Sunday, April 06, 2014

Witch Hunts, Religious and Secular

I don't know if Christians have any greater record of inquisitions and witch hunts than anyone else does. Christians invariably think that Christianity matters, and that what it has to say is important and worth spreading. But you need something more than that to get witch hunts etc. You need the idea that this end justifies the means used to accomplish it, and that it is appropriate to use the weapons of power to get people to believe the right thing. Most Christians today, I think would say that a forced belief in Christianity isn't real one, and that such actions on behalf of Christianity are inappropriate and self-defeating. The people who brought the idea of a free and democratic society to the Western were mostly Christians. Any democratic society needs religious freedom to survive. For political reasons, autocratic governments pursue religious (or non-religious) uniformity. Democratic ones ordinarily tolerate opposing religious views. Islam is somewhat of a different case, because Islam, is rooted in the idea that the government should be implementing it. That's why it's so hard to get a democracy going in an Islamic country. 
Now Christian autocrats have pursued Christian uniformity, and often pursued Catholic or Protestant uniformity. Atheist autocrats have also pursued atheist uniformity, as in the case of the League of the Militant Godless in Russia. The way this is prevented is not by supporting or opposing religion, it is by saying the governments should stay out of the business of enforcing uniformity in matters of religion. 
People will sometimes say atheism is a non-belief, not a belief, but in the minds of many this non-belief matters. Some, like Dawkins, think that society will either progress or regress depending on whether or not we are successful in ridding ourselves of religion, which they consider to be irrational superstition. So, if you have the power to use force to help eliminate religion, or to force it on others, would you use it? If you were given Tolkien's One Ring, and could use it to make everyone religious or everyone nonreligious would you use it? If religion or lack of it matters, and most of us on both sides think it does,  then it is always possible for anyone to "use the ring" to compel assent, if the power to do so is present. 

166 comments:

planks length said...

For a perfect example of a contemporary witch hunt, see HERE.

planks length said...

HERE is more information on the witch hunt referred to in the above comment.

im-skeptical said...

Oh, the poor, persecuted Christians. Imagine how terrible it is to lose your job for not upholding a company's values.

Samwell Barnes said...

"Oh, the poor, persecuted Christians. Imagine how terrible it is to lose your job for not upholding a company's values."

Yes, it is quite terrible to lose one's job, particularly when it's actually the company throwing their proclaimed values out the window to appease the Gay Mafia.

Nowadays, in the eyes of the Gay Mafia, to simply deny the soundness of "gay marriage" as a concept is to out yourself as an anti-gay, and therefore anti-human, sack of slime, deserving of no civil treatment whatsoever. It is not just an innocuous expression of political difference, but an immediate psychological insight into who you are as a person.

How they pull off that little leap in logic is beyond me, but one thing is clear: They are every bit as tolerant and open-minded as the mullahs in Tehran.

im-skeptical said...

"They are every bit as tolerant and open-minded as the mullahs in Tehran."

Yes, those Christians are.

http://www.skepticink.com/tippling/2014/03/27/little-girl-taken-out-of-christian-school-after-told-shes-too-much-like-a-boy/

oozzielionel said...

I am no expert on Witch Hunts, but my impression is that they were not used to secure belief. They were used to punish crimes. It occurs when civil courts are used to protect religious dogma. A common Witch Hunt crime would be blasphemy. It appears that blasphemy has other names including hate speech and being politically incorrect. Victor seems right that there are "secular witch hunts." Since "secular" and "witch" do not seem to relate, we may be in search of an appropriate name.

Ilíon said...

As far as actual witch hunts, Christian cultures have always har far fewer than other cultures.

planks length said...

Here is what Mozilla put on its website, explaining the reasons for firing Mr. Eich: "We have employees with a wide diversity of views. Our culture of openness extends to encouraging staff and community to share their beliefs and opinions in public. "

Next one must go to George Orwell's 1984 to really understand what doublethink means.

On the other hand, since im-skeptical appears to approve of Mozilla's actions in this case, I may assume that he would approve of a company firing an employee who supports same-sex marriage solely on those grounds... Am I right, im-skeptical? Would you cheer a gay rights advocate being fired for expressing his views? If not, your label ought to be im-hypocritical.

As I said in my first posting, a perfect example of a contemporary witch hunt.

im-skeptical said...

"Am I right, im-skeptical?"

Of course not, as usual. Eich was not just an employee. He was the CEO - the public face of Mozilla. I'm sure you took notice of the fact that there was no problem with his being part of the organization for years beforehand. The decision was made that it was not appropriate to have a bigot as the public face of the Mozilla. Chick-fil-a does have such a bigot at its helm, and now their only customers are right wing bigots (lots of them).

planks length said...

Thank you for making your intolerance of free expression of ideas so clear. I hope you enjoy your Stalinist atheist paradise, because that's precisely where this country's headed.

But don't say you weren't warned. Remember, the revolution always eats its own tail in the end.

Meanwhile: im-skeptical = contemporary-witchhunter

Victor Reppert said...

Their only customers are right-wing bigots. Like this guy?

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/08/i-am-gay-and-i-support-chick-fil-a-calilfornia-teen-says.html

im-skeptical said...

Yes, Victor. He supports their right to have whoever they want in the CEO position. So do I. But I also know that their customer base consists largely of people who support their bigoted position. If Mozilla made a similar decision, they would stand to lose many of their customers. This is a business decision, not a witch hunt, regardless of what planks thinks.

And just for the record, this is not the same issue as public accommodation law, which I firmly support.

Karl Grant said...

Skeppy,

But I also know that their customer base consists largely of people who support their bigoted position.

Really? What happened to their only customers are right wing bigots I wonder? Now do you actually have statistical information to back this up or are we going to watch your weasel impression again?

planks length said...

What we have here, folks, is the unmasking of the ugly truth behind all these loose accusations of "bigotry". The real bigots in this debate are those who wish to shut off all dissent. Make no mistake - the motive behind Mr. Eich's firing is fear. The supporters of same sex marriage do not wish a level-playing-field debate, they want to cow anyone who dares to disagree with the currently politically correct position into silence.

Even Andrew Sullivan, noted gay rights advocate, has expressed his "disgust" with how Mozilla has treated Mr. Eich. Yet im-bigoted, in his knee-jerk defense of anything that might possibly harm traditional morality and values, seems quite comfortable with trashing an honorable man's career simply because he refuses to kowtow to the baying mobs screaming for the blood of supposed "homophobes".

Well, I for one find myself in agreement with Andrew Sullivan - disgusting!

You want to find the real witch hunters in today's society? Well, here they are. You want to know what it must have felt like to have been accused of witchcraft centuries ago? Ask Mr. Eich - he could tell you.

im-skeptical said...

planks,

You obviously don't understand my position at all. Not that I'd expect you to.

I support Mozilla's right to have the CEO of their choosing, just like I support Ckick-fil-A's right to do that same. That's hardly what I'd call a witch hunt.

You want to find the real witch hunters in today's society? Two words: Darrell Issa.

Karl Grant said...

Skeppy,

You want to find the real witch hunters in today's society? Two words: Darrell Issa.

Oh really? And what makes the Congressman a witch hunter? He's critical of President Obama and holds Congressional hearings on the President's policies?

Ephram said...

"I support Mozilla's right to have the CEO of their choosing."

No one here is questioning whether Mozilla has the basic right of hiring or firing a CEO of their choosing. Of course they do. What's being questioned is whether, in this particular case, they were right in exercising that right.

The distinction is crucial. I have the right to act like a jackass in public in a variety of ways, but that doesn't mean I should. That right ought not to be exercised.

In this light, it's clear that Mozilla's treatment of Eich was deeply wrong and deeply disturbing. As Andrew Sullivan put it:

"When people’s lives and careers are subject to litmus tests, and fired if they do not publicly renounce what may well be their sincere conviction, we have crossed a line. This is McCarthyism applied by civil actors. This is the definition of intolerance. If a socially conservative private entity fired someone because they discovered he had donated against Prop 8, how would you feel? It’s staggering to me that a minority long persecuted for holding unpopular views can now turn around and persecute others for the exact same reason. If we cannot live and work alongside people with whom we deeply disagree, we are finished as a liberal society."




(One extra piece of hypocrisy: Going off of most liberal commentary on this issue, Obama would have to be considered as having been a "bigot" in 2008. And yet, somehow over the course of a few years, his entire psyche was turned around. Ignoring the implausibility of that mental inversion, how many of them would now be willing to admit that they voted a bigot into office?)




im-skeptical said...

Ephram,

If Eich were an employee, I would agree. All the gays that have been denied employment simply because they are gay is deplorable (and I don't hear you speaking against that). This is something that rarely if ever happens to anti-gay bigots. Eich's case is different. He is the chief representative of the corporation. By having him as CEO, they would be telling the world that that corporation supports his bigotry, and they run the risk of going out of business as a result. If that is their intent, OK. But they are doing what they have to do.

It is amusing that any Christian could be upset about this and at the same time, be opposed to public accommodation laws on the basis that a business shouldn't be forced to do what it opposes.

Regarding Obama, where's the hypocrisy? As far as I know, he has always supported advancing the rights of gay people to some degree. The only thing that has changed is the extent of that support.

Papalinton said...

Plank
"Thank you for making your intolerance of free expression of ideas so clear. I hope you enjoy your Stalinist atheist paradise, because that's precisely where this country's headed."

I understand Russia is THE place to be as a Christian. There you can publicly abuse and denigrate gays with the blessing of both the government and the Church. From the BBC, in part reads:

"Russian Orthodox Church clergy have in general supported the hostility towards homosexuals. One TV presenter, Olga Bakushinskaya, dubs it "Orthodox fascism".

In December an actor and former Orthodox priest, Ivan Okhlobystin, outraged liberals by telling an audience in Siberia that he would "shove all gays live into an oven". Mr Okhlobystin is one of Russia's most influential voices on social media, with more than 790,000 followers on Twitter.

Laws targeting homosexuals and mounting media homophobia are making life ever more precarious for Russia's beleaguered gay community."


I think it's time you immigrated where you will be free to openly derogate any minority you want, for christians, most particularly gays.

Papalinton said...

There is no witch-hunt here with Mozilla. Witch-hunts are a peculiarly religious activity. What is happening in the US and most parts around the civilized world, certainly not regressive Russia, is the righting of past wrongs perpetrated by the intolerance of christian teachings, particularly against gays for no other reason than God says so.

The grip of the dead hand of christian theism is being slowly prised open to free the persecuted and the tyrannized.

Karl Grant said...

Skeppy,

Eich's case is different. He is the chief representative of the corporation. By having him as CEO, they would be telling the world that that corporation supports his bigotry, and they run the risk of going out of business as a result.

So nobody should be fired from their job for their personal opinions unless they are in a high-ranking position; in which case can their ass if they don't go along with the groupthink? Oh yeah, nothing hypocritical there. Just if you want to advance in society and move beyond peon status, best think what we tell you to think. Right, Skeppy?

It is amusing that any Christian could be upset about this and at the same time, be opposed to public accommodation laws on the basis that a business shouldn't be forced to do what it opposes.

It's about as amusing as you supporting a law to force a company to what you want it to because you don't like what it is doing of its own accord (i.e. not publicly supporting the LGBT movement). Yet, when the company does something of its own accord that you approve of (firing an employee whose personal views you find distasteful because of said personal views)suddenly the government shouldn't interfere in the matter and regulation to prevent said action should not be passed. Personally, I suspect you only support public accommodation laws to degree they support groups you approve of; the minute they favor a group that you don't like you scream bloody murder.

Karl Grant said...

By the way, what's with The Russians Are Coming! The Russians Are Coming! crap in the atheist web peanut galleries lately? It's almost like they are afraid the harbinger of the future of religion in their European secular paradise isn't Stockholm but Moscow and they are terrified of that thought.

im-skeptical said...

"Oh really? And what makes the Congressman a witch hunter?"

Look up "darrell issa witch hunt". Use whatever search engine you like.

Karl Grant said...

Skeppy,

Look up "darrell issa witch hunt". Use whatever search engine you like

No. I am asking you to describe, in your own words and in detail, what makes the Congressman a witch hunter. Tell us what criteria you used to make that judgement. Because you do actually have a mind of your own and don't just mindlessly repeat whatever happens to show up on the atheist and left-leaning blogs you follow, right?

im-skeptical said...

"No. I am asking you to describe, in your own words and in detail, what makes the Congressman a witch hunter."

If you want to know what a real witch hunt looks like, you can look for yourself. If not, I don't care. But you should stop using crude's methods to attack what you don't understand. You may share his disregard for truth, but you have only half the intelligence (which is in no way a compliment to crude). Now buzz off.

Karl Grant said...

Skeppy,

If you want to know what a real witch hunt looks like, you can look for yourself.

Witch hunt is one of those terms that gets tossed around in politics all the damn time. Obama, Clinton (both Bill and Hillary), Pelosi, Reid, etc... have all been accused of carrying one out at one time or the other. So has Issa, both Bushes, Boehner, etc... It gets brandished about every time Congressman hold hearings, no matter if those hearings are warranted or not. I can combine any big name politician and "witch hunt" and get hits on Google, Yahoo or any other major search engine. So your statement Look up "darrell issa witch hunt". Use whatever search engine you like means jack-shit.

The real surprise would be me not getting any returns on a Google search. If you actually had the brains God gave a motherfucking goose you would understand this but you don't. Which is why I asked you to personally list the criteria you used to judge Congressman Issa guilty of conducting witch hunts. You balked; mainly because the only reason you associate Issa with witch hunt is because some political commentator whose every pronouncement you jack off to labeled him a witch hunter and you lapped it up like a fatass pig at his dumbass trough. You don't have an independent criteria for labeling somebody a witch hunter beyond what a pundit or blogger you follow said and everybody here know it.

But you should stop using crude's methods to attack what you don't understand.

Really? Should I use yours? Brag about not wanting to take a nap when my mommy told me to after somebody hammers my ass into the wall over double-standards? I imagine it's ability to make an impression on somebody outside kindergarten is somewhat limited.

You may share his disregard for truth, but you have only half the intelligence (which is in no way a compliment to crude).

Your definition of someone who disregards the truth is someone who has the gall, or more accurately the honesty, to point out your spacious arguments, logical fallacies and other asinine shit that passes for your juvenile level debate. And even if I have half of Crude's intelligence that still puts me light-years ahead of you; somebody who thinks being able to wipe their own ass when they are four years old is an intellectual achievement and puts them shoulder-to-shoulder with greats like Newton and Einstein.

Now buzz off.

Not your blog Skeppy, so why don't you take your hurt ego and shove it up your ass? Might need some lubricant there, though, it's about the size of an Exxon Valdez and about as thin-hulled.

Now are you gonna play nice or do I have to get nasty?

planks length said...

THIS is what awaits Christians in this country in the near future. Don't say you weren't warned.

As John Loftus said (and I agree wholeheartedly with him on this), the truth will always win out in an open and level playing field. And since atheistic materialism is a LIE, the only way it can ever hope to triumph (temporarily) is through coercion, suppression, and violence.

im-skeptical said...

"Don't say you weren't warned."

Yes, the poor persecuted Christians have to follow the law that prevents discrimination in public accommodations. The same law that applies to everyone else! Oh, the horror. Next thing, you know, their employees' health insurance policies will have to meet federal standards!

Karl Grant said...

Skeppy,

Yes, the poor persecuted Christians have to follow the law that prevents discrimination in public accommodations.

The case of Elane Photography v. Willock is not discrimination in public accommodations. There is no "Heterosexual Only" water fountains here. This is forcing a private individual to do a job for another private individual when they don't want to. But let's see if you really are in favor of what's being advocated here on a general, non-group specific basis: do you support the draft?

And when are we going to get your criteria for who is and is not a witch hunter?

planks length said...

Karl,

What im-bigoted fails to realize is that Elane Photography v. Willock has nothing whatsoever to do with "public accomodation". It has everything with state power compelling a person to violate their most deeply held principles or face ruinous sanctions, fines, and loss of their livelihood. How would i-have-double-standards like it if he were forced, under dire legal threat if he did not comply, to write and publish pamphlets (!under his own name!) condemning atheism?

Papalinton said...

Plank
"THIS is what awaits Christians in this country in the near future. Don't say you weren't warned."

This is really dumb. You don't go to a partisan source and sprout it as fact about the future. This is propagandized religious fear mongering.

If you want to know the truth about something go to official sources, for example, genocide. THIS OUTLINE of the 8 Stages of Genocide was originally presented as a briefing paper at the US State Department in 1996. What is so significant is the role the Catholic Church played by way of example notes:

The Catholic church could have played this role in Rwanda, had it not been riven by the same ethnic cleavages as Rwandan society. Promotion of a common language in countries like Tanzania has also promoted transcendent national identity. This search for common ground is vital to early prevention of genocide."

HERE is the original full paper. It notes:

"In bipolar societies, transcendent institutions like the Catholic Church
should actively campaign against ethnic classifications. Special effort should be made to keep
such institutions from being captured and divided by the same forces that divide the society, e.g.
through hierarchical discipline from Rome for the Roman Catholic Church."


Not only is the role of the Catholic Church deeply implicated in the genocide in Rwanda, but we can see it being played out all over again with the international scandal of the protection of pedophile priest sdealt with under Canon Law, where pedophilia is deemed a sin rather than a criminal act. In so doing the Catholic Church has subverted justice just as surely as justice was subverted in Rwanda. As the original paper concluded, "The strongest antidote to genocide is justice."

You could not do better than look to Rwanda to witness 'witch hunting ' on a grand scale.
So Plank, raise the intellectual quality of your rhetoric out of the miasma of tribal mentality.






Karl Grant said...

Planks Length,

How would i-have-double-standards like it if he were forced, under dire legal threat if he did not comply, to write and publish pamphlets (!under his own name!) condemning atheism?

That's why I asked does he support the draft. Given his political persuasion I doubt he is pro-military and the draft is forcing people who normally wouldn't want to do a particular job (soldering) to do said job under threat of legal action.

Karl Grant said...

Paps,

"The Catholic Church deeply implicated in the genocide in Rwanda?" The article says nothing about the Church being involved in the killings; rather it says it should have done more to prevent it. But hey, you are stupid and dishonest so it can't be helped that you fail the grasp the difference. That requires a first-grade level of reading comprehension.

planks length said...

Karl,

I'm not sure the draft is a good analogy. The common defense is a civic duty under any conceivable ordering of society. As long as provisions are made for conscientious objectors (such as alternative service), it's difficult to defend a reasonable objection to the draft.

But there is no analogous civic good arising from compelling persons to violate their consciences by making it appear that they support things contrary to their convictions.

Im-clueless has simply not thought through his knee-jerk support of the legal actions brought against Elaine Photography. He is so blinded by his hatred of God that he fails to see how using naked state power to force Elaine to photograph something she finds deeply immoral is horribly threatening to whatever freedoms are left to us.

I just hope he is happy in the Stalinist state he is helping to bring into existence. (But who knows? Maybe he will be. After all, they might just revive the League of the Godless! Then he can heckle religious services, fling garbage and excrement at funeral processions, and urinate on sacred images to his heart's content, just like in the Good Old Days.)

im-skeptical said...

This discussion reminds me of the great battle over affirmative action in the US. The racial bigots were happy to systematically discriminate against minorities, excluding them from job opportunities, housing, equal pay and much more, with impunity. Affirmative action was an attempt to redress some of these problems by assuring minorities had opportunity in college admissions and employment in certain sectors. And the bigots felt that it was unfair, and whined that they were victims of racial discrimination.

Now that we have anti-discrimination laws that include sexual orientation, the bigots are whining about that, and claiming that they are the victims. Sheer hypocrisy.

Papalinton said...

Karl Grant
""The Catholic Church deeply implicated in the genocide in Rwanda?" The article says nothing about the Church being involved in the killings; rather it says it should have done more to prevent it."

One of the 8 stages of genocide: Denial.

Timothy Longman, Research Fellow for the Human Rights Center at the University of California, San Diego, not at Boston U, commences his dissertation:

"Christian churches were deeply implicated in the 1994 genocide of ethnic tutsi in Rwanda. Churches were a major site for massacres, and many christians participated in the slaughter, including church personel and lay leaders ....." Read the full report HERE.

Read an excerpt from his book at the University of Cambridge, UK, HERE

Read Emmanuel M. Katongole, John Hopkins University
In part it states: "What makes the Rwandan genocide a particularly chilling and challenging event for Christian reflection, however, is that Rwanda has been, and perhaps remains, one of the most Christianized nations in Africa. It is estimated that as many as 90 percent of Rwandans in 1994 were Christians—62.6% Catholic, 18.8% Protestant, and 8.4% Seventh Day Adventist. Given that the majority of Rwandans were Christians, why did that not make any significant difference when it came to the events of 1994 ? Where was the church? Did God just turn his back on Rwanda?
The more one probes these and similar questions, the more one faces the disturbing realization that in the 1994 Rwandan genocide, the church was not simply silent, but was intimately associated with the genocide. Not only did the majority of killings take place within or around churches, they involved Christians killing other Christians."


The most disturbing aspect of Katangole's piece [because there is a note to the effect: In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content: Logos: A Journal of Catholic Thought and Culture 8.3 (2005) 67-93] which concludes:

"I am afraid that Cardinal Etchegaray's question was right on target, and the response of the church leader was even more so. The 1994 genocide in Rwanda had to do, in great part, with tribalism. I do, of course, realize that... "

Yeah! Of Course! How dumbcluts we all are. It was all just a case of tribalism, not christianity!

As if Catholicism isn't tribal.
No, Karl. Catholics were deeply implicated. Period.
More a case of having reached the final stage: Denial, of any catholic or christian involvement. And that is a fact.

Papalinton said...

Should read:

Timothy Longman, Research Fellow for the Human Rights Center at the University of California, San Diego, now professor at Boston U, commences his dissertation:

Karl Grant said...

Paps,

One of the 8 stages of genocide: Denial.

I'm I denying the genocide took place? No I am not. I merely said your original article said shit about Christian Churches involvement. Though you want to see denial, we can always ask your buddy Skeppy about Stalin and atheism. Or you for that matter.

Churches were a major site for massacres,

So where schools, hospitals, farm fields, etc.... Really? Is the best you can do to tie the Church into supporting the massacres is saying that some of them took place in a church? Let's see if we can apply this "logic" to something else. Paps is living in a former penal colony; therefore he must be criminal. I mean, you are basically saying that since the death squads attacked people who took refuge in building that the building and its owners are somehow responsible for the massacre. That's like saying the banks and big corporations are responsible for 9/11 because they owned part of the World Trade Center or the New York City mayor's office is responsible since it happened in New York City. How fucking stupid can you get?

many christians participated in the slaughter, including church personel and lay leaders

And many Christians were the ones being killed in the slaughter. You said it yourself: 62.6% Catholic, 18.8% Protestant, and 8.4% Seventh Day Adventist...Not only did the majority of killings take place within or around churches, they involved Christians killing other Christians. You know this is kind of like saying white people were the ones doing the killing and predominately being the ones killed in the Holocaust, therefore white people as a whole are responsible for the Holocaust. I notice you are white, Paps; where is your little Gestapo uniform? Better get it on; don't want your granddaughter to miss her train and complimentary shower, do you?

As if Catholicism isn't tribal.

And atheism ain't? You are living proof it is as you can always be relied upon to troll the forum going "ME PAPS! ATHEISM GOOD, THEISM BAD! ME SMART, YOU DUMB! ATHEIST TRIBE BETTER THAN THEIST TRIBE!!! ATHEIST TRIBE CAN DO NO WRONG!!!!! THEIST TRIBE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL EVIL IN WORLD!!! WORLD BE BETTER PLACE WHEN ATHEIST TRIBE WIPE OUT THEIST TRIBE!!!!"

So Speaks With A Dumbass, what is your next tribal battle cry going to be?

Karl Grant said...

Skeppy,

The racial bigots were happy to systematically discriminate against minorities, excluding them from job opportunities, housing, equal pay and much more, with impunity.

But Elane Photography v. Willock isn't about somebody being denied job opportunities, housing or equal pay. It is about somebody being forced to do a job they don't want to do. Say you run a publishing company and I come in with an order for a bunch of posters attacking atheism. You refuse to print the order. I sick the courts and police on your ass and force you to complete the order in response. Is that fair?

im-skeptical said...

"It is about somebody being forced to do a job they don't want to do."

They refuse to provide service for gay people because they're bigots, just like you.

planks length said...

Karl,

When will you ever learn? You can't reason with a theophobe. It's best to just label them bigots, and then troll through their histories to see if there's anything you can "get" them on. If you find out they've made, let's say, a 1000 dollar donation to an atheist cause 6 years age, you can call out the bloodhounds and get them forced out of whatever job they might have.

And like you suggested - compel them to write and print up anti-atheist pamphlets, and if they refuse to do so, bring the force of state power down upon their heads, ruining them financially and destroying their businesses.

Sauce for the goose, as we say.

Karl Grant said...

Skeppy,

They refuse to provide service for gay people because they're bigots, just like you.

Really? When have I said anything derogatory about gays? I haven't voiced any opposition to gay marriage (I support it). Which is why I haven't said a damn thing about your post on the The Gay Case against Gay Marriage thread since I am of like mind. All I have done is asked you whither you think it is right to fire somebody from a job for voicing their personal opinion or donating to a political cause. I also asked you do you think it is right to force somebody to do a job against their will; to provide your personal criteria for what makes somebody a witch hunter; and to provide statistical information for your assertion that most of the Chik-Fil-A customer base consists largely of right-wing bigots (after you had said all their customers were right-wing bigots and Dr. Reppert proved that is not the case). In each case you refused to answer because your answer to each question would show that you are an ignoramus who makes pronouncements on subjects he knows little about, believes what he is told to believe and is hypocritical in the extreme.

Now I seriously doubt you give a shit about gays in-and-of-themselves. You only care about them in-so-far as you can use them as a club against Christianity. Other minorities that also get a hard time in America, like Muslims, you don't say a damn thing about or voice sympathy for; if your local city government forced the local mosque to close down you would be right on the street cheering as the building was condemned. Just like you don't actually care what my political and personal opinions are; for example, I have explicitly told you more than once that I support socialized healthcare. But when you try lay Obamacare's (a legislation drafted completely by Democrats, received no Republican votes in both Houses of Congress and signed into law by a Democratic President) faults at the feet of the Republicans and I point out how fucking stupid and dishonest that is suddenly I am marching in lock-step with Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh. The only thing you care about is that I am critical of you and I don't automatically bow down before any of your dumb-as-shit pronouncements.

But hey, don't worry. Your buddy Paps will be along any minute to distract attention from your intellectual cowardice with some of his trademark asinine and idiotic bullshit. Seriously, guilt by building ownership? Might as well lock up the liquor store owner on armed robbery charges every time the guy behind the counter gets held up.

Karl Grant said...

Planks,

When will you ever learn? You can't reason with a theophobe.

Oh I learned that lesson a long time ago. Reason and Skeppy don't mix; so I just have fun with him.

im-skeptical said...

More poor, persecuted Christians:

http://www.skepticink.com/dangeroustalk/2014/04/09/christians-persecuted-america/

im-skeptical said...

Here's why I think Elane Photography v. Willock is just a case of bigotry:

If the case involved a black couple instead of a gay couple, most people would agree that it was bigotry. If it involved marriage between races, or between religions, or most any demographic groups you can think of, there would me general agreement that this is shameful bigotry.

But it's still acceptable among Christians to frame their anti-gay bigotry as religious belief, just as it was in times past for racial minorities or different religious groups. These bigots have framed this case as a matter of being forced to do something against their religious beliefs. Bigotry is still bigotry, regardless of the rationalization you may use to justify it. The courts have ruled that their denial of service to gay people violates public accommodation statutes. I agree. The bigots don't.

Karl Grant said...

Skeppy,

If the case involved a black couple instead of a gay couple, most people would agree that it was bigotry. If it involved marriage between races, or between religions, or most any demographic groups you can think of, there would me general agreement that this is shameful bigotry.

And what if it was an atheist photographer and a Christian couple? Would it still be bigotry and the court mandated intervention necessary? I mean, if you really believed what you are saying the answer would be a fairly simple "Yes, it is bigotry and courts should be able to force atheist-run businesses to support Christian projects." Yet, you refuse to answer that question and are doing everything in your limited brain-power to deflect attention from it. Why?

Bigotry is still bigotry, regardless of the rationalization you may use to justify it.

Yet, you still dress up your anti-Christian bigotry and general dumbassery as being the voice of science. But I am not surprised. Usually the people who go on-and-on about bigotry are the biggest bigoted assholes around.

oozzielionel said...

I thought we were not supposed to legislate morality. Isn't making sexual preference/orientation a civil right forcing individuals to take a "correct" stance on sexual morality under threat of legal penalty?

im-skeptical said...

This has nothing to do with morality, except in regard to allowing everyone equal access to public accommodations, which is regarded as a civil right. Nobody is forcing the Christian to engage in any kind of sexual activity he believes is immoral, or to take a stance on the morality of any activity. These claims are nothing more than posturing to provide rationale for refusing to serve the bigot's targeted demographic.

I would add that bigotry has not been outlawed. Denial of civil rights is (rightly) what is against the law.

Karl Grant said...

Skeppy,

This has nothing to do with morality, except in regard to allowing everyone equal access to public accommodations, which is regarded as a civil right.

You keep using the term "public accommodations" but I don't think you realize what that term means:

Places of “public accommodation” include any establishment or place to which the public is invited or which is intended for public use, such as:

• hotels, restaurants, bars, gas stations, casinos, theaters, retail stores,
banks, barber/beauty shops, hospitals/clinics,
• offices of accountants, lawyers, doctors, insurance agents
• airports, bus or train depots
• bowling alleys, amusement parks, zoos, stadiums, convention centers
• parks, health clubs/spas, educational institutions, social service providers

Places of public accommodation DO NOT include any private club or other establishment not open to the public


Explain to me how an independent contractor like a photographer is an "public accommodation". And we are still waiting for you to answer the question: And what if it was an atheist photographer and a Christian couple; would it still be bigotry and the court mandated intervention necessary?

I mean, if you honestly believed what you are saying the answer would be a simple yes. I think it is rather telling you don't want to.

im-skeptical said...

https://www.aclu.org/lgbt-rights/elane-photography-llc-v-vanessa-willock

Karl Grant said...

Skeppy,

Okay, now let's see if you really agree with that definition advanced by the ACLU. Answer the question: if it was an atheist photographer and a Christian couple and the photographer refused on grounds he / she didn't believe in Christianity; would it still be denial of civil rights and the court mandated intervention necessary? Yes or No?

oozzielionel said...

Karl:
I am with you, but this was part of the New Mexico decision:
"{89} By the time of the success of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, many states had already
passed their own public accommodation laws. See id. at 358-59 (noting that thirty-two states
already had public accommodation laws); see also Lisa Gabrielle & Annette K. Sanderson,
Discrimination in Access to Public Places: A Survey of State and Federal Public
Accommodations Laws, 7 N.Y.U. Rev. L. & Soc. Change 215, 240 (1978) (recognizing that30
“the existence of numerous state laws facilitated Congress’ acceptance of Title II” of the
Civil Rights Act). Today, many states have Human Rights Acts similar to New Mexico’s.
See, e.g., 775 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/1-102(A) (2010); Iowa Code Ann. § 216.7 (2007); Md.
Code Ann., State Government § 20-304 (2009); Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 651.070 (2011).
Public accommodations have been expanded to preclude invidious discrimination in most
every public business, including the Huguenin’s photography business."


It is not safe to hold a moral position that the government has outlawed.

im-skeptical said...

"It is not safe to hold a moral position that the government has outlawed."

I refer you to my comment of 11:07.

Papalinton said...

Ooozielionel says [to Karl Grant]:
"It is not safe to hold a moral position that the government has outlawed."

Karl's obstreperousness in this matter clearly shows he has no firm grip about what morality constitutes or means let alone understands. If his morality comes from the bible, or from the teachings of his religion, or, heaven forbid, from God, as is so often repeatedly claimed, it doesn't say much about the empirical worth of these sources and says mountains about their valuelessness as a good working guide.

Oozielionel, honesty and integrity are valuable principles no matter which side of the divide one stands on the matter of religion. Your point is well taken, at least from this atheist. Our own honesty, integrity and character are the only values worth defending.

oozzielionel said...

I think both sexual expression and bigotry have moral implications. I don't see how it has nothing to do with morality?

im-skeptical said...

oozielionel,

What is the moral implication of sexual expression?

Karl Grant said...

Paps,

Karl's obstreperousness in this matter clearly shows he has no firm grip about what morality constitutes or means let alone understands. If his morality comes from the bible, or from the teachings of his religion, or, heaven forbid, from God, as is so often repeatedly claimed, it doesn't say much about the empirical worth of these sources and says mountains about their valuelessness as a good working guide.

That tribalism of yours is showing again, Speaks With A Dumbass. By the way, your first sentence makes no fucking sense; being loudmouthed, noisy and stubborn does not mean I don't know what I am talking about. If it did, why you and Skeppy would be the proverbial ignoramuses. What's the matter? Didn't bother to look up what "obstreperous" actually means before you copied and pasted it?

Karl Grant said...

Skeppy,

What is the moral implication of sexual expression?

Let's counter that question with another one: is rape a crime?

oozzielionel said...

Karl:
I agree, and everything that is legal is not necessarily moral. We are too quick to think that if marijuana becomes legal, it is no longer wrong for society and wrong for the individual. There are still personal, family and social consequences to weigh.

If a sexual activity is legalized, it does not require all people to conclude that it is not immoral. Adultery is no longer illegal most places, but it is still immoral even if only as a violation of a pledge of faithfulness. Wedding vows are no longer boilerplate so there may be a question whether faithfulness was pledged, (I a may be out of touch). Even if legal, adultery is certainly immoral.

Ilíon said...

ozzielionel: "Adultery is no longer illegal most places, but it is still immoral even if only as a violation of a pledge of faithfulness. Wedding vows are no longer boilerplate so there may be a question whether faithfulness was pledged, (I a may be out of touch)."

Whether or not an individual's wedding vows contain an explicit promise of fidelity, it is always implicit. For, it is the very nature of marriage (*), not the vows, that demands fidelity.

Hell! it doesn’t even require an official marriage – it is the very nature of sex between a man and a woman that implies/promises sexual fidelity, that implies/promises union. This is why, even today after two generations of people raised in the anti-ethos of the “Sexual Revolution”, people still get really bent-out-of-shape when they discover that their “partner” has been stepping-out on them.


(*) Which is one more reason that "gay" mirage can never be marriage; for “gays” do not intend their mirages to include sexual (nor emotional) fidelity. And the leftists who are intent upon destroying marriage are counting on that fact to get a twofer: the can use the corrupt judges (as the preferred means) to explicitly redefine out of existence the essential male-to-female nature of marriage, and use the “gay” version of monogamy to implicitly redefine out of existence the essential sexually-exclusive nature of marriage.

Ilíon said...

ozzielionel: "… everything that is legal is not necessarily moral."

And likewise, not everything that is immoral can reasonably-and-practically be made illegal.

And further, since all human laws – all of them that command “Do this” or “Do not do that” – are *always* backed up by the threat of state violence and state-sanctioned violent death, it is incumbent upon a sane, rational, and moral people, who cherish liberty, to keep laws to a minimum.

The root-cause of the problem here -- and most of you reading this will *refuse* to understand this … which is to say, you will *refuse* to move to the intellectual ground from which you can defend your own liberty – is that when the Republicans finally overturned the Democrats’ Jim Crow laws, they didn’t *merely* end the state demand-under-threat-of-violence that some citizens behave toward other citizens as though they were bigots, whether or not they would have behaved that way absent the state threat. Oh, no, not they! Not being content simply to end an injustice, the self-congratulatory civil-rights politicians had to go on and create a new injustice: using the threat of state-violence-unto-death to compel bigots to treat those against whom their bigotry ran as though they loved them.

The *reason* that the leftists are now so easily able to label simple people who simply wish to be left alone (*) as “bigots” who must be persecuted with all the resources of The State is because you, Mr and Mrs America, have already surrendered. You already subscribe to the twisted presuppositions from which they reason – no matter how much you whine about “political correctness gone wild”, all this is just the out-working of the twisted logic to which you already have surrendered.

(*) that would be *you*, Mr and Mrs America

im-skeptical said...

"for “gays” do not intend their mirages to include sexual (nor emotional) fidelity ... the leftists who are intent upon destroying marriage ... "

Actually, infidelity is one of the chief reasons for divorce among heterosexual couples, who are more likely to be dishonest about their engagement in adulterous acts, while gay couples are more likely to have "open" relationships. About 80% of all marriages experience some adulterous activity. Divorces are more prevalent among heterosexuals.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/2014/02/16/13/51/gay-divorce-rate-lower-than-for-straight-couples

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/27/gay-marriage_n_3513028.html

http://www.marriageequality.org/divorce

oozzielionel said...

"About 80% of all marriages experience some adulterous activity"
I am inclined to believe this estimate. There is a significant amount of behavior that is legal but still immoral. If I say that this type of sexual activity is immoral, I am not likely to be called a bigot or accused of violating anyone's civil rights. But I better be careful if I stray into other territory.

planks length said...

There's one hell (pun intended) of a lot of stuff that quite immoral yet legal. It's entirely legal to smoke, yet you won't catch me intentionally ruining my God-given lungs by doing so. Watching or reading porn is (mostly) legal, but I wouldn't touch the stuff if you paid me. Marijuana might be legal in Colorado, but I'm not about to get high the next time I pass through that state. It is completely legal to "oppress the widow and the orphan" in this country, yet every prophet since the beginning of time has declared this to be chief among all evils, and the defining characteristic of an immoral society.

So the law is a very poor guide to what is moral or immoral.

oozzielionel said...

So are we safe to say that a certain (I am still afraid to mention it) sexual preference/ orientation/ behavior/ inclination/ protected class is legal but immoral? Or would such a statement be hate speech, not protected under the first amendment, and subject to public shame and censure? Or am I pushing the bounds of tolerance?

Be careful how you answer, next I'll be asking that I have the freedom to distance myself from the legal but immoral behavior even in the public square.

planks length said...

To answer your questions:

Yes, and yes, and you're way past the bounds of so-called "tolerance" (remember, only politically-correct thought is tolerated, in the name of toleration).

You sir, are a bigot and a homophobe, deserving of nothing but public scorn and condemnation (and loss of your livelihood and income) for even raising the questions. How dare you, comrade? I sentence you to three readings of Heather has Two Mommies and two viewings of Brokeback Mountain for your sins.

im-skeptical said...

"So the law is a very poor guide to what is moral or immoral."

Perhaps so. And most people agree that the law shouldn't dictate morality. But the bible is a much worse guide to morality. Why do you believe gay marriage is immoral, and why should gay people be deprived of their civil rights?

oozzielionel said...

So are you asking to be the judge of my beliefs?

planks length said...

oozie,

To whom are you addressing your question?

im-skeptical said...

oozielionel,

I would to like to understand your rationale.

planks length said...

Why do you believe gay marriage is immoral

Whether or not I believe it to be "immoral" is irrelevant. What I do believe is that it is not "marriage". I don't care what you call it, but it doesn't walk like a duck, so it ain't one.

why should gay people be deprived of their civil rights?

I don't think they should be. Two points:

1. Marriage is not a "civil right" in all cases. (E.g., I cannot marry my sibling or my parent or my child. I cannot marry two people at the same time.)

2. The only people whose civil rights are undeniably being denied are those of the photographers, etc., who are being compelled, under threat of loss of livelihood or even worse, loss of their souls, to participate approvingly in events they find repugnant.

Question for you, im-totalitarian, would you think it OK to force Elaine Photography to photograph a nude wedding ceremony, if that's what the "celebrants" wished?

planks length said...

oozie,

I was speaking sarcastically, in the manner of Steven Colbert.

oozzielionel said...

"I would to like to understand your rationale"

So if I have an adequate rational in your estimation, I will be able to live consistently with my belief? I have been told lately that I do not have the right to live according to this belief as the price of citizenship.

planks length said...

And that is exactly what I was saying in my satiric posting. You may be on the side of the angels, but be prepared for the Wrath of the very evil society we live in to descend upon you for being so.

"Blessed are you when men revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so men persecuted the prophets who were before you." (Matthew 5:11-12)

We are entering upon an age when men and women who love God will have to face up to the reality of persecution, and perhaps even martyrdom. It's happened before - the Romans, the Arians, the Barbarians, the Northsmen, the Moslems, the schismatics, the French Revolutionaries, the Nazis and the Communists, and now the atheist materialists. But we have been promised: "The gates of Hell shall not prevail against you."

im-skeptical said...

"I have been told lately that I do not have the right to live according to this belief as the price of citizenship."

Who told you anything like that? The fact is you are not the poor, persecuted Christian, as you would like us to think. The fact is that by suppressing the rights of others, it is you who are persecuting them. Are your rights being suppressed? Perhaps you think your speech has been curtailed, since you mock "political correctness". Nobody has curtailed your right to express your beliefs, so what are you whining about?

Poor, persecuted Christian, threatened with gay people having equal rights! I feel so sorry for you. I know it's a hard burden for you to bear, but take cheer - your reward is in the next life.

oozzielionel said...

No, I am not persecuted. I am the one too afraid to say it.

oozzielionel said...

On the price of citizenship, Justice Richard C. Bosson says:
"In the smaller, more focused world of the marketplace, of commerce, of public
accommodation, the Huguenins have to channel their conduct, not their beliefs, so as to leave
space for other Americans who believe something different. That compromise is part of the
glue that holds us together as a nation, the tolerance that lubricates the varied moving parts
of us as a people. That sense of respect we owe others, whether or not we believe as they
do, illuminates this country, setting it apart from the discord that afflicts much of the rest of
the world. In short, I would say to the Huguenins, with the utmost respect: it is the price of
citizenship. I therefore concur."

I understand this to mean that I am free to (secretly) believe anything I want to, but in the world of the marketplace, I have to (am required to under penalty of law at least in New Mexico)show respect (refrain from disparaging or accusing of wrongdoing) to those who believe differently (including political, religious, or holding different values)and even celebrate with them when they engage in activities contrary to my beliefs. I am no longer free to express my beliefs in the work that I do, in public speech, or in my political opinion.

I go the message.

im-skeptical said...

"No, I am not persecuted. I am the one too afraid to say it."

What are you afraid to say? You still have free speech rights. So say what you want. But I think, you are afraid about the fact that others also have free speech. If you want to proclaim your beliefs, you might hear others proclaiming their disagreement with you. I certainly hear plenty of people disagreeing with me, calling me names, etc. That's their brand of political correctness. And that's fair. So go ahead. Say what you think.

oozzielionel said...

Believing is easy. Speaking, not so hard. Living your beliefs is the real challenge.

im-skeptical said...

oozielionel,

I think you completely misunderstand the court ruling. It says they have provide the same service to everybody - nothing more, nothing less. It doesn't say they must suppress their beliefs, or that they can't speak. You're turning it into an attack on your rights. It's nothing of the sort. That's intellectual dishonesty. It's just an excuse to go beyond expressing bigotry, and actually put it into practice.

oozzielionel said...

No, I think I am reading it correctly:
"{90} All of which, I assume, is little comfort to the Huguenins, who now are compelled
by law to compromise the very religious beliefs that inspire their lives. Though the rule of
law requires it, the result is sobering. It will no doubt leave a tangible mark on the
Huguenins and others of similar views."

im-skeptical said...

If your religious beliefs require you to deny other people fair treatment, you have a seriously flawed religion.

As a side note, there is always more to the story than what we hear. I bet the Huguenins would not have been sued if they were not total assholes.

oozzielionel said...

"compelled by law to compromise the very religious beliefs that inspire their lives" Justice Richard C. Bosson

You are right someone is not being fair.

im-skeptical said...

"You are right someone is not being fair."

That would be you. You didn't include what Justice Bosson wrote immediately prior to your quote:

"[They] are free to think, to say, to believe, as they wish; they may pray to the God of their choice and follow those commandments in their personal lives wherever they lead. The Constitution protects the Huguenins in that respect and much more. But there is a price, one that we all have to pay somewhere in our civic life."

The court affirms that their religious freedom has not been curtailed, nor has their speech. The price he refers to is the same for all of us. We can't deny people their civil rights, no matter how much we hate them.




planks length said...

Hmmm. Since im-so-enlightened is on record as being opposed to curtailing someone's free speech, would he be OK with the photographer showing up at the wedding wearing a shirt emblazoned with "True marriage is only between one man and one woman" and telling everyone in attendance that he is only there under legal compulsion, while photographing the ceremony?

If you do not defend his right to do so, then you are im-hypocritical.

im-skeptical said...

"If you do not defend his right to do so, then you are im-hypocritical."

I am also hypocritical in not supporting Westboro Chursh's right to disrupt funerals. You got me on that one.

BenYachov said...

Skepo is a fascist pure and simple, so is the New Mexico Supreme Court & the Fascist gays who brought this original lawsuit. The modern day political left has given up it's civil liberty beliefs in favor of a lust for pure power.

As Andrew Sullivan intimated they are no better then the right wing fascists he has battled all his life.


Free speech means not only can I say what I want to say but I can refuse to say what I don't believe in and not be compelled to say it.

There is a moral difference between a public accommodation and the generic service it provides vs a personal service that is involved in crafting a personal message.

If I don't agree with the message I should be allowed to opt out.

It's that simple & in the fascist society envisioned by Skepo in principle a Photographer who is a militant believer in Darwinian Evolution can be forced against his/her will to photograph an ID conference. A gay photographer can be forced to photograph a wedding at the Wesburro Baptist Church. An Jewish photographer can be forced to photograph a JEWS FOR JESUS event.

How is this still America if we let this happen?

BenYachov said...

>I am also hypocritical in not supporting Westboro Chursh's right to disrupt funerals. You got me on that one.

You are so stupid Skepo. None of the Westboro dirt bags are made to come to the actual funeral against their will. They protest outside on the public side walk & they would not be allowed in the funeral home or cemetery since that is private property.

Now even I know I can't force a Westboro dirt bag to attend a funeral against his/her will & expect them to also not cause trouble at the funeral I forced them to attend.

Wow it's not just in the area of Science and Philosophy where you broadcast your ignorant.

You don't know shit about civil rights or liberty do ya Skepo?

BenYachov said...

PL

Skepo the Fascist doesn't understand the difference between you and I going to a gay wedding we were not invited too or forced to attend and wearing a T-Shirt attacking gay marriage(in which case we should be thrown out or arrested justly for trespassing) vs being forced to attend against our will.

He is a Fascist. He doesn't understand this freedom custom that arose in west Judeo-christian society.

So cut him some slack.;-)

BenYachov said...

Skepo the Fascist writes:
>If your religious beliefs require you to deny other people fair treatment, you have a seriously flawed religion.

So what you are saying is Orthodox Jews have no right to exclude uncircumcised persons from attending one of their passover seders(even thought the Torah commands this). That it is unfair to do so? So is it unfair for Catholics to exclude communion from being given to un-Baptized people?

I guess it is unfair if an Atheist Group excludes making a Theist it's President?

Seriously are you really this stupid? This makes Paps look like a genius.


>As a side note, there is always more to the story than what we hear. I bet the Huguenins would not have been sued if they were not total assholes.

Oh really? If they refused to photograph the wedding without giving a reason how long do you suppose it would take for the Fascist gays to researched the fact they never photographed one then bring charges of systematic discrimination because they never once accepted an offer to photograph a gay wedding?

Fascists never sleep.

BenYachov said...

Forget the Star Spangle Banner!

When Left Wing Fascists get their way this will be the national Anthem.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAUvTCyiDKY

God wither you believe in Him or not, help regular Americans and civil libertarians liberal or conservative on the day the Mexico Supreme Court's nonsense is made the law of the land.

im-skeptical said...

"When Left Wing Fascists get their way this will be the national Anthem."

I wish you guys would make up your mind. Am I Stalin or am I Hitler?

im-skeptical said...

Incidentally, Stalin criminalized homosexuality to appease the Orthodox Church, and Hitler sent homosexuals to concentration camps. So, Ben, which one do you admire more - Stalin or Hitler?

Ilíon said...

Im-a-liar-and-damned-proud-of-it: "why should gay people be deprived of their civil rights?"

I-can-be-rolled-(and-distracted)-because-I-have-already-surrendered-on-the-assumptions: "I don't think they should be. Two points:

1. Marriage is not a "civil right" in all cases. (E.g., I cannot marry my sibling or my parent or my child. I cannot marry two people at the same time.)
"

Of course, it is emphatically not true that "gay [sic] people [are]deprived of their civil rights" by society refusing to call two (or more) men or two (or more) women a marriage. There is no jurisdiction in the country, nor likely in the whole world (*), which asks about the sexual preferences of the prospective husband and wife. There is nothing preventing persons afflicted with same-sex desire from marrying ... except their own lack of desire to do so. And the lying, intellectually dishonest homosexualists are intentionally lying about this because "rights talk" always gets defferential treatment in America.


(*) Well, none except for those which have corrupted the definition of 'marriage'

Ilíon said...

ozzielionel: "No, I am not persecuted. I am the one too afraid to say it."

You had better not say that there is a "gay mafia" who will whack anyone who gets on their wrond side, or you're gonna get whacked.

You had better not say that the various allied God-haters are mis-using the Constitution and laws if the USA to persecute Christians (and faithful Jews), or you're gonna get whacked.

Right now, they mock us as whiners, as suffering from a "martyr complex", for pointing out what they are doing. In the near future, they will be murdering us ... even as they deny that they are doing so, and mock us as whiners, as suffering from a "martyr complex", for pointing out what they are doing.

Ilíon said...

The hatred of God is the hatred of truth and morality -- for, as God is "the ground of all being", so too is God truth and morality.

Why would anyone be surprised that when those who hate truth and morality band together and manage to get their hands on the levers of State violence, the inevitable result is windrows of human corpses?

Ilíon said...

Son-of-Confusion, confused as always: "The modern day political left has given up it's civil liberty beliefs in favor of a lust for pure power.

As Andrew Sullivan intimated they are no better then the right wing fascists he has battled all his life.
"

The left was *never* for civil rights, much less for liberty. And fascists have always been leftists.

Ilíon said...

Son-of-Confusion, confused as always -- and liking it that way: "There is a moral difference between a public accommodation and the generic service it provides vs a personal service that is involved in crafting a personal message."

No there isn't. And the reason you foolsh pretend-conservatives are as easily rolled by the leftists as the "liberals" are is that like the "liberals" you have already surrendered to the leftists' lies.

BenYachov said...

>Incidentally, Stalin criminalized homosexuality to appease the Orthodox Church, and Hitler sent homosexuals to concentration camps.

Actually Stalin criminalized homosexuality because it was an "un-natural decadent perversion practiced by the Bourgeoisie".

>So, Ben, which one do you admire more - Stalin or Hitler?

I'm not the one here defending suppression of freedom here in America.

That is you buddy.

BenYachov said...

The irony is one of the arguments used for "gay marriage" is gays want to be left alone and "How is what I am doing hurting you"?

Yet with the Christians photographers, bakers of wedding cakes and CEO's of Net companies the gay supporters of Fascism seem to want to bother people and hurt them in spite of their claims otherwise?*

*Of course the irony of the gay dude leading the charge against the former CEO of Mozzila for his political donations, while himself having been found to have donated $500 to a contra-gay rights Republican from Utah is delicious irony and hypocrisy!

Papalinton said...

Skep
You seem to be in the quiet eye of a storm howling around you, with Plank, Yachov, Grant, Ilion reduced to throwing out 'leftist', 'liberal', 'hatred of God', 'fascist', 'contra-gay', 'un-natural decadent perversion' epithets as means of explanation. How one can possibly imagine they are able to be reasoned with consumed as they are with such disdain and loathing for those that rightly and properly challenge the legitimacy and worth of their uncivil religious beliefs in the 21stC?

planks length said...

"Free speech means not only can I say what I want to say but I can refuse to say what I don't believe in and not be compelled to say it."

Amen, Ben. The words I've been searching for - could not be better expressed!

planks length said...

Ilion,

I do not believe that I have "surrendered on the assumptions". I have stated before that I detest partisanship and extremism. In that vein, I am definitely not a libertarian. There is a legitimate place for government (and, indeed, for government power) in our society. Traffic cops, for instance, need to be empowered to pull over drivers who flaunt the rules of the road to ensure the overall safety of those who obey them. That is probably the clearest, almost simplistic, illustration of the principle.

So politics is the art and science of drawing lines. I have surrendered no principles by asserting that such lines are necessary and desirable. Where im-bigoted and his ilk wish to draw them is way too far in the statist direction. He would like to eviscerate the First Amendment by compelling individuals to publicly express views they personally do not hold. He would likely be in favor of reeducation camps for those guilty of thought crime.

At the other extreme, the self-styled Westboro Baptist Church (which, by the way, is not a church, except in name) has gone too far to the other extreme. Free speech does not entitle one to shove your nose into others' faces. The Supreme Court was very much in error in their decision on that case.

im-skeptical said...

"How one can possibly imagine they are able to be reasoned with consumed as they are with such disdain and loathing for those that rightly and properly challenge the legitimacy and worth of their uncivil religious beliefs in the 21stC? "

A good question. Their logic is clearly lacking. They don't know whether to call me Stalinist or Nazi because of my support for human rights (even though those two ideologies are diametrically opposed), despite the fact that it is they who share a hatred for gays in common with both of those groups, not me. And hatred leads to oppression.

They call be a bigot, but they are consumed with hate. They call me an oppressor, but they are blind to the oppression they impose on the targets of their hatred.

They get their twisted "morality" from an ancient book of superstition, myths, and barbaric laws. A book full of tales of lust, murder, and all manner of savagery. A book they claim is inspired by their brutal, vengeful, and hateful God.

As for me, I'll stick with my own morality that supports upholding civil rights and human dignity.

Karl Grant said...

Skeppy,

A good question. Their logic is clearly lacking. They don't know whether to call me Stalinist or Nazi because of my support for human rights (even though those two ideologies are diametrically opposed)

Aww, but your buddy Paps using the exact same tactics, i.e. trying to lay the blame for the Rwandan Genocide at our feet despite none of us were involved in it, gets a free pass. You cheer him on when he does shit like that and than bitch and whine when somebody calls you a Nazi or a Stalinist in turn. Seems like somebody doesn't like the taste of their own medicine.

They get their twisted "morality" from an ancient book of superstition, myths, and barbaric laws. A book full of tales of lust, murder, and all manner of savagery. A book they claim is inspired by their brutal, vengeful, and hateful God.

Yeah, yeah, we got it the first thousand times or so. "Tribe Atheist Good! Tribe Theist Bad!" Awfully emotional statement for somebody who claims to be driven mainly by logic in this endeavor, though.

As for me, I'll stick with my own morality that supports upholding civil rights and human dignity.

Yet, you won't even list your own criteria for what makes somebody a witch hunter. Or answer the question, if it was an atheist being to support a Christian event would you still view it as upholding civil rights? Of course, you won't answer the latter because everybody knows you would be the first to scream "Theocracy!" if, say, Prometheus Books was forced via court mandate to complete an order for the Christian Broadcasting Network it had originally refused. And you won't answer the former because, hey, you don't have a criteria for what makes someone a witch hunter beyond "somebody I follow unquestioningly told me this guy is one." Like I said earlier, your support for civil rights only goes as far as you can use it as a club against groups you dislike.

planks length said...

"As for me, I'll stick with my own morality that supports upholding civil rights and human dignity."

That's commendable, comrade. Just remember that as you chant "War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, and Ignorance is Strength!"

Oh, and 2+2=5.

oozzielionel said...

IM:
If I may jump back to 5:04 yesterday, you said that the justice affirmed their religious freedom. Please note that he differentiates between their personal lives, "[They] are free to think, to say, to believe, as they wish; they may pray to the God of their choice and follow those commandments in their personal lives wherever they lead" and their "civil lives". So this court puts a boundary around the allowed expression of religious freedom. It is OK to observe religious views in your head, in your house, and maybe even your place of worship; but religious expression is limited in public life.

The big question is whether we are all OK with that?

im-skeptical said...

oozielionel,

"The big question is whether we are all OK with that?"

There is a certain amount of conflict between various rights, freedoms, and responsibilities. The real question is what choice we should make among those things when they don't all agree. We all want to be free. But freedom has its limitations if we are to acknowledge that our freedom might impinge on others' rights.

If my religion tells me that vaccinations are bad, I may be free to avoid taking them. But what if by doing so, I become a carrier of disease and so expose others around me to danger? There is a clear choice here: enjoy my freedom of religion and place others at risk, or subjugate my religious belief to the safety and well-being of others. For me, the answer is simple. I'm not that selfish (or that foolish), and I respect the rights of others.

If my religion tells me that a certain group of people is immoral, there is a similar choice. Should I afford them the same level of human dignity that I do with people who share my morality? Well, if I'm going about my life, minding my own business, maybe I don't owe them anything. But if I put myself out to the public and advertise my services, I have an obligation to serve the public, and treat everyone with the same respect. This is not an obligation that the state has imposed on me. It is something that I have incurred myself, by my own actions. If I would rather take the path of selfishness, and not hold my nose and make the (very minor) sacrifice of my religious beliefs for the sake of civility, I still have the choice to refrain from offering my services to the general public.

But you see, the real problem here is not that I need to subjugate my freedom for the sake of others' rights. The real problem is that my religion drives me to these conflicts. My religion makes me believe in superstition, and makes me hate others. Without that superstition and that hatred, there's no conflict at all. In respecting the rights of others, I'm not sacrificing anything. I actually believe it's good and moral to respect other people. That's the difference between us.

Karl Grant said...

Skeppy,

The real problem is that my religion drives me to these conflicts. My religion makes me believe in superstition, and makes me hate others. Without that superstition and that hatred, there's no conflict at all.

Yeah right. Let's take your two examples; flu shots and homosexuality. Bill Maher, who is in no way religious, is opposed to flu shots. Homosexuality was suppressed big time in the Soviet Union, a government that espoused state atheism (and by the way, your assertion that the Soviet Union, with an official policy of state atheism and history of oppressing and demonizing the Orthodox Church, did this to appease said Church is laughable). In both your examples, lack of or opposition to religion, did not prevent them from happening.

I actually believe it's good and moral to respect other people. That's the difference between us.

Except, of course, when the person is religious. The next time any one of us sees you saying something polite and respectful to or about a religious person will be the first.

BenYachov said...

The State has no right to make you take a Vaccene religion or otherwise, against your will, but you can be isolated by the authorities if you have a fatally infectious and contagious desease.

How does this give the State the right to force a gay photographer to photograph, against his/her will, a wedding at the Westborro Baptist Church or a Christian Photographer a same sex wedding?

Fascists have no consistent understanding of the public good or individual rights of conscience.

oozzielionel said...

No hate or superstition here. You may have me confused with someone else. I was the one have a cordial conversation without insults.

im-skeptical said...

oozzielionel,

Yes, you have been cordial, and I appreciate that. But you did say something to the effect that you believe your rights were being trampled because the civil right of gay people take precedence. Why would you feel that way? You wouldn't refuse service to someone you respect, or someone you love. That is the consequence of hatred. I've heard many Christians say "love the sinner - hate the sin". But their actions speak louder than their words.

planks length said...

"You wouldn't refuse service to someone you respect, or someone you love. That is the consequence of hatred."

Im-backwards, as usual you have it completely turned around. This is not a case of anyone "refusing service". It is a case of people one group of forcing another to publicly violate their deeply held beliefs. It is the precise equivalent of me compelling you (under threat of legal punishment) to sign your name to a document declaring atheism to be evil, regardless of what you yourself might think. Can you not see that?

The only hatred being expressed here by anyone is by the people labeling others "bigots" and "homophobes", declaring their beliefs "unacceptable", and destroying their liveihood. Now that's hatred!

But I do not expect you to understand that. You are a prisoner of your own double standards - so much so that you don't even recognize them.

planks length said...

"It is a case of people one group of forcing another"

Whoa! That should have read "It is a case of one group of people forcing another"

Too many copy/pastes in my editing!

BenYachov said...

Skepo the passive-aggressive Fascist still doesn't understand the difference between providing a generic service vs buy a personalized service that crafts a message.

I can eat at any Kosher Deli I want even thought I am not Jewish but I can't force them to Catter in a pig barn.

Why is this hard for Fascist boy to comprehend?

im-skeptical said...

"Why is this hard for Fascist boy to comprehend?"

Why is it so hard for you to understand human dignity? Perhaps even the words of Jesus?

oozzielionel said...

I go to church. I love and respect quite a few sinners. However, when I am at my best, I do not participate in their sin.

planks length said...

"Perhaps even the words of Jesus?"

Don't do there, im-clueless. Christ drove the money changers out of the temple and condemned in scathing terms the hypocrisy of the rulers of His age. But by your standards, you would have forced Jesus, as a carpenter, to build tables for the money changers' use, while compelling Him to praise the hypocrites, regardless of how He felt toward them.

BenYachov said...

>Why is it so hard for you to understand human dignity?

What about the dignity of the gay photographer forced by your fascist ideology to photograph a wedding as the Westborro Baptist Church?

That is where it leads.

Papalinton said...

Skep says: "If my religion tells me that vaccinations are bad, I may be free to avoid taking them. But what if by doing so, I become a carrier of disease and so expose others around me to danger? There is a clear choice here: enjoy my freedom of religion and place others at risk, or subjugate my religious belief to the safety and well-being of others. "

Yachov responds: "The State has no right to make you take a Vaccene [sic] religion or otherwise, against your will, but you can be isolated by the authorities if you have a fatally infectious and contagious desease. [sic]
How does this give the State the right to force a gay photographer to photograph, against his/her will, a wedding at the Westborro Baptist Church or a Christian Photographer a same sex wedding?"


In a test for logic, reason and sensibility, there is no contest. Skep wins in a landslide. Yachov, Plank and Grant, all driven by their rabid supernatural superstitious beliefs, are in essence just activists for the preservation of infectious diseases. And equally, not content with living in a pluralistic society they want to invoke or insinuate their brand of religious nonsense into every aspect of life, crucifixes in schools, monuments to the Decalogue in the foyers of public buildings, christian prayers at council and legislature meetings, on an on and on. They are also activists for the preservation of religious hegemony with an imagined presumptive right to exercise bigotry whenever and wherever they so deem, piously masking it as 'freedom of speech' and freedom to exercise under the constitution. Obviously Mark 12:17, the separation of church and state, means nothing to them.

Quite sad really, to see common sensibility set aside for the sake of perpetuating ancient primitive beliefs in a 21stC community. Religious belief today is an anachronism.




BenYachov said...

"Dear Benson, you are so mercifully free of the ravages of intelligence."

Karl Grant said...

Paps,

In a test for logic, reason and sensibility, there is no contest. Skep wins in a landslide.

Please, everybody here knows you would never concede victory to a religious believer in a debate no matter how bad the atheist got his ass handed to him. Skeppy could be mouthing incoherent gibberish and you would still say he was a paragon of reasoned discourse.

Quite sad really, to see common sensibility set aside for the sake of perpetuating ancient primitive beliefs in a 21stC community. Religious belief today is an anachronism.

Considering atheism predates Christianity by at least a few centuries, preaching atheism was one of the charges leveled against Socrates after all, and Christianity is supposed to be ancient and primitive; what does that make your belief system? Paleolithic?

planks length said...

I have just discovered the Shameless Popery website, and believe I will move most of my commentary over there. The topics are more along my personal area of interest, and the level of discourse far higher than here.

Will still check in on DI now and then, but will leave the field for the most part unopposed to im-anything-but-skeptical.

im-skeptical said...

"The topics are more along my personal area of interest, and the level of discourse far higher than here. "

I'm sure the level of discourse here will rise a bit, too.

BenYachov said...

I just saw the words "G.E.M. Anscombe" and already I knew you found a good place PL.

Cheers.

im-skeptical said...

An echo chamber. No dissenting opinions. The perfect place for someone who only wants to hear what he already believes.

Papalinton said...

Skep: "They get their twisted "morality" from an ancient book of superstition, myths, and barbaric laws. A book full of tales of lust, murder, and all manner of savagery. A book they claim is inspired by their brutal, vengeful, and hateful God."

Grant responds: "Yeah, yeah, we got it the first thousand times or so. "Tribe Atheist Good! Tribe Theist Bad!" Awfully emotional statement for somebody who claims to be driven mainly by logic in this endeavor, though."

The inculcation of their religious beliefs have equally inured them against the forces of reason, rationality, of good sense. They are habituated to rail indiscriminately against any and all challenges to the dictats of their religion. Attacks against gay, gay marriage, are symptomatic of the earlier witch hunts inspired by Scripture:

"A witch-hunt is a search for witches or evidence of witchcraft, often involving moral panic,[1] or mass hysteria.[2] Before 1750 it was legally sanctioned and involving official witchcraft trials. The classical period of witchhunts in Europe and North America falls into the Early Modern period or about 1480 to 1750, spanning the upheavals of the Reformation and the Thirty Years' War, resulting in an estimated 40,000 to 60,000 executions.[3]" [Wiki] And everyone knows what is meant by the Reformation and the Thirty Years War when the cause for these atrocities is .

Moral panic and mass hysteria are the drivers, in word and deed, of the manifestly malicious Christian treatment of homosexuality in our society today.

The residual effect of Christian 'witch hunting' is as nasty today as they have ever been throughout history. Fortunately, as society grows and matures the religious imperative is righty waning with fewer and fewer people promulgating the christian myth of the 'moral abomination' of homosexuality. And that is a good thing.

But the community still has some growing up to do as can be deduced by christian commentary on this site.

Papalinton said...

... the Reformation and the Thirty Years War when the cause for these atrocities is researched.

BenYachov said...

>An echo chamber. No dissenting opinions. The perfect place for someone who only wants to hear what he already believes.

You are thinking of Stephen Law's blog or
Jerry Coyne's.

im-skeptical said...

"You are thinking of Stephen Law's blog or Jerry Coyne's."

You may be right, but I don't hang out there.

Papalinton said...

Grant
"Please, everybody here knows you [PapaL] would never concede victory to a religious believer ...."

All I am doing is asking for the same evidence that Doubting Thomas asked for. I too, want to stick my bacterial fingers into the stomach wound. It's not an unreasonable request, because you claim Jesus is with us today, so all I'm asking is for him to appear to me physically, as he did to Thomas, and let me stick my fingers into his rib-hole.

Not a big ask really. Just proof.

Victor Reppert said...

And if you put your finger there, would you believe?

Karl Grant said...

Paps,


Let's see, you want the Lord of all the Friggin Universe to take time out of his busy schedule managing all of Creation just to come down and appear before you personally? Oh nothing major there. But hey if you wanna play this game I personally doubt Skeppy is an engineer; much less a college graduate period. How about you get him to post his college transcript and means of verifying his identity (you know birth certificate, results of DNA tests, etc...)? Not a big ask really, just proof he is what he says he is.

Karl Grant said...

Oh, and by the way Paps, I don't know if it occurred in that Neanderthal brain of yours but the Early Modern period or about 1480 to 1750 is the time-frame of the Renaissance and the century or so after. So much for the Enlightened Secular Age you and Skeppy tried to make it out to be. After all, if we were burning people left and right for ideas we didn't like and Christians are dominating the continent militarily, politically and economically than obviously any scientific and technological advances in this time frame occurred with our approval and support. Now you wanna cut off your nose to spite your face again?

im-skeptical said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
im-skeptical said...

Karl,

Do you ever research anything before you shoot off your mouth?

Neanderthal brain size: 1.6 liter.
Modern human brain size: 1.4 liter.
Your brain: pea-size.

renaissance: 14th to 17th century (definitely NOT 1750)
age of enlightenment: 17th and 18th century.

Now, I seriously doubt you are in any position to judge the intelligence or education level of anyone, but if you want challenge me on engineering, physics, or any related topic (including thermodynamics, you asshole), and let's toss in computer science for good measure, since that seems to be your "field of study" - I'll take you on any time. So go ahead. Put your money with your mouth is.

Karl Grant said...

Skeppy,

Reading comprehension still as piss-poor as ever. First off, 14th century is 1300s; 17th century is 1600s. So unless you say only the first 100 years or so of the Renaissance count, the overwhelming majority of it took place in the time frame listed. Also, I knew it didn't end in 1750 which is my statement said the time-frame of the Renaissance and the century or so after. What's the matter? English not your first language or did you flunk First Grade reading comprehension a few times? Or maybe you are just in such a hurry to get off a rebuttal you don't actually look at what your opponent said and make yourself look like an even bigger damn fool?

Second off, Neanderthal is just an expression meaning primitive or slow. If I said he had a lion's heart would you be right now saying such a organ transplant is not feasible? Probably, knowing your dumb ass.

Third off, bigger brain does not equal more intelligent. This Live Science article says it best:

One thing scientists do agree on: A big brain alone doesn’t equate with smarts. If it did, elephants and sperm whales would win all the spelling bees. Rather, scientists look at brain mass relative to body mass in order to make any speculation about a creature's cognitive abilities.

So while an elephant noggin, at 10.5 pounds (4,780 grams), could squash a human think box in a purely physical battle of brains, you and I take the cake in a war of wits. Our brains, which weigh an average of 2.7 pounds (1,200 grams), account for about 2 percent of body weight, compared with an elephant's under one-tenth of a percent.


Do you actually think that .2 liter makes that much of a difference? It also depends on what part of the brain is bigger. Just because one computer has a larger hard-drive does not automatically mean it has a more powerful processor. Do you ever research anything before you shoot off your mouth?

Fourth off, you say I'll take you on any time. So go ahead. Put your money with your mouth is. Sorry Skeppy, but saying you're a dolt (seriously, what are you? A broken record?) or buzz off in response to tough questions is not taking somebody on. But you want to prove this is actually the case, how about you answer the question you have been dodging throughout the entire thread: if it was an atheist being forced to support a Christian event would you still view it as upholding civil rights? I have asked you this question several times in this thread, Ben asked you a variation of it, Planks Length asked you variation of it; in every case you ignored it or dodged it. So let's see you put your money where your mouth is. Answer it: Yes or No.

im-skeptical said...

Karl,

I don't care what you asked me. I ignore most of what you say because it is usually so stupid. But if you ever decide to say something intelligent, let me know, and I'll check it out.

Karl Grant said...

Skeppy,

I don't care what you asked me. I ignore most of what you say because it is usually so stupid. But if you ever decide to say something intelligent, let me know, and I'll check it out.

In other words, I will take you on any time, unless you ask me tough or pointed questions. Or demand that I actually provide evidence for my unsupported assertion. Or demand that I actually read what my opponent says Or....So no, not really. I will not take you on anytime. I do not have the education level, raw brain power or the basic common sense to pose an intellectual challenge to you and I have jut proven that my mouth writes checks I can't cash; but maybe if I insult you nobody will notice me running with my tail tucked between my legs.

About what I figured; now crawl into bed with your Dawkins dolly and Sam Harris pajamas; Papa Linton will be along any minute to tell you that you are a good little atheist (yes, you are!)and read you a wonderful skeptic bed time story that has but the faintest connection to reality.

Papalinton said...

"And if you put your finger there, would you believe?"

Did Thomas?

Papalinton said...

Grant
"Let's see, you want the Lord of all the Friggin Universe to take time out of his busy schedule managing all of Creation just to come down and appear before you personally? "

Yep. It's the least he can do.

Karl Grant said...

Paps,

Well somebody has an inflated view of their own importance in the grand scheme of things. Besides Paps, it ain't like you actually answered the charge I leveled at you: that you would never concede victory to a Christian on these debate forums. We debate a whole lot of things besides God's existence and Jesus's Resurrection. Let's talk about this thread specifically; what would it take to convenience you to concede Skeppy doesn't know his ass from his elbow on the subjects being debated in this thread (witch hunts, civil rights)? I mean you throw him under the bus half-time to make your own dumb ass look smart so it shouldn't be too hard for you to come up with something.

Papalinton said...

I wouldn't get too apoplectic Karl over the various periods of civilization. Suffice it for you to know that the Renaissance [the wakening, the dawning, the renewal] was humanity's response to the millennia long period of divine drudgery. The Renaissance was followed broadly by the Age of Reason and then the Age of Enlightenment, each an important and contributing step of departure from the predominant religious paradigm to a significantly wider field of knowledge, experience and understanding. Progress from the Late Middle Ages through to Modern times has been a painful period for humanity as it seeks to cleave itself from the restraints of religious thinking to a greater and deeper knowledge and understanding of the human condition. Today, communities are rightly demanding much more than simply intoning the ubiquitous 'goddidit' mantra in the search for answers.

Religion is old technology and a deeply flawed parochial explanatory tool. It's apotheosis is long gone.

im-skeptical said...

pea brain,

You're a dolt.

You said: "So much for the Enlightened Secular Age you and Skeppy tried to make it out to be."

First, I pointed out that the age of enlightenment is not the same as the period of the Christian witch hunts (although there is overlap). Second, the fact that your Christian brethren were conducting their barbaric practices does not in any way negate the fact that there was an age of enlightenment, with people using reason and moving away from the barbarity of the church. What you said is just plain stupid.

You said: "Skeppy doesn't know his ass from his elbow on the subjects being debated in this thread (witch hunts, civil rights)?"

I showed you what a modern-day witch hunt is. It's not my fault you're too stupid to understand what's going on, or how it is consistent with Victor's OP. Nor is it my fault that you don't agree with the legal definition of public accommodation, and how that applies to civil rights.

You said: "I mean you throw him under the bus half-time to make your own dumb ass look smart"

Which just goes to show that you can't follow a conversation and comprehend what is being said. In fact, I don't have any reason to believe that you ever understand what you read. You're always citing articles that don't say what you think, just like you're always misinterpreting what people say.

I'm still waiting to hear you say something intelligent.

Karl Grant said...

Paps,

Still not answering the charge Paps, that you will never concede victory to a Christian on these forums. Hell, you didn't even answer the question specific to this discussion: What would it take to convenience you to concede Skeppy doesn't know his ass from his elbow on the subjects being debated in this thread (witch hunts, civil rights)? Of course, we know why don't we? =)

Oh by the way, the Renaissance is widely considered to be a myth by historians now-a-days; something even the BBC acknowledges. Hell, I'll let this article sum it up 5 B.S. Renaissance Myths You Learned in History Class: Let's see:

The drunken liberal arts college that was Renaissance-era Europe didn't have much room for fields like scientific inquiry -- there was literally no curriculum for what was then called "natural philosophy." In fact, science historians "consider the Renaissance an actual step backward from the more scientifically curious Middle Ages." That's presumably because everyone was too busy fondling their magic wands to worry about actual science.

Pretty much every Western occult tradition can trace its origins to the Renaissance, because the literati of the period got way into witchcraft. Think today's Ghost Hunters are annoying? During the Renaissance, they would've been university professors instead of deep-cable buffoons. An entire generation of scholars learned, practiced, and taught astrology, necromancy, goety (invoking spirits), and alchemy.

Ah, but you can't make a witchcraft-omelet without burning a few eggs: There had been few if any sorcerer slayings in the thousand years prior, but the renaissance brought three waves of intensifying witch hunts that killed thousands across Europe. Suddenly, women who were once praised by their communities as healers found themselves on the receiving end of a purely objective and rational drowning. Historians place the number of prosecuted witches during humanity's "enlightened era" somewhere between 50,000 and 200,000. Yep, they were "enlightening" something, all right.

You can't really blame the witch hunters, though. After all, they were only following the manual. A witch-hunting guide called the Malleus Maleficarum -- The Witch Hammer -- was at least partially responsible for this uptake in superstitious genocide. See, the printing press was the Internet of the Renaissance, and the presses didn't just print Bibles and educational texts. They printed whatever you put into them. Material was at the whim of public demand. And what sounds like a more entertaining read to you: Nicomachean Ethics or the fucking Witch Hammer?! You can practically hear a guitar solo just reading the title.


And he provides plenty of scholarly links in the article to back that up.

Karl Grant said...

Skeppy,

You're a dolt.

And you are a broken record.

First, I pointed out that the age of enlightenment is not the same as the period of the Christian witch hunts (although there is overlap).

Bullshit, the difference between the two can be measured in decades and the period they overlap is more than a couple of centuries.

Second, the fact that your Christian brethren were conducting their barbaric practices does not in any way negate the fact that there was an age of enlightenment, with people using reason and moving away from the barbarity of the church. What you said is just plain stupid.

Ah but here is the problem Skeppy, they were conducting these barbaric practices against anybody who was seen as undermining Christianity. I mean if we are going to be torching people we don't like left and right than what was to stop us from torching people for moving away from the Church period? Nothing. Or do you somehow think the Inquisitors went Oh look, this heretic is deviating from the Church! Seize Him! .... Ahh, he is employing Reason! Our swords and guns are useless!? No Skeppy, the Age of Reason only occurred because Christian authorities gave it tacit approval; at the very least.

I showed you what a modern-day witch hunt is. It's not my fault you're too stupid to understand what's going on, or how it is consistent with Victor's OP.

No, you just name-dropped a Republican congressman. When I asked you to list the criteria you used to label him a witch hunter, and that is a very common accusation tossed about in politics, you balked.

Nor is it my fault that you don't agree with the legal definition of public accommodation, and how that applies to civil rights.

Yet, for some reason (don't know what it might be), you have refused to answer a question about that public accommodation concerning atheist groups.

Which just goes to show that you can't follow a conversation and comprehend what is being said. In fact, I don't have any reason to believe that you ever understand what you read. You're always citing articles that don't say what you think, just like you're always misinterpreting what people say.

Still copying other people's insults and accusations?

I'm still waiting to hear you say something intelligent.

No, you are waiting for me to just simply agree with you no matter what bullshit spews out of your mouth. Let's be honest here.

Papalinton said...

As Skep notes so assiduously, Karl, you are truly an uncomprehending dolt.

It wasn't the Renaissance that rang in the upsurge in witch hunts. Witch hunts are a peculiarly religious phenomenon. Indeed:

"The Malleus Maleficarum[2] (commonly rendered into English as "Hammer of [the] Witches";[3] Der Hexenhammer in German) is a treatise on the prosecution of witches, written in 1486 by Heinrich Kramer, a German Catholic clergyman."

The fingerprints of the dead hand of Christianity is all over the Malleus Maleficarum.

Karl Grant said...

Senile Paps,

It wasn't the Renaissance that rang in the upsurge in witch hunts. Witch hunts are a peculiarly religious phenomenon. Indeed:

"The Malleus Maleficarum[2] (commonly rendered into English as "Hammer of [the] Witches";[3] Der Hexenhammer in German) is a treatise on the prosecution of witches, written in 1486 by Heinrich Kramer, a German Catholic clergyman."

The fingerprints of the dead hand of Christianity is all over the Malleus Maleficarum.


Minor problem there Paps, from the Wikipeida article you quoted earlier on witch hunts but for some reason you didn't actually link to:

n 1487, Kramer and Sprenger published the notorious Malleus Maleficarum (the 'Hammer against the Witches') which, because of the newly invented printing presses, enjoyed a wide readership. The book was soon banned by the Church in 1490, and Kramer and Sprenger censured, but it was nevertheless reprinted in 14 editions by 1520 and became unduly influential in the secular courts. In 1538 the Spanish Inquisition cautioned its members not to believe what the Malleus said, even when it presented apparently firm evidence.

Well, I think we know why you didn't actually provide the link to that article. In fact, it has quite a few other interesting statements in it:

The general desire of the Catholic Church's clergy to check fanaticism about witchcraft and necromancy is shown in the decrees of the Council of Paderborn which in 785 explicitly outlawed condemning people as witches, and condemned to death anyone who burnt a witch. Emperor Charlemagne later confirmed the law. The Council of Frankfurt in 794, called by Charlemagne, was also very explicit in condemning "the persecution of alleged witches and wizards", calling the belief in witchcraft "superstitious", and ordering the death penalty for those who presumed to burn witches.

Pope Gregory VII in 1080 wrote to King Harold of Denmark forbidding witches to be put to death upon presumption of their having caused storms or failure of crops or pestilence. Neither were these the only examples of an effort to prevent unjust suspicion to which such poor creatures might be exposed.

The manuals of the Roman Catholic Inquisition remained highly sceptical of the witch craze and of witch accusations, although there was sometimes an overlap between accusations of heresy and of witchcraft, particularly when, in the 13th century, the newly formed Inquisition was commissioned to deal with the Cathars of Southern France, whose teachings were charged with containing an admixture of witchcraft and magic.

Most inquisitors simply disbelieved in witchcraft and sorcery as superstitious folly.[citation needed] In the case of the Madonna Oriente, the Inquisition of Milan was not sure what to do with two women who in 1384 and in 1390 confessed to have participated in a type of white magic. The women were released with advice to avoid superstitions. A Catholic figure who preached against witchcraft was popular Franciscan preacher, Bernardino of Siena (1380–1444).


Shit, no wonder you didn't give the link to that article. Well, it ain't like we didn't know you had a tendency to quote mine. So yes, a German Catholic Clergyman wrote that book and the Catholic Church censured him for doing so and banned said book. But the secular courts? Oh man did they lap it up. And oh look, on the See Also section an article on Renaissance magic. Look what the very first sentence is:

Renaissance humanism (15th and 16th century) saw a resurgence in hermeticism and Neo-Platonic varieties of ceremonial magic.

Of course, there is always the possibility you weren't trying to be intellectually dishonest when you didn't actually put the link in your post. It might have just slipped your mind.

But I doubt it.

im-skeptical said...

St Augustine introduced a doctrinal concept that only God could be a source of magical powers, and so created a conflict within the church between theistic purism and the commonly held beliefs (also created by the church) that heretics and evil forces needed to be vanquished. These opposing views existed within the church for centuries.

While you can no doubt find many apologetical articles that seek to exonerate the church from its sins, if you want to be intellectually honest, it might be worthwhile looking at a more realistic account.

http://www.thenazareneway.com/dark_side_of_christian_history.htm

Karl Grant said...

Skeppy,

St Augustine introduced a doctrinal concept that only God could be a source of magical powers,

And where exactly did St. Augustine say this? How about you give us the exact quotation from St. Augustine's works and a citation so we know where to find it?

While you can no doubt find many apologetical articles that seek to exonerate the church from its sins

Apologetic articles? In the post you are responding to I was quoting the exactly the fucking same article Paps was and apologetic article it is not. In fact, my links in this discussion have been overwhelmingly to secular sources. But I suppose that maybe the BBC is a Christian front and Wikipedia is nothing more than apologetics in disguise.

But then again, I am talking to the guy who called an article on the tax rates on millionaires from CNN a Republican propaganda piece from Fox News so I can't say I am fucking surprised right now.

if you want to be intellectually honest, it might be worthwhile looking at a more realistic account.

I quoted the exact same source Paps pulled this: A witch-hunt is a search for witches or evidence of witchcraft, often involving moral panic,[1] or mass hysteria.[2] Before 1750 it was legally sanctioned and involving official witchcraft trials. The classical period of witchhunts in Europe and North America falls into the Early Modern period or about 1480 to 1750, spanning the upheavals of the Reformation and the Thirty Years' War, resulting in an estimated 40,000 to 60,000 executions.[3]

The Same. Damn. Exact. Article.

If it isn't intellectually honest quoting this source than Paps isn't intellectually honest. And if it isn't a realistic account, well Paps earlier statements that derived from this article aren't realistic either.

Didn't think about that, did you dumbass? Or does the article somehow magically become intellectually honest and realistic when Pap's quotes it?

im-skeptical said...

Karl,

Exactly what are you babbling about?

So you quoted from the same article that Linton did - "The Same. Damn. Exact. Article." - does that refute the truth of fact that he pointed out? Does that make him dishonest? All it does is indicate that there are two sides to the story of the church's involvement in witch hunting. It is your own intellectual dishonesty that allows you to see or acknowledge one side.

I tried to point out that there were different factions within the church, citing Augustine as NOT believing in witches, but being a dolt, you don't comprehend the meaning or implication of what I said. So you rail against it. You sound just like the tea-baggers who rail against everything the president says, no matter what it is, just because he's one of "them".

So you go on and on about that Wikipedia article, evidently under the delusion that I was referring to it, but I wasn't. Did I say anything at all about that article? This just goes to show that you truly are an uncomprehending dolt who can't manage to follow and understand a conversation in a combox. You only see a very narrow view of the world, driven by your own delusion and stupidity.


Karl Grant said...

Skeppy,

So you quoted from the same article that Linton did - "The Same. Damn. Exact. Article." - does that refute the truth of fact that he pointed out? Does that make him dishonest?

Well let's see, I am using the same reference material and you are calling me dishonest. But then again, you haven't exactly provided anything to refute what I have said.

It is your own intellectual dishonesty that allows you to see or acknowledge one side.

On the contrary, I acknowledge different sides when valid. You don't. For example, I have said no less than three damn times in this thread that I have no problem with gay marriage, hell April 09, 2014 6:10 AM I told you I had the same opinion of marriage as you, yet that didn't stop you from labeling me a bigot now did it? I just don't approve of forcing people to attend one against their will. That distinction flew right over your dumbass head.

I tried to point out that there were different factions within the church, citing Augustine as NOT believing in witches,

And all I did was ask you to provide a direct quote and citation, but for some reason that pissed you off. In fact, you seem to get pissed a lot of times when people, not just me or Crude, ask you for a reference source.

You sound just like the tea-baggers who rail against everything the president says, no matter what it is, just because he's one of "them".

Projection is a fun thing to watch isn't it? Again, my post on April 09, 2014 6:10 AM. puts paid to that statement. Frankly, I am surprised that you failed to notice me say I agreed with you given how fucking desperate you are for us to agree with you on anything.

So you go on and on about that Wikipedia article, evidently under the delusion that I was referring to it, but I wasn't. Did I say anything at all about that article?

Oh please, you said While you can no doubt find many apologetical articles that seek to exonerate the church from its sins. And I mocked that statement by pointing out I typically don't reference apologetic articles and haven't done so once in this discussion. In fact, name one time in a discussion with your dumb, lying ass that I have ever linked to an apologetics post.

Oh, and before I forget, your link is to an excerpt from Hele Ellerbe's The Dark Side of Christian History. I have a copy of that book and she has some rather interesting things to say about Charles Darwin in it. On Pg. 3, first paragraph, third sentence:

The theories of scientists and philosophers such as Issac Newton, Rene Descartes and Charles Darwin reinforced Orthodox Christian beliefs such as the inevitability of struggle and the necessity for domination.

In fact she later devotes an entire chapter to this idea, Chapter 10. She claims on page 178 Darwin's theory has been called into question by the Gaia Theory (ookaay)and come pgs. 181-183 she links Darwinism and Nazism. She also claims science is "unconfirmable" (pg. 178)...

That's a more intellectually honest and realistic account?

.......

Suuuure, let's go with that.

Papalinton said...

Karl
Don't bust your boiler. Witch craft is a function of the supernatural domain, no different than christian belief is about claiming the supernatural as fact.

Regardless of the Catholic church's position witch hunts were particularly a religious enterprise:

"The Malleus Maleficarum was able to spread throughout Europe rapidly in the late 15th and the beginning of the 16th century due to the innovation of the printing press in the middle of the 15th century by Johannes Gutenberg. The invention of printing some thirty years before the first publication of the Malleus Maleficarum instigated the fervor of witch hunting, and, in the words of Russell, "the swift propagation of the witch hysteria by the press was the first evidence that Gutenberg had not liberated man from original sin." [A thoroughly Christian concept] The Malleus is also heavily influenced by the subjects of divination, astrology, and healing rituals the Church inherited from antiquity.[37]
The late 15th century was also a period of religious turmoil. The Malleus Maleficarum and the witch craze that ensued took advantage of the increasing intolerance of the Reformation [Protestant] and Counter-Reformation [Catholic] in Europe, where the Protestant and Catholic camps, pitted against one another, each zealously strove to maintain what they each deemed to be the purity of faith.
Wiki

You ask: "But the secular courts? "
"The Renaissance conception of life and man's role on earth was more secular than in the past, but in no way was it nonreligious. Wiki

What is also interesting AT THIS SITE is the Table of witch craft trials and executions by regions. Within the Holy Roman Empire 50,000 witch craft trials resulting in 30,000 executions. Compared to the British Isles, Eastern Europe, France Scandinavia etc. the quota under the watch of the Holy Roman Empire runs out at 15-times greater than its nearest competitive region.

No, Karl, witch hunts are inspired by and a product of superstitious supernaturalism, not secularism. However your asinine apologetics attempts a revisionist Christian history, your contorted blame-shifting narrative simply does not go through the wash removing the stench anymore.

Karl Grant said...

Paps,

The Renaissance conception of life and man's role on earth was more secular than in the past, but in no way was it nonreligious

Congratulations, by posting that you just undermined any attempt by atheists to claim the scientific and philosophical thought of the time period. Can't simultaneously claim the era was a beacon of reason divorced from religion and than turn around and say "well all the academics and 'secular' courts in the Renaissance were really religious" when trying to pin the blame for the witch hunts entirely on religion.

Within the Holy Roman Empire 50,000 witch craft trials resulting in 30,000 executions.

There is an old joke about the Holy Roman Empire in academic circles: that it wasn't Holy (it fought with the Pope on a regular basis), it wasn't Roman (it was German) and it wasn't an Empire (it was more of a confederation). Of course, it also had a larger population; for example, Britain in 1700 barely had 6 million people total; Scandinavia about 3 million total. The HRE had a population of close to 30 million. So what you are saying right here has about as much significance as saying Australia has less total crimes than China; no shit. That's why these things are measured in ratio to population. Of course, if you were smart, or you know honest, you would realize that. Because I can compare the total crimes of Australia (population of 23 million) and Luxembourg (population less than 600 thousand) and make it seem like you live in gangster land.

Papalinton said...

Grant: "There is an old joke about the Holy Roman Empire in academic circles: that it wasn't Holy (it fought with the Pope on a regular basis), it wasn't Roman (it was German) and it wasn't an Empire (it was more of a confederation)."

Christian revisionist history writ large. Apologetical airbrushing in the attempt to expunge Christian hegemony from the historical record in action.

The Holy Roman Empire:

"The first expansion of papal rule outside of Rome came in 728 with the Donation of Sutri, which in turn was substantially increased in 754, when the Frankish ruler Pippin the Younger gave to the pope the land from his conquest of the Lombards. The pope may have utilized the forged Donation of Constantine to gain this land, which formed the core of the Papal States. This document, accepted as genuine until the 15th century, states that Constantine the Great placed the entire Western Empire of Rome under papal rule. In 800, Pope Leo III crowned the Frankish ruler Charlemagne as Roman Emperor, a major step toward establishing what later became known as the Holy Roman Empire; from that date onward the popes claimed the prerogative to crown the Emperor, ....."
You can read the rest of the context under THE PAPACY

I say, a wholly Catholic enterprise through and through with the harlot, religion, in bed with the authoritarian tyrant.

You can make up your own religious experiences and opinions but you can't make up facts to suit your own little narrative.

Victor Reppert said...

Uh Paps, the guy who said the Holy Roman Empire was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire, was Voltaire, one of the great apologetical revisionists of all time.

Karl Grant said...

Paps,

Christian revisionist history writ large. Apologetical airbrushing in the attempt to expunge Christian hegemony from the historical record in action.

Wrong. In a famous assessment of the name, the French Enlightenment writer Voltaire remarked sardonically: "This agglomeration which was called and which still calls itself the Holy Roman Empire was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire." Voltaire is typically claimed by the atheists and free thinkers, isn't he?

What's the matter Paps? Didn't bother to look where that quote came from?

Karl Grant said...

Sorry Dr. Reppert, didn't realize you beat me to it.

im-skeptical said...

Karl: "I have a copy of that book ..."

I happen to have one also.

K: "... she has some rather interesting things to say about Charles Darwin in it. On Pg. 3, first paragraph, third sentence: ...

> The theories of scientists and philosophers such as Issac Newton, Rene Descartes and Charles Darwin reinforced Orthodox Christian beliefs such as the inevitability of struggle and the necessity for domination."

You left out the following sentence: "Such beliefs, however, are now proving not only to have serious drawbacks, but also to be scientifically limited."

She's not refuting the science. She's refuting Christian beliefs and misunderstandings about the science.

K: "In fact she later devotes an entire chapter to this idea, Chapter 10. She claims on page 178 Darwin's theory has been called into question by the Gaia Theory"

She does nothing of the sort. She says, "The orthodox insistence upon the inherent value of struggle, which found renewed justification in Darwin's ideas, might also warrant revaluation." In fact, Darwinian evolution has always included the concept of cooperative evolution, right from the beginning. The orthodoxy she's talking about is the common Christian conception of science.

K: "come pgs. 181-183 she links Darwinism and Nazism"

Again, she does nothing of the sort. The word "Nazi" appears exactly twice in the book. On page 83: "Ovens built to kill people, made infamous in twentieth century Nazi Germany, were first used by the Christian Inquisition in Eastern Europe." And in Chapter 10, on page 183-4: "From opposing the Magna Carta in the thirteenth century, to establishing a precedent for totalitarian states with the Inquisition, to refusing to protest the attempted Nazi extermination of Jews during World War II, the Catholic Church has championed authoritarianism and opposed democracy and freedom."

"She also claims science is "unconfirmable" (pg. 178)"

Again, she does nothing of the sort. The word "unconfirmable" does not exist in the book. A complete reading of the section of the book reveals no such statement, or anything like it. She is talking about the (negative) affect that orthodox Christian thought has had upon science, philosophy, medicine, business, and government.

So, Karl, you are too stupid to understand the book, or you are too dishonest to accurately state what it says.

Karl Grant said...

Skeppy,

You left out the following sentence: "Such beliefs, however, are now proving not only to have serious drawbacks, but also to be scientifically limited."

She's not refuting the science. She's refuting Christian beliefs and misunderstandings about the science.


Wrong, she is lumping Charles Darwin and Issac Newton in with those beliefs and she is condemning Darwin and Newton. Bottom of pg. 169:

Belief in the necessity of domination and struggle found new justification in Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution

Top of pg. 170:

While orthodox Christians maintained that domination and struggle were necessary to sustain a divine hierarchy Darwin believed that the same qualities were necessary to uphold a natural hierarchy.

Further down, same page:

Both orthodox Christians and modern thinkers deemed hierarchy essential, whither that hierarchy differentiated human beings according to their proximity to God or according to their ability to survive. Darwin's theories provided a new rationalization for subjugating people according to race or gender; they were now believed to be "naturally" weaker.

She goes on like this for several pages. Your reading comprehension is still piss poor.

She does nothing of the sort.

Bottom of pg. 176:

Both the division of mind and matter and the idea that the earth is devoid of consciousness are also called into question by the more recent Gaia theory. Put forward primarily by James Lovelock the Gaia Theory suggests Earth may be a self-regulating system. Such a theory explains the relativity consistency of the earth's climate, the surprisingly moderate amounts of salt in the oceans and the steady level of oxygen, all of which permit Earth to thrive. It may not be an accident or the result of random chance that the Earth has maintained an environment capable of supporting life. Rather, the Earth's activities may be the result of self-regulating behavior, which suggests the existence of conscious.

So yes, she does mention Gaia theory. Yes, she does say it undermines unguided evolution. Yes, she says it undermines materialism. Also pg. 178, immediately after your little quote The orthodox insistence upon the inherent value of struggle, which found renewed justification in Darwin's ideas, might also warrant revaluation. the next sentence starts with The Gaia theory.

And you call me a liar. What, you think people aren't going to notice those three words after your quote mine if they flip to that page? Cause they kind of jump out at you.

Again, she does nothing of the sort.

Gee, she spends the entire chapter linking Darwinism to Christian automatism and totalitarianism in general, and then she says that. What the fuck do you think that implies shithead?

Again, she does nothing of the sort. The word "unconfirmable" does not exist in the book. A complete reading of the section of the book reveals no such statement, or anything like it.

Pg. 175:

The belief that the universe now functions upon entirely rational and definable laws is now in question. While Newton thought that, given enough information, one can absolutely determine the outcome of an event, quantum mechanics has shown that at best one can only know the probability of any outcome. Gary Zukav describes what is best known as the Copenhagen Interpretation:
...scientists attempting to formulate a consistent physics were forced by their own findings to acknowledge that a complete understanding of reality lies beyond the capability of rational thought


So yes she does.

So, Karl, you are too stupid to understand the book, or you are too dishonest to accurately state what it says.

No Skeppy, that's you.

im-skeptical said...

Karl,

You have absolutely no idea what she's talking about. I'm not saying that I agree with all her ideas. I am saying that you absolutely do not understand them. They shoot right past your little pea brain. You're a dolt.

Papalinton said...

Victor, I think you understand exactly what Voltaire was driving at. And I think you are willfully perverting the intent of his statement. The farce that is Roman Catholicism [and Christianity more broadly] is precisely what he was alluding to. Indeed, and in the context of the Holy Roman Empire, it was not Holy, nor Roman and nor empire. I fully subscribe to Voltaire's perspective. Considering his understanding of all things Catholic his adroit conclusion is very much about the totality of Catholicism:

"Man is free at the moment he wishes to be."
"If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him."
"Christianity is without a doubt the most ridiculous, the most absurd, and the most bloody religion that has ever infected the world. "

Just as Voltaire notes the ludicrous nature of the 'Holy Roman Empire', so too does he note of Christianity there is no Kingdom of Heaven [empire], no King or Prince of righteousness [jesus-God], and with complete certitude, it is most definitely not Holy.
So if you agree with Voltaire that "the Holy Roman Empire was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire" then I take it you fully concur with Voltaire's abiding corollary about the nonsense of Catholic Christendom [indeed the totality of the Christian farce]. If you don't, then your are selectively choosing bits that only fit your narrow-focussed narrative. This process is called Apologetics. Mark Bilbo, host and operator of alt-atheism.org, perceptively picks up where Voltaire left off: "The very need for a thing called "Apologetics" is example of the weakness of the theistic argument. 'God' always needs apologies, rationalizations, explanations, equivocations, excuses."

And Victor, as for Karl, it serves you no good purpose to foment his excitable ardour and leaving him to wallow piteously in his own ignorance.

Karl Grant said...

Skeppy,

Stick your fingers in your ears and stick out your tongue? Yeah, that so impresses me and everybody else here dolt-boy.

Paps,

None of what you said changes the fact that you couldn't fucking recognize who the quote came from to begin with and labeled it Christian apologetics. And no Paps, Voltaire was referring to the fact that the practice of the Pope crowning the leader had ended in 1530; Charles V was the last Holy Roman Emperor to be crowned by a Pope, by Clement VII at Bologna. Because of that, the Emperor's couldn't claim to be operating on behalf of the Church. That is what he meant when he said it wasn't holy. That is what the quote means: Holy Roman Empire was neither holy (no Papal approval), nor Roman (it was German), nor an empire (it had an elective monarchy and its government structure was that of a confederation).

But hey keep digging that hole deeper, you already threw the entire atheist claim on the Renaissance academia being nonreligious under the bus to try and exempt the secular courts from their participation in the witch burnings and you shown can't recognize Voltaire's works without somebody pointing it out to you. Keep going, next you will be putting Dawkins' words in Pat Robertson's mouth.

Papalinton said...

You are such a worry, Karl. No, Voltaire was *not* "referring to the fact that the practice of the Pope crowning the leader had ended in 1530; Charles V was the last Holy Roman Emperor to be crowned by a Pope, by Clement VII at Bologna. Because of that, the Emperor's couldn't claim to be operating on behalf of the Church."

I have to hand it to you. You have such an unsubtle, un-nuanced and unsophisticated attitude towards and understanding of history, and this speaks volumes; not that you would understand. Yes, the practice of the Pope crowning the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire fell into disrepair. Probably because such practice was deemed an unnecessary and superfluous gesture, as most religious activities are. It certainly wasn't stopped by any Bull or fiat of the Pope or Holy Roman Emperor, to be sure. "from that date onward the popes claimed the prerogative to crown the Emperor, though the right fell into disuse after the coronation of Charles V in 1530". SEE HERE

Further information about the Papal role in coronations:
"Maximilian I (Emperor 1508-1519) and his successors no longer travelled to Rome to be crowned as Emperor by the Pope. Maximilian therefore named himself Elected Roman Emperor (Erwählter Römischer Kaiser) in 1508 with papal approval. This title was in use by all his uncrowned successors. Of his successors only Charles V [1530], the immediate one, received a papal coronation." SEE HERE

So in the main Papal coronation was a somewhat haphazard on-again/off-again affair.

Funnily enough after "Emperor Francis II dissolved the [Holy Roman] empire in August 1806 after its defeat by Napoleon at the Battle of Austerlitz" who should but turn up at the coronation of the man that just routed the Holy Roman Empire? You got it. The old Pope himself.
"According to the precis verbal of the master of ceremonies, Segur, the ceremony took place in accordance with the plans. After taking the crowns and other regalia from the altar and blessing them, the Pope returned them to the altar and then took his seat. Napoleon advanced and took a crown known as the Charlemagne crown, ..." You can read the rest HERE

Yes. The Catholic Pope certainly let no ethical or moral imperative to join Napoleon or any dictator or warmonger if it advances the cause of Catholic Christendom.

Karl Grant said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Karl Grant said...

Paps,

Now your just grasping at straws. The fact that Papal Coronation of Holy Roman Emperors ended in 1530, and therefore the HREs were operating without formal Church approval, doesn't count because Popes could have crowned the Emperors at any time? Well in that case you're still a fucking Christian since you used to attend church and there is nothing preventing you going back into a church and attending services; you still have that right.

Unfortunately, that ain't the most stupid thing in your post; no that honor goes to: And the HREs were really holy because....because....because the Pope crowned the guy who kicked their ass!!! Usually if somebody supports the guy that just stomped a mud-hole in your ass it is a sign they don't approve of you. You know, just when I think you have said the stupidest thing ever you keep talking. And if the Pope crowning Napoleon is a sign that the Church loves authoritarianism than the fact that most modern secular European legal systems are based upon or influenced by the Napoleonic Code must mean secularism must love itself some dictatorships and warmongering.