seems to have broken his brain.

  • Nick Gotts

    I note he still hasn’t explained what laws were broken or modified by the Marriage Equality ruling – dingojack@147

    I think he did, on one thread, but I’m not going to search for it among his stinky droppings!

  • Nick Gotts

    The attacks on Christianity will be brutal. Livelihoods will be (and are being) ruined, and eventually there will be physical violence. Spain in the late 30’s, Mexico in the 20’s, and the communist world since 1917 are obvious examples. It will happen here – Michael Egnor, liar and all-purpose bigot@82

    Well (not that this excuses such violence) those were all cases in which the church had sided with a greedy and anti-democratic oligarchy against the mass of the population. Since the religious right in the USA is doing exactly the same, there may be something to your fears; but this also suggests a way the peril could be evaded. Certainly, marriage equality and the SC ruling on it have no such implications. Within a couple of years the issue will have largely vanished from political discourse as the prophecied persecution fails to materialise, and the oligarchs realise the issue has little political value to them.

  • dragon

    tfkreference @137

    Yes, dragon, I would have asked John Kerrry to file a brief. It would be brief: what’s the name of my department? (That’s why I’m a geologist and not a lawyer.)

    Sorry, I do not understand the reference to John Kerry or a brief relating to my post.

  • Anri

    Nick Gotts @ 150:

    Within a couple of years the issue will have largely vanished from political discourse as the prophecied persecution fails to materialise, and the oligarchs realise the issue has little political value to them.

    And twenty or thirty years after that, the fundies will swear on a stack of simple-English bibles that they were fighting on the side of equality all along, while opposing the terrible liberals, just as they claim with slavery and (increasingly) Civil Rights.

    Prime example: theDukedog7, in this thread and others. His side was right y’see, about all the other changes happening in society – those changes had to happen, and they were there to help them along. But this change, y’see, this change is bad and god hates it.