Over at Unqualified Offerings, Thoreau makes a good point, one that occurred to me but that I had never bothered to formulate or blog on:
Essentially, it boils down to if lawyers' legal opinions - later deemed incorrect - on an issue such as torture are used to absolve the people responsible for carrying out the orders of accontability, then the lawyers should be held accountable.
Despite talking points by a lot of neoconservative talk-show hosts about how liberals are trying to censor legal opinions, the fact of the matter is that by offering an opinion in an official capacity that encourages illegal behavior, the lawyer is more or less guilty of legal malpractice.
It is one thing to express an opinion as a private citizen, or to argue as to what the law should be. But to give legal advice with the express intent of making an act okay that would not be okay without the advice - that's not okay.
Of course, we need to see how deep this thing goes. One or two issues can be chalked up to political differences. But if there are consistent issues where a lawyer has advised the government to break the law, at a certain point accountability needs to be had.
That is all.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Do (Did) Criminally-Charged Holocaust Deniers Deserve Asylum?
I'm of two minds on this.
On the one hand, laws prohibiting Holocaust denial are a violation of free speech. The hypocrisy of Judge Peters in giving asylum for a terrorist but not for people whose only "crime" was writing something, however false and horrible, is blatantly apparent.
On the other hand, I vehemently disagree with Holocaust denial and I also believe that the vast majority of Holocaust denial is not done in good faith. While what the British government is doing to Messrs. Sheppard and Whittle is unjust, I am unlikely to shed a tear over them.
Should we have asylumed them? While I am not inclined to say that we should have, they are likely no worse than other people we have asylumed in the past. Perhaps, then, that is the problem; not our unwillingness to asylum people in cases where the issue (free speech for genocide deniers) is politically incorrect, but our willingness to grant asylum when the issue is politically correct.
I would probably be okay with making overall asylum policy much tighter, provided it applied to everyone equally. It may sound selfish, but this is a British problem involving Brits on one side and Brits on the other, and I am not inclined to intervene directly. Definitely I don't feel a sense of owing anything to Messrs. Sheppard and Whittle.
Having said that, I would be much more disturbed if the U.S. adopted similar laws here, ironically enough for the old Martin Niemoller reason, that if we let them (i.e. the government) come for the unpopular, even the evil, in an unjust way, eventually they'll come for us as well. But having said that, I am not terribly inclined to try have us try to deal with other countries' problems on this front, unless of course, it involves the other country enforcing unjust laws against U.S. citizens or, to a lesser extent permanent residents.
That is all.
On the one hand, laws prohibiting Holocaust denial are a violation of free speech. The hypocrisy of Judge Peters in giving asylum for a terrorist but not for people whose only "crime" was writing something, however false and horrible, is blatantly apparent.
On the other hand, I vehemently disagree with Holocaust denial and I also believe that the vast majority of Holocaust denial is not done in good faith. While what the British government is doing to Messrs. Sheppard and Whittle is unjust, I am unlikely to shed a tear over them.
Should we have asylumed them? While I am not inclined to say that we should have, they are likely no worse than other people we have asylumed in the past. Perhaps, then, that is the problem; not our unwillingness to asylum people in cases where the issue (free speech for genocide deniers) is politically incorrect, but our willingness to grant asylum when the issue is politically correct.
I would probably be okay with making overall asylum policy much tighter, provided it applied to everyone equally. It may sound selfish, but this is a British problem involving Brits on one side and Brits on the other, and I am not inclined to intervene directly. Definitely I don't feel a sense of owing anything to Messrs. Sheppard and Whittle.
Having said that, I would be much more disturbed if the U.S. adopted similar laws here, ironically enough for the old Martin Niemoller reason, that if we let them (i.e. the government) come for the unpopular, even the evil, in an unjust way, eventually they'll come for us as well. But having said that, I am not terribly inclined to try have us try to deal with other countries' problems on this front, unless of course, it involves the other country enforcing unjust laws against U.S. citizens or, to a lesser extent permanent residents.
That is all.
Sailer on Guinier on Ricci
An excellent takedown by Steve Sailer.
In particular, I am annoyed by this statement of Guinier's:
When a city replaces a bad test, as New Haven wanted to do, the employees who did well on it do not lose their right to compete for promotions
No, they did not lose their right to compete, but they lost their right to a promotion that they had earned. Also, if you can only compete as long as the deck is stacked toward a certain income, then you do in some sense lose your right to compete, as you lose whether you pass or fail.
That is all.
In particular, I am annoyed by this statement of Guinier's:
When a city replaces a bad test, as New Haven wanted to do, the employees who did well on it do not lose their right to compete for promotions
No, they did not lose their right to compete, but they lost their right to a promotion that they had earned. Also, if you can only compete as long as the deck is stacked toward a certain income, then you do in some sense lose your right to compete, as you lose whether you pass or fail.
That is all.
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Sandra Tsing Loh on Marriage
I think that this piece can be best summed up as "marriage isn't fulfilling for a self-absorbed, stuck-up jerk."
Ultimately, most modern takes on marriage or family or whatnot always seem to end with the author suggesting that marriage is an outdated institution that needs to be changed to be less permanent, and if children are involved seem to suggest that we reallly would be better off if parents didn't bother to raise their children so much and let the society, daycare, and schools do more of the heavy lifting (although Ms. Loh's doesn't touch as much on the subject of children).
Ultimately, all of these things seem to come out of the convicion of the author that she (or occasionally he) is the most important person in the world and that the overweening purpose of her life is to be entertained and fulfilled. Children, spouses, pets - ultimately nothing else must get in the way of their bliss.
I confess to somewhat have some of the same personality tendencies myself; but then again, that is why I'm still single, because I'm smart enough to realize that until I mature enough to do so, I should not take on the responsibility of a marriage -or, for that matter, a serious relationship.
(And before anyone thinks that I am advocating a "free love" lifestyle, I am also a virgin).
That is all.
Ultimately, most modern takes on marriage or family or whatnot always seem to end with the author suggesting that marriage is an outdated institution that needs to be changed to be less permanent, and if children are involved seem to suggest that we reallly would be better off if parents didn't bother to raise their children so much and let the society, daycare, and schools do more of the heavy lifting (although Ms. Loh's doesn't touch as much on the subject of children).
Ultimately, all of these things seem to come out of the convicion of the author that she (or occasionally he) is the most important person in the world and that the overweening purpose of her life is to be entertained and fulfilled. Children, spouses, pets - ultimately nothing else must get in the way of their bliss.
I confess to somewhat have some of the same personality tendencies myself; but then again, that is why I'm still single, because I'm smart enough to realize that until I mature enough to do so, I should not take on the responsibility of a marriage -or, for that matter, a serious relationship.
(And before anyone thinks that I am advocating a "free love" lifestyle, I am also a virgin).
That is all.
Wednesday, July 08, 2009
A New Sponsor
Glaivester has a new sponsor!
It is at the top of the right side bar.
This site deals with information about prepaid (i.e. pay-as-you-go) phone plans as an alternative to "traditional" cell phone plans that require greater commitments on your part.
Please note that this is an advertisement, and that Glaivester is not affiliated with or responsible for the content and claims of the site.
That is all.
It is at the top of the right side bar.
This site deals with information about prepaid (i.e. pay-as-you-go) phone plans as an alternative to "traditional" cell phone plans that require greater commitments on your part.
Please note that this is an advertisement, and that Glaivester is not affiliated with or responsible for the content and claims of the site.
That is all.
Friday, July 03, 2009
He Lost the Election; but He Got His Message Out
An article in Slate about Ron Paul's latest, and (surprisingly successful so far) attack on the Federal Reserve.
It is definitely worth a read.
That is all.
It is definitely worth a read.
That is all.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Whoever Wins, We Lose
Obama vs. Bernanke, article by Vox Day.
I also find the quote from Bernanke at the 2002 dinner to honor Milton Friedman to be hilarious:
Let me end my talk by abusing slightly my status as an official representative of the Federal Reserve. I would like to say to Milton and Anna: Regarding the Great Depression. You're right, we did it. We're very sorry. But thanks to you, we won't do it again.
He's right, they did do it. But not for the reasons that he thinks (being too tight with monetary expansion), in fact, almost entirely the reverse.
That is all.
I also find the quote from Bernanke at the 2002 dinner to honor Milton Friedman to be hilarious:
Let me end my talk by abusing slightly my status as an official representative of the Federal Reserve. I would like to say to Milton and Anna: Regarding the Great Depression. You're right, we did it. We're very sorry. But thanks to you, we won't do it again.
He's right, they did do it. But not for the reasons that he thinks (being too tight with monetary expansion), in fact, almost entirely the reverse.
That is all.
I Know that I am being Slow to Point this Out
But This is bad news for the "audit the Fed" campaign.
However, we must press on to get the bill passed in the House, after which we can worry about the Senate.
That is all.
However, we must press on to get the bill passed in the House, after which we can worry about the Senate.
That is all.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
What They Are Not Reporting
I recently saw this little tidbit on Alas, a Blog, discussing a black man who was apparently assaulted for no reason by a cop.
It is interesting that in the first full pragraph of Ampersand's commentary on the occurence, he says:
Although the assaulted man — like nearly all of the protesters — was Black, none of the news reports I’ve seen have pointed out that these assaults have a racist and sexist aspect. But although all kinds of people are assaulted by cops, the victims in these stories seem to be disproportionately brown-skinned men (both African-American and Latino).
Note though, that never once does he mention the fact that the officer, Joseph J. Rios III, is Latino himself, something that he should have at least wondered about, given the almost certainly Latino name.
Considering that if this had been a white cop, Ampersand would have been all out talking about the officer's white privilege, etc., I think that it is downright dishonest not to point out that the cop here was, actually, a "person of color," by the usual definition (where "person of color" means any person other than a non-Hispanic white).
Fortunately enough, a letter writer at VDARE points out Rios' ethnicicty.
Why is this important? No, not because it should be used against Latinos who wish to become policemen. It is important because of the tremendous anti-white (or more specifically, anti-non-Hispanic white) mentality of the "anti-racism" crowd.
That is all.
It is interesting that in the first full pragraph of Ampersand's commentary on the occurence, he says:
Although the assaulted man — like nearly all of the protesters — was Black, none of the news reports I’ve seen have pointed out that these assaults have a racist and sexist aspect. But although all kinds of people are assaulted by cops, the victims in these stories seem to be disproportionately brown-skinned men (both African-American and Latino).
Note though, that never once does he mention the fact that the officer, Joseph J. Rios III, is Latino himself, something that he should have at least wondered about, given the almost certainly Latino name.
Considering that if this had been a white cop, Ampersand would have been all out talking about the officer's white privilege, etc., I think that it is downright dishonest not to point out that the cop here was, actually, a "person of color," by the usual definition (where "person of color" means any person other than a non-Hispanic white).
Fortunately enough, a letter writer at VDARE points out Rios' ethnicicty.
Why is this important? No, not because it should be used against Latinos who wish to become policemen. It is important because of the tremendous anti-white (or more specifically, anti-non-Hispanic white) mentality of the "anti-racism" crowd.
That is all.
Tuesday, June 09, 2009
Deficits are a Problem; Inflation is a Threat
Sheldon Filger becomes skeptical of Keynesian Krugman's dismissal of inflation.
An excellent article, and an indication that Keynesian has at least a few chinks in its armor.
That is all.
An excellent article, and an indication that Keynesian has at least a few chinks in its armor.
That is all.
Sunday, June 07, 2009
Matt Yglesias, Climate Change, and Race
In a recent column, Matt Yglesias opines:
As clowns like Representative Todd Akin (R-MO) are wont to point out, the scale of the average temperature shift associated with catastrophic climate change is not especially large relative to ordinary fluctuations in the weather. In other words, in most parts of the world summer is much hotter than winter, and the summer-winter gap exceeds the sort of changes associated with carbon emissions. If you’re dumb, this becomes a reason to get blasé about climate change. If you understand the issue, you understand that even modest structural shifts in the climate can have enormous impacts—shifting rainfall patterns, altering sea levels, massively increasing the odds of extreme weather, etc.
I wonder if Yglesias will be honest enough to use this same analysis on the canard that "differences within races are greater than differences between races."
Actually, I lie. I don't wonder at all. I am pretty certain what he will do.
That is all.
As clowns like Representative Todd Akin (R-MO) are wont to point out, the scale of the average temperature shift associated with catastrophic climate change is not especially large relative to ordinary fluctuations in the weather. In other words, in most parts of the world summer is much hotter than winter, and the summer-winter gap exceeds the sort of changes associated with carbon emissions. If you’re dumb, this becomes a reason to get blasé about climate change. If you understand the issue, you understand that even modest structural shifts in the climate can have enormous impacts—shifting rainfall patterns, altering sea levels, massively increasing the odds of extreme weather, etc.
I wonder if Yglesias will be honest enough to use this same analysis on the canard that "differences within races are greater than differences between races."
Actually, I lie. I don't wonder at all. I am pretty certain what he will do.
That is all.
Wednesday, June 03, 2009
Ampersand and Leftist Deception
Reading this post on Alas, a Blog gives a little insight as to how leftists operate - getting the camel's nose in the tent, and doin it through deception and deceitful double standards:
Discussing New Hampshire's new Same-Sex "Marriage" law, and the religious exemption, primary Alas-blogger Ampersand says:
Benefits are another form of pay, and giving churches the right to pay some queer employees less is an expression of second-class citizenship for queers. (If a church wanted the right to refuse spousal benefits to Jewish or atheist employees, would people be so quick to find that reasonable?)
Translation: All that business about separation of church and state - I was lying when I said that. Separation only goes one way - the church should not influence the state. The state has every right to impose its morality on the church.
But I’d rather have equal marriage for same-sex couples, and then work on fine-tuning this aspect later, than not have gay marriage at all.
Translation: All that stuff about same-sex marriage law not forcing churches to participate in or recognize marriages that they disapprove of - that's just what we say to pacify them. We'll keep it like that until we win the battle. If we have to let them keep their silly little moral ideas in order to get same-sex "marriage," then fine. We'll let them have it for now. Later we can get to the business of forcibly re-educating them, like Canada is doing.
When the folks at Alas start expressing concerns over Canadian "human rights tribunals," about German persectuion of homeschoolers, or about the announced intentions of the President of Brazil to persecute "homophobes," I will take seriously their claims to give a fig about religious freedom.
However, I suspect that what they will actually do is find little weaselly ways to claim that opposing the rights of the religious in these cases is the true "pro-freedom" position, claim that the laws and policies in question are not really restrictive of religious freedoms at all, suggest that well, rights are for the "oppressed," after all, and these people are really just oppressors, and a hundred other forms of double-think to allow them to support the suppression of their enemies while maintaining a pretense of freedom.
Once they have the power, they won't care a white about "tolerance."
That is all.
Discussing New Hampshire's new Same-Sex "Marriage" law, and the religious exemption, primary Alas-blogger Ampersand says:
Benefits are another form of pay, and giving churches the right to pay some queer employees less is an expression of second-class citizenship for queers. (If a church wanted the right to refuse spousal benefits to Jewish or atheist employees, would people be so quick to find that reasonable?)
Translation: All that business about separation of church and state - I was lying when I said that. Separation only goes one way - the church should not influence the state. The state has every right to impose its morality on the church.
But I’d rather have equal marriage for same-sex couples, and then work on fine-tuning this aspect later, than not have gay marriage at all.
Translation: All that stuff about same-sex marriage law not forcing churches to participate in or recognize marriages that they disapprove of - that's just what we say to pacify them. We'll keep it like that until we win the battle. If we have to let them keep their silly little moral ideas in order to get same-sex "marriage," then fine. We'll let them have it for now. Later we can get to the business of forcibly re-educating them, like Canada is doing.
When the folks at Alas start expressing concerns over Canadian "human rights tribunals," about German persectuion of homeschoolers, or about the announced intentions of the President of Brazil to persecute "homophobes," I will take seriously their claims to give a fig about religious freedom.
However, I suspect that what they will actually do is find little weaselly ways to claim that opposing the rights of the religious in these cases is the true "pro-freedom" position, claim that the laws and policies in question are not really restrictive of religious freedoms at all, suggest that well, rights are for the "oppressed," after all, and these people are really just oppressors, and a hundred other forms of double-think to allow them to support the suppression of their enemies while maintaining a pretense of freedom.
Once they have the power, they won't care a white about "tolerance."
That is all.
Tuesday, June 02, 2009
Thoughts on the Tiller Murder
I wonder how many of the left who are accusing the pro-life movement of contributing to the death of Dr. George Tiller because of their [the pro-life movement's] rhetoric are willing to accept any blame for the role that leftist "anti-racist" and "anti-xenophobic" rhetoric played in contributing to the assassination of Pim Fortuyn.
That is all.
That is all.
Saturday, May 09, 2009
What Measure is a Non-Queer?
Via Alas, we get this defense of transgender people deceiving sexual partners about their status from "Polymorphous perversity" here and here.
What bothers me about these posts is not the legal argument, which seems to be reasonable and fairly well thought out, but the overall sense that such deception is not particularly morally wrong.
Specifically, PP says:
On the general principle that causing avoidable emotional distress to others is wrong, one could easily recognize a moral imperative to disclose some information to potential partners who might be upset by it. All the moreso in situations where the potential partner will be unwittingly involved in unethical behavior (as with a cheating spouse) or exposed to tangible risks (as with a sexually transmitted infection). While others might disagree, I am hesitant to recognize a strong imperative of this sort on the basis of membership in any socially marginalized group.
Translation: Transgendered people are victims, so that makes deceit for the purpose of eliciting sex OK.
The suggestion that transgender people who fail to disclose their gender history to sexual partners are themselves perpetrators of sexual violence owes more to horror of transgender people themselves, and of perceived "homosexual" acts, than to legal interpretation.
Translation: If you prefer sex with "cis-gendered" people (i.e. normal people, whose "gender identity" matches their physical sex) than with transgendered, or if you object to engaging in homosexual acts, you are simply a bigot and your preferences should not matter, and such deceit is okay, because it is in the service of overcoming bigotry.
Ampersand of Alas, showing his usual high level of concern about the rights of normal people, "highly recommends" this post.
Which just goes to show that the radical queer left (i.e. those who basically wish to tear down all sexual and gender norms) ultimately has little or no concern for the rights, sensibilities, and desires of anyone who is not part of their community and who does not share their views.
That is all.
What bothers me about these posts is not the legal argument, which seems to be reasonable and fairly well thought out, but the overall sense that such deception is not particularly morally wrong.
Specifically, PP says:
On the general principle that causing avoidable emotional distress to others is wrong, one could easily recognize a moral imperative to disclose some information to potential partners who might be upset by it. All the moreso in situations where the potential partner will be unwittingly involved in unethical behavior (as with a cheating spouse) or exposed to tangible risks (as with a sexually transmitted infection). While others might disagree, I am hesitant to recognize a strong imperative of this sort on the basis of membership in any socially marginalized group.
Translation: Transgendered people are victims, so that makes deceit for the purpose of eliciting sex OK.
The suggestion that transgender people who fail to disclose their gender history to sexual partners are themselves perpetrators of sexual violence owes more to horror of transgender people themselves, and of perceived "homosexual" acts, than to legal interpretation.
Translation: If you prefer sex with "cis-gendered" people (i.e. normal people, whose "gender identity" matches their physical sex) than with transgendered, or if you object to engaging in homosexual acts, you are simply a bigot and your preferences should not matter, and such deceit is okay, because it is in the service of overcoming bigotry.
Ampersand of Alas, showing his usual high level of concern about the rights of normal people, "highly recommends" this post.
Which just goes to show that the radical queer left (i.e. those who basically wish to tear down all sexual and gender norms) ultimately has little or no concern for the rights, sensibilities, and desires of anyone who is not part of their community and who does not share their views.
That is all.
Thursday, May 07, 2009
The Problem with Same-Sex "Marriage"
The problem really comes down to the fundamental issue fo what marriage is.
When you allow for same-sex "marriage" you are left with only two options:
(1) Have (at least) two different kinds of marriage, one for opposite-sex couples and one for same-sex couples. This is part of the reason why some people were pushing the marriage-look-alike alternative "civil unions." The problem is that our current ethos of equality will never allow this, as it is "separate" and therefore not "equal."
(2) Redefine marriage for everyone by turning it into a gender-neutral institution. The whole concept of marriage as it exists in our culture is based on the complementarity of the sexes. Such terms as "bride" "groom" "husband" and "wife" are explicitly based on heterosexual unions and do not really fit into same-sex unions. The only way to truly make the unions equal is to basically redefine the terms we use and the way that we think of heterosexual marriage in order to conform it to the same-gender model. Of course, this is what a lot of people want; traditional marriage is "sexist" or "heterosexist" to them, and terms such as "bride" and "groom" are "heteronormative," which is apparently supposed to be a bad thing.
That is ultimately what this story is about; the inexorable result of same-sex marriage is to define normal marriage down so as to make it equivalent to the ame-gender variety, and to take all of the particulars that make marriage what it is and to eliminate them. And they scoff at the idea that same-sex marriage will weaken marriage: "how," they ask, "will letting more people get married weaken marriage?" The answer, of course, is that it will weaken marriage by removing the particulars that make marriage marriage.
If I were to insist that Rush Limbaugh's (or Randall Terry's) ideas were to be labelled "feminist" or that Jesse Helms be placed in the camp of the "anti-racists," the leftists would have a field day. Obviously in that case they can see why increasing their nominal number weakens, and not strengthens, them. But in the end they do not care about marriage, or see it as a mere legal contract no different than, say a business partnership, so the idea that the same principle applies is completely foreign to them.
That is all.
When you allow for same-sex "marriage" you are left with only two options:
(1) Have (at least) two different kinds of marriage, one for opposite-sex couples and one for same-sex couples. This is part of the reason why some people were pushing the marriage-look-alike alternative "civil unions." The problem is that our current ethos of equality will never allow this, as it is "separate" and therefore not "equal."
(2) Redefine marriage for everyone by turning it into a gender-neutral institution. The whole concept of marriage as it exists in our culture is based on the complementarity of the sexes. Such terms as "bride" "groom" "husband" and "wife" are explicitly based on heterosexual unions and do not really fit into same-sex unions. The only way to truly make the unions equal is to basically redefine the terms we use and the way that we think of heterosexual marriage in order to conform it to the same-gender model. Of course, this is what a lot of people want; traditional marriage is "sexist" or "heterosexist" to them, and terms such as "bride" and "groom" are "heteronormative," which is apparently supposed to be a bad thing.
That is ultimately what this story is about; the inexorable result of same-sex marriage is to define normal marriage down so as to make it equivalent to the ame-gender variety, and to take all of the particulars that make marriage what it is and to eliminate them. And they scoff at the idea that same-sex marriage will weaken marriage: "how," they ask, "will letting more people get married weaken marriage?" The answer, of course, is that it will weaken marriage by removing the particulars that make marriage marriage.
If I were to insist that Rush Limbaugh's (or Randall Terry's) ideas were to be labelled "feminist" or that Jesse Helms be placed in the camp of the "anti-racists," the leftists would have a field day. Obviously in that case they can see why increasing their nominal number weakens, and not strengthens, them. But in the end they do not care about marriage, or see it as a mere legal contract no different than, say a business partnership, so the idea that the same principle applies is completely foreign to them.
That is all.
Monday, May 04, 2009
Sorry About Lack of Posting
I've been working to re-build the Constitution Party of Maine, to find a new job before my current job expires (I'm being laid off later this year) and to get my apartment cleaned up a little. I'll try to post more when I am not so busy.
That is all.
That is all.
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Thursday, April 09, 2009
Please Don't Ask Questions Which Could Invalidate Me
More from Andrew:
One of Andrew's readers asks:
when you talk about "social incentives for stable relationships" and ask questions like, "Do you think that straight men would be more or less socially responsible without the institution of civil marriage?" it sounds like an affront to the way of life I have freely chosen.
Too bad. These are legitimate questions and should be asked by sociologists, whether or not you don't like them being asked.
That is all.
One of Andrew's readers asks:
when you talk about "social incentives for stable relationships" and ask questions like, "Do you think that straight men would be more or less socially responsible without the institution of civil marriage?" it sounds like an affront to the way of life I have freely chosen.
Too bad. These are legitimate questions and should be asked by sociologists, whether or not you don't like them being asked.
That is all.
Blair Should Leave the Catholic Church, or Should Shut the Hell Up
Via Andrew Sullivan, I find this little gem about Tony Blair:
Tony Blair has challenged the “entrenched” attitudes of the Pope on homosexuality, and argued that it is time for him to “rethink” his views.
Speaking to the gay magazine Attitude, the former Prime Minister, himself now a Roman Catholic, said that he wanted to urge religious figures everywhere to reinterpret their religious texts to see them as metaphorical, not literal, and suggested that in time this would make all religious groups accept gay people as equals.
I am not exactly certain how statements that homosexual behavior is wrong can be taken "metaphorically." It is not that there are no parts of the Bible that are metaphorical (Daniel and Revelation obviously have a great deal of metaphor in them). It's not that there are not parts that some people take literally and others metaphorically (the Creation story). It's that there is no reasonable way to take the parts of the Bible that speak against homosexual behavior and interpret them as a metaphor for something else.
What Blair means, of course, is that he wants religious figures to ignore those parts of the Bible as not relevant because they are not convenient to our modern society.
Asked about the Pope’s stance, Mr Blair blamed generational differences and said: “We need an attitude of mind where rethinking and the concept of evolving attitudes becomes part of the discipline with which you approach your religious faith.”
Translation: actually believing what your religion says is something that only old fuddy-duddies do.
In the interview Mr Blair... implied that he believed the Pope to be out of step with the public.
So what? The Pope is a Catholic, not a Humanist. It's not his job to be "in stpe with the public."
[Blair said]: "I think what is interesting is that if you went into any Catholic Church, particularly a well-attended one, on any Sunday here and did a poll of the congregation, you’d be surprised at how liberal-minded people were."
How many religions actually teach that the public gets to vote on God's rules? What difference does it make what Catholics want to be true?
[Blair] said: “When people quote the passages in Leviticus condemning homosexuality, I say to them — if you read the whole of the Old Testament and took everything that was there in a literal way, as being what God and religion is about, you’d have some pretty tough policies across the whole of the piece.”
This is the only thing he said that is actually halfway decent, as it actually brings up the question of whether or not the Bible should be the authority, as opposed to sidestep the question of the Bible as much as possible and exploring the two sides of the issue in entirely humanistic terms.
The problem is that there are passages in the New Testament disapproving of homosexuality as well. The idea that no such passages exist generally come from people who assume that the four gospels are the entirety of the New Testament.
He continued: “What people often forget about, for example, Jesus or, indeed, the Prophet Muhammad, is that their whole raison d’être was to change the way that people thought traditionally.”
No, not exactly. At least not in Jesus' case, whose whole raison d’être (in terms of his reason for being on Earth as a human) was to die for our sins. I suppose you could argue this in Muhammad's case, as his mission was explicitly to convert people to a particular religion (i.e. change the way they think). (Put another way, Jesus' mission centered around Himself as the way to salvation whereas Muhammad's person was less essentially to Islamic theology).
In any case, though, their missions involved changing the way people thought in order to conform their thoughts to God's. Blair wants people to change the way they think so as to make their thoughts more pleasing to other men. The fact that you want to change the way people think does not make you correct.
Conventional wisdom was not necessarily wise, [Blair] said. “It can be wrong and it can be just a form of conservatism that hides behind a consensus. If you look back in time, through the suffragette movement, the fight against slavery, it’s amazing how the same arguments in favour of prejudice crop up again and again and again.”
Translation: Blair's real religion is liberalism, i.e. non-discrimination uber alles, as Lawrence Auster would put it.
Two things come out of this for me:
(1) Blair joined the Catholic Church two years ago and now thinks that he can lecture the Pope on what Catholicism should be, as a Catholic. This, for some reason, seems to be a very Blair-y thing to do. It seems to me that if he didn't like the Church's teachings, he should not have joined. At the very least, to join such an institution and then only two years later try to change it because it doesn't fit your trendy beliefs is rather arrogant.
(2) Blair a while back supported antidiscrimination legislation that forced the Church to close the doors of its adoption agencies in the UK in order to perform adoptions within its moral teachings. Often the liberal line on homosexual issues is that "you can believe what you want, but your beliefs should not be the basis of law." It is becoming increasingly clear that this is not the real agenda, however. The real agenda is to use every tool at their disposal to steamroll over anyone who does not affirm heartily the moral equaliy of homosexuality and heterosexuality. They will attempt to use societal disapproval to try to silence the holdout churches, and eventually to silence them through law. I think that the real humanist agenda of the left is on display here, and should serve as a warning for everyone who thinks that the left will ever be tolerant of disagreement with its fundamental non-discriminatory dogmas.
That is all.
Tony Blair has challenged the “entrenched” attitudes of the Pope on homosexuality, and argued that it is time for him to “rethink” his views.
Speaking to the gay magazine Attitude, the former Prime Minister, himself now a Roman Catholic, said that he wanted to urge religious figures everywhere to reinterpret their religious texts to see them as metaphorical, not literal, and suggested that in time this would make all religious groups accept gay people as equals.
I am not exactly certain how statements that homosexual behavior is wrong can be taken "metaphorically." It is not that there are no parts of the Bible that are metaphorical (Daniel and Revelation obviously have a great deal of metaphor in them). It's not that there are not parts that some people take literally and others metaphorically (the Creation story). It's that there is no reasonable way to take the parts of the Bible that speak against homosexual behavior and interpret them as a metaphor for something else.
What Blair means, of course, is that he wants religious figures to ignore those parts of the Bible as not relevant because they are not convenient to our modern society.
Asked about the Pope’s stance, Mr Blair blamed generational differences and said: “We need an attitude of mind where rethinking and the concept of evolving attitudes becomes part of the discipline with which you approach your religious faith.”
Translation: actually believing what your religion says is something that only old fuddy-duddies do.
In the interview Mr Blair... implied that he believed the Pope to be out of step with the public.
So what? The Pope is a Catholic, not a Humanist. It's not his job to be "in stpe with the public."
[Blair said]: "I think what is interesting is that if you went into any Catholic Church, particularly a well-attended one, on any Sunday here and did a poll of the congregation, you’d be surprised at how liberal-minded people were."
How many religions actually teach that the public gets to vote on God's rules? What difference does it make what Catholics want to be true?
[Blair] said: “When people quote the passages in Leviticus condemning homosexuality, I say to them — if you read the whole of the Old Testament and took everything that was there in a literal way, as being what God and religion is about, you’d have some pretty tough policies across the whole of the piece.”
This is the only thing he said that is actually halfway decent, as it actually brings up the question of whether or not the Bible should be the authority, as opposed to sidestep the question of the Bible as much as possible and exploring the two sides of the issue in entirely humanistic terms.
The problem is that there are passages in the New Testament disapproving of homosexuality as well. The idea that no such passages exist generally come from people who assume that the four gospels are the entirety of the New Testament.
He continued: “What people often forget about, for example, Jesus or, indeed, the Prophet Muhammad, is that their whole raison d’être was to change the way that people thought traditionally.”
No, not exactly. At least not in Jesus' case, whose whole raison d’être (in terms of his reason for being on Earth as a human) was to die for our sins. I suppose you could argue this in Muhammad's case, as his mission was explicitly to convert people to a particular religion (i.e. change the way they think). (Put another way, Jesus' mission centered around Himself as the way to salvation whereas Muhammad's person was less essentially to Islamic theology).
In any case, though, their missions involved changing the way people thought in order to conform their thoughts to God's. Blair wants people to change the way they think so as to make their thoughts more pleasing to other men. The fact that you want to change the way people think does not make you correct.
Conventional wisdom was not necessarily wise, [Blair] said. “It can be wrong and it can be just a form of conservatism that hides behind a consensus. If you look back in time, through the suffragette movement, the fight against slavery, it’s amazing how the same arguments in favour of prejudice crop up again and again and again.”
Translation: Blair's real religion is liberalism, i.e. non-discrimination uber alles, as Lawrence Auster would put it.
Two things come out of this for me:
(1) Blair joined the Catholic Church two years ago and now thinks that he can lecture the Pope on what Catholicism should be, as a Catholic. This, for some reason, seems to be a very Blair-y thing to do. It seems to me that if he didn't like the Church's teachings, he should not have joined. At the very least, to join such an institution and then only two years later try to change it because it doesn't fit your trendy beliefs is rather arrogant.
(2) Blair a while back supported antidiscrimination legislation that forced the Church to close the doors of its adoption agencies in the UK in order to perform adoptions within its moral teachings. Often the liberal line on homosexual issues is that "you can believe what you want, but your beliefs should not be the basis of law." It is becoming increasingly clear that this is not the real agenda, however. The real agenda is to use every tool at their disposal to steamroll over anyone who does not affirm heartily the moral equaliy of homosexuality and heterosexuality. They will attempt to use societal disapproval to try to silence the holdout churches, and eventually to silence them through law. I think that the real humanist agenda of the left is on display here, and should serve as a warning for everyone who thinks that the left will ever be tolerant of disagreement with its fundamental non-discriminatory dogmas.
That is all.
Saturday, April 04, 2009
Gadsby: Champion of Youth
Start at this link to find a most intriguing work.
Why is Gadsby so intriguing? It is told if you click and look fastidiously. I will not say, but try to look at the book and find by your own work what is so intriguing first, only upon doing this should you look out for the solution from a body that is not you.
That is all.
Why is Gadsby so intriguing? It is told if you click and look fastidiously. I will not say, but try to look at the book and find by your own work what is so intriguing first, only upon doing this should you look out for the solution from a body that is not you.
That is all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)