C. S. Lewis never abandoned the belief that homosexual conduct was wrong from a Christian standpoint. But he also never accepted the idea that there is something particularly bad about homosexuality as opposed to other kinds of sin. To hear many Christians talk, this is the one sin that makes God really angry, so angry that he sent down fire and brimstone on Sodom and Gomorrah.
A lot of people see the entire source of opposition to homosexuality as coming from Christian conservatives. Yet Lewis thinks that the really virulent opposition to homosexuality comes from other sources.
This is from Surprised by Joy.
And that is why I cannot give pederasty anything like a first place among the evils of the Coll. There is much hypocrisy on this theme. People commonly talk as if every other evil were more tolerable than this. But why? Because those of us who do not share the vice feel for it a certain nausea, as we do, say, for necrophily? I think that of very little relevance to moral judgment. Because it produces permanent perversion? But there is very little evidence that it does. The Bloods would have preferred girls to boys if they could have come by them; when, at a later age, girls were obtainable, they probably took them. Is it then on Christian grounds? But how many of those who fulminate on the matter are in fact Christians? And what Christian, in a society as worldly and cruel as that of Wyvern, would pick out the carnal sins for special reprobation? Cruelty is surely more evil than lust and the World at least as dangerous as the Flesh. The real reason for all the pother is, in my opinion, neither Christian nor ethical. We attack this vice not because it is the worst but because it is, by adult standards, the most disreputable and unmentionable, and happens also to be a crime in English law. The world may lead you only to Hell; but sodomy may lead you to jail and create a scandal, and lose you your job. The World, to do it justice, seldom does that.
For a discussion of this, see here.
116 comments:
In another place, Lewis said we should never spend too much time condemning those sins of which we ourselves are not tempted to commit. I consider that to be one of the best pieces of advice I have ever heard.
Like voting for Trump?
It's not polite to make jokes about mental illness.
But as long as you're admitting to the fact that voting for Trump is a sin (which you just did)...
It's probably better that people condemn sin whether they are likely to commit that particular sin or not. Few people will be condemning their own favorite sin so if someone else does it at least they will be reminded of it.
I also wonder if too many people go the other way and feel their own favorite sin will remain hidden if they criticize those who point out sin. It sort of pre-empts any observation the other person may direct toward oneself.
Concerning the OP.
The Lewis quote was related to what he saw happening at his childhood boarding school. I wonder how many Americans can relate to that scenario. I certainly can't.
I think this letter to a friend seeking advice is better in that he is speaking of personal experiences he's had with homosexual acquaintances.
Letter from C. S. Lewis regarding homosexuality, quoted in Sheldon Vanauken's A Severe Mercy, pp. 146-148, in response to a question about a couple of Christian students of Vanauken who were homosexual and had come to him for advice:
I have seen less than you but more than I wanted of this terrible problem. I will discuss your letter with those whom I think wise in Christ. This is only an interim report. First, to map out the boundaries within which all discussion must go on, I take it for certain that the physical satisfaction of homosexual desires is sin. This leaves the homo. no worse off than any normal person who is, for whatever reason, prevented from marrying. Second, our speculations on the cause of the abnormality are not what matters and we must be content with ignorance. The disciples were not told why (in terms of efficient cause) the man was born blind (Jn. IX 1-3): only the final cause, that the works of God shd. be made manifest in him. This suggests that in homosexuality, as in every other tribulation, those works can be made manifest: i.e. that every disability conceals a vocation, if only we can find it, wh. will 'turn the necessity to glorious gain.' Of course, the first step must be to accept any privations wh., if so disabled, we can't lawfully get. The homo. has to accept sexual abstinence just as the poor man has to forego otherwise lawful pleasures because he wd. be unjust to his wife and children if he took them. That is merely a negative condition. What shd. the positive life of the homo. be? I wish I had a letter wh. a pious male homo., now dead, once wrote to me--but of course it was the sort of letter one takes care to destroy. He believed that his necessity could be turned to spiritual gain: that there were certain kinds of sympathy and understanding, a certain social role which mere men and mere women cd. not give. But it is all horribly vague and long ago. Perhaps any homo. who humbly accepts his cross and puts himself under Divine guidance will, however, be shown the way. I am sure that any attempt to evade it (e.g. by mock or quasi-marriage with a member of one's own sex even if this does not lead to any carnal act) is the wrong way. Jealousy (this another homo. admitted to me) is far more rampant and deadly among them than among us. And I don't think little concessions like wearing the clothes of the other sex in private is the right line, either. It is the duties, burdens, the characteristic virtues of the other sex, I suspect, which the patient must try to cultivate. I have mentioned humility because male homos. (I don't know about women) are rather apt, the moment they find you don't treat them with horror and contempt, to rush to the opposite pole and start implying that they are somehow superior to the normal type. I wish I could be more definite. All I have really said is that, like all other tribulations, it must be offered to God and His guidance how to use it must be sought.
For me it began in the second grade. There was this girl with long black hair, knee length skirts, and black boots. She followed me home one day smiling at me. I walked her home the next day. I remember how pretty she was when we were both in the second grade.
I could never understand how anyone can be attracted to the same (homo) rather than the different (hetero). But, there are many things people are attracted to that I don't understand. My only solution is what I believe, how I treat people (especially those I don't understand), and how I live my life. I hope they are all honoring to God.
Limited,
I hope they are all honoring to God.
Do you think that people who openly advocate for gay sex or advertise that they engage in it are honoring God?
I wonder why I should think they are any less a sinner than someone who admits to extra-marital sex? Both fall under #3 on the list of Deadly Sins:
(1) Pride
(2) Greed
(3) Lust
(4) Envy
(5) Gluttony
(6) Wrath
(7) Sloth
To be sure, one can be motivated to criticize a particular sin out of one's own sense of Pride (since one has no temptation for that particular sin) but on the other hand wouldn't failing to point the sinfulness to the sinner be the sin of Sloth? Wouldn't charity demand that one should make the sinner aware of the danger they were putting their eternal existence in?
I wonder what the 7 Deadly Sins of the Leftism cult are?
These are my guesses:
Racism, sexism, pro-life-ism, homophobia, transphobia, gun-ownership and free speech. I could be wrong.
You are quite wrong.
They are Pride, Envy. Wrath, Sloth, Covetousness, Gluttony, and Lust.
They are Pride, Envy. Wrath, Sloth, Covetousness, Gluttony, and Lust.
I think he meant what are the seven things progressives cry about, not the seven sins progressives are guilty of.
Well then, he should have said that.
But I stand by what I wrote. The 7 deadly sins are the same for all of us - Democrats, Republicans, Socialists, Fascists, Progressives, Reactionaries, Liberals, Conservatives, Anarchists, Libertarians, Monarchists, Communists, and Feudalists.
They are Pride, Envy. Wrath, Sloth, Covetousness, Gluttony, and Lust.
No, not the things leftists are proud of. The things they think are sins.
Elon Musk now owns twitter. Changes happening almost immediately.
bmiller,
No, not the things leftists are proud of.
Hypocrisy is high on the list of leftist sins.
Hypocrisy is the fuel of public discourse these days.
I don't believe it's entirely hypocrisy. For instance, when bmiller says batshit crazy stuff about mythical "leftists" (a term he either cannot, or will not, define), he probably actually believes that nonsense. And as George Costanza famously said, "Remember Jerry, it's not a lie if you believe it."
But in a way, he's done everyone here a favor. Because if we do define a "leftist" as someone who is proud of the 7 deadly sins, then no one (at least that I know of) is a leftist. So he might as well be directing his fire at unicorns or hippogriffs. Glad we straightened that one out!
Starhopper,
There are dozens of dictionaries, encyclopedias and websites that describe the American political left. You should read them and perhaps realize that I didn't write them nor do I the have the power to define what "leftists" are.
I will say one thing though. When I was actually discussing sin wrt whether we should let people know that homosexual acts are a sin or not all I heard was crickets.
So I thought I'd wonder aloud what leftist cult thinks their 7 Deadly Sins are.
I rarely hear them complain about the traditional 7 Deadlies, but I do hear them complain all the time about:
Racism, sexism, pro-life-ism (aka anti-"reproductive rights), homophobia, transphobia, gun-ownership and free speech.
So I figure those must be their 7 Deadlies. Am I wrong?
Not being a "leftist", I cannot speak for that mythical beast.
But yes, you are wrong - 100% so.
Never known you for remaining silent knowing you can't speak for someone. But this is new. Speaking for someone you claim doesn't exist 👌
Until you (you personally - your own words, not some link) can define who/what a "leftist" is, we might as well be talking about unicorns.
I personally use the sources I listed for my definitions. From my research, it appears to me that "leftists" really do exist, at least according to those sources.
Are there any other things that people routinely talk about as being real that you also think are imaginary? It could save some confusion down the road.
I'm hoping that you are imaginary. It's too disturbing a thought to believe that there is anyone out there who thinks as you do.
Unfortunately however, I see such people all the time at Trump rallies and Qanon gatherings.
If you are disturbed by people that use dictionaries then that does clear things up somewhat.
You're probably right. Trumpersters and Qanon'ers probably do read. Hard to conduct a solid conspiracy theory without literacy.
As a "leftist," I can define leftism for you:
* skepticism that a free market economy can provide a stable foundation for a free society
* belief that some planning of the economy can be beneficial to the working class, especially in Western democracies where the people are nominally in control as opposed to a monarch with no accountability
* belief that a free market economy ends up concentrating wealth and power in the hands of a few, at the expense of the poor and the working class
Source: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberalism/#NewLib
So...nothing to do with 7 deadly sins.
You're gonna have to convince Starhopper you exist.
What are your 7 Deadlies Mr Unicorn?
Thank you, Martin, for that last line. Bmiller must have his definitions confused, because as you say, leftism appears to have nothing to do with the 7 deadly sins, but rather with economic policy.
But then again, we have no idea what he actually thinks "leftism" means, since he refuses to define it.
I don't know about 7, but most "sins" are going to flow out of whatever is seen as taking advantage of or making it difficult for those at the bottom of the social hierarchy. The specific zeitgeist can ebb and flow over time, obviously.
That's another way, I think, to look at leftism, and probably more fundamental:
Rightists think there is a natural social hierarchy, and everyone is exactly where they deserve to be.
Leftists think the hierarchy is controlled by those at the top, who make it difficult or impossible to climb it, and therefore want to either flatten the hierarchy completely, or at least tame it.
Martin,
What is a sin?
Star,
One characteristic (not a definition) of the Left is an obsession with race. As you wrote, EVERYTHING (sorry I don't care enough about html to make the word bold as you did) is about race. If you add up enough characteristics you have a definition. I would put you on the Left regarding the insane obsession with race.
"Do you think that people who openly advocate for gay sex or advertise that they engage in it are honoring God?"
No.
To those who believe in Christ and are in the church, homosexuality is a sin. To those outside the church, who do not believe, they need the redemption of Christ.
I'm not very good at communicating at a personal level with those inside and outside the church about what I believe. I'm mostly just trying enjoy the life God has blessed me with.
As you wrote, EVERYTHING...is about race.
I didn't see racism on the list of 7 Deadly Sins. Guess Christianity got it wrong all this time.
Racism is part and parcel of pride, envy, avarice, Wrath, Covetousness, and in some circumstances Lust.
So yeah, it's there. Christianity (as always) got it exactly right.
You missed gluttony, so not EVEEEERYTHING.
Since we are going by the numbers, how about the 4 Last Things. Death, Judgement, Heaven and Hell.
Are unrepentant, active homosexuals going to Heaven or Hell when they die?
Only leftists need answer.
Let me re-phrase that.
Only leftists (whether they admit it or not) need answer.
Only those not following the words of Our Lord and Savior, Jesus, will even think about judging them (Luke 6:37). I'll let the "Judge of all the Earth" (Genesis 18:25) do that.
Shoot, I won't even judge lunatic batshit-crazy right wing whackos.
Perilous ground you are treading on there, bmiller.
Starhopper,
I'm a Catholic. As such I believe there are such things as mortal sins. I also believe that the final state of those who die unrepentant in a state of mortal sin will be Hell. Do you? Do you believe that the sin of lust as it manifests itself in homosexual action is a grave (mortal) sin?
I am not a judge and I am not judging anyone in particular. I'm not even on the jury. I am only a believer and will stand judgement myself. Telling people there are only the 3 Last Things when there are actually 4 is not telling people the Truth. I think that falls under the sin of Sloth when one neglects to tell the whole truth perhaps to be liked, or make it easier on oneself. That is at the expense of the poor soul who wants to hold onto his sin.
I am judging you to be judgmental.
I am judging you as being dodgemental.
Maybe judgementalism is one of the 7 Deadly Sins according to leftists. That actually makes sense to me because they routinely castigate people for being "judgmental" which means they would have to be guilty of the sin itself in order to castigate others. That's totally incoherent and falls in line with most other leftist thought. So is fitting that it should be in their list of 7 Deadlies. But if everyone ends up going to Heaven, I guess there's no need to avoid any of their "sins".
This has been entertaining, but to get serious here, it's significant that the Catholic Church has canonized thousands of saints over the last 2000 years, but has not consigned a single person to hell. I think there's a lesson there. We should all "go and do likewise." (Luke 10:37)
Even Dante, who famously depicted hundreds of identifiable individuals as being in his Inferno, warned his readers (near the end of the Paradiso) that his placing various people in specific places throughout the Three Kingdoms of the afterlife was not to be taken literally, as it was all but a "vision" for our instruction.
Yes, we have a duty to steer people away from the 7 deadly sins, but we should never speculate on the eternal fate of anyone's immortal soul. "That is not an office for a friend." (Shakespeare, Julius Caesar, Act V)
The reasons leftists seem so focused on race can be answered if you stick to my theory that the main difference between the two political poles is hierarchy vs non-hierarchy. Since conservatives implicitly believe in "just world" theory (a natural hierarchy), if anybody is at the bottom of the hierarchy it's because it's their fault. It's not the system's fault.
By contrast, leftists believe the hierarchy is corrupted, by historical inertia and also by the rich and powerful. So we believe those at the bottom of the hierarchy are typically not there due to their own fault, and therefore they deserve a helping hand. Which manifests in the form of civil rights, affirmative action, anti-discrimination laws, etc. All of which conservatives have historically opposed, because of the "just world" theory they implicitly stick to.
I didn't even go so far as Dante so I wonder why you want to misunderstand/misrepresent that I am judging any particular person especially when I have explicitly stated that I'm not. These types of responses raises further questions.
I've been asking questions that relate to Christian Catholic dogma regarding those who die unrepentant of mortal sins (one in particular) and whether they go to Heaven or Hell at death according to that dogma. These should be easy yes, or no questions for a believing Catholic. I don't understand how any faithful Catholic can think it somehow bad for merely asking these questions. It's neither unseemly nor uncharitable to discuss the Truth as far as I'm concerned. Do you?
I think the explanation is deeper than that. American Conservatives ignore the message of both the Old and New Testaments, which is that Humanity is not a collection of monads, of isolated independent individuals who are not connected to or responsible for one another.
In contrast, the Old Testament teaches us that salvation is corporate, through the unfaithfulness and redemption of Israel, and the New tells us in hundreds of places to "bear one another's burdens" and that we are "all members of His body." The OT prophets unanimously spoke of systemic, societal sin, and Jesus Himself warned against "an adulterous generation".
A denial of systemic racism is a flat out denial of Scripture.
If not apparent my previous post was responding to Starhopper.
"These should be easy yes or no questions"
Au contraire, they are amongst the most difficult of all questions, right up there with "Why is there something rather than nothing?" or perhaps the Colbert Questionert:
What is the best sandwich? Ham & swiss on untoasted rye with Colman's mustard & horseradish.
What's one thing you own that you really should throw out? My drawerful of old yet perfectly good t-shirts.
What is the scariest animal? Either a Trump supporter or Vladimir Putin. But wait, I repeat myself.
Apples or oranges? Blueberries.
Have you ever asked someone for their autograph? Yes, Fred Hoyle, Arther C. Clarke, and Ray Bradbury, amongst others.
What do you think happens when we die? I'll find out I've been wrong about almost everything. (That goes for us all.)
Favorite action movie? Master and Commander.
Favorite smell? A pine woods.
Least favorite smell? Rotting vegetables.
Exercise: worth it? I guess.
Flat or sparkling? Why is this even a question? Sparkling, of course!
Most used app on your phone? None, since I do own a smart phone.
You get one song to listen to for the rest of your life: what is it? "Have You Seen the Stars Tonight?" by Jefferson Starship.
What number am I thinking of? The square root of negative one.
Describe the rest of your life in 5 words? Ever fewer grains of sand.
Martin,
I've never heard of your "just world" theory. It may be a misunderstanding/misapplication of natural law. If you mean that the group of people who think there are natural differences/abilities/talent among individuals tend to fall on the conservative spectrum as opposed to those who think there are no such differences, then I would agree. I'm not going to be as smart as Einstein, as athletic as Muhammad Ali or as good-looking as Starhopper no matter what the government does for me.
But if I want to understand the universe, I want Einstein on my team rather than Ali.
I also think that leftists do not seem to recognize a distinction between society and government. Read this to get an understanding of the historical basis of American founder's thought and how it is opposed to what the left of today is after. Government is only one part of society, not the whole. There are things that the government should not be doing in American society according the the Constitution. Setting up a "Ministry of Truth" is a good recent example.
Americans have historically (and perhaps unintentionally) embraced Catholic social teaching:
“Human dignity is the intrinsic value of a person created in the image and likeness of God and redeemed by Christ”
“Solidarity refers to the virtue enabling the human family to share fully the treasure of material and spiritual goods”
“Subsidiarity is the coordination of society's activities in a way that supports the internal life of the local communities”
The common good is “the totality of social conditions allowing persons to achieve their communal and individual fulfillment” (Benedict XVI 2008).
Leftists typically oppose Subsidiarity.
"Since conservatives implicitly believe in 'just world' theory"
The theory that people get what they deserve is absurd. No one with any life experience believes that. No one who is honest thinks conservatives believe that.
Limited: No one who is honest thinks conservatives believe that.
I have never seen a progressive accurately describe what motivates conservatives.
Martin: Which manifests in the form of civil rights, affirmative action, anti-discrimination laws, etc.
But it also manifests in nonsense like attacking white people for being white, because they are "dominant". Same for men, even though in many areas of society women are handily outperforming men and have advantages. Conservatives by and large reject looking at people as a collection of demographic checkboxes, so naturally they reject the progressive worldview.
Conservatives oppose racism. But progressives and conservatives don't think of racism in the same way.
Starhopper: American Conservatives ignore the message of both the Old and New Testaments
I am judging you to be judgmental.
Perilous ground indeed. Progressives are not friends to Christianity, nor are left-leaning Christians somehow better at it than conservative Christians.
A denial of systemic racism is a flat out denial of Scripture.
A disagreement with progressives over whether something actually is systemic racism is not. Conservatives don't deny that systemic racism can and does exist, but they also don't agree it is nearly as universally pervasive as progressives do.
Careful with that judgement.
"I have never seen a progressive accurately describe what motivates conservatives."
And I have yet to see a conservative do so much as even try to define what "leftism" is, beyond something like "leftism = evil, and conservatism = good" (which is not at all helpful).
"I am judging you to be judgmental."
Stating facts is not being judgmental.
Your last statement. I'll agree with much of what you say there, except that systemic racism does permeate everything.
Stating facts is not being judgmental.
Good thing you're not like those 'publicans, right?
I know. At least we agree on something!
Limited Perspective,
As you wrote, EVERYTHING (sorry I don't care enough about html to make the word bold as you did) is about race.
That's not quite accurate. Rather, race permeates every social structure we have set up in the US. That doesn't make it central to every discussion.
To those who believe in Christ and are in the church, homosexuality is a sin.
Well, except for those who believe in Christ, are in a church, and don't believe God considers homosexuality sinful.
bmiller,
Are unrepentant, active homosexuals going to Heaven or Hell when they die?
Some Christians say everyone is going to hell, some say no one is.
Kevin,
But it also manifests in nonsense like attacking white people for being white, because they are "dominant".
Over 6 decades, that's happened to me once, while walking down a New York City street. I don't remember which religious group the man belonged to, it something about the true tribes of Israel and white men being created by black men.
Now, white men feeling aggrieved/attacked by being reminded how much easier it is to be white than otherwise, that I've seen all the time.
Au contraire, they are amongst the most difficult of all questions,
Ah yes. I forgot that you seem to distrust things written in books, dictionaries, encyclopedias and so on, and so must avoid things such as the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Let me help:
According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, "homosexual acts" are "acts of grave depravity" that are "intrinsically disordered." It continues, "They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved."[2][3] Regarding homosexuality as an orientation, the Catechism describes it as "objectively disordered."[2]
Whenever the Church says a sin is grave, it means that the sin is deadly to one's eternal life (ie mortal sin). Right? So. People who die unrepentant in mortal sin at death. Do they end up in Heaven or Hell according to the Catholic Church?
I think it's easy for honest people to answer.
Honest answer? The Catholic Church has never consigned anyone - not one single person, ever - to hell. So neither should we.
Specifics, please. Name someone, anyone, who is now in hell.
//crickets//
Answering a different question than the one asked is deceitful.
Quoting from the Catechism in support of your personal doctrines is deceitful, and insulting to Catholics everywhere. You, bmiller, do not speak for the Church. (And thank God for that!)
Starhopper,
It's true that my personal doctrines are those of the Catholic Church, but I have to guess why pointing out what the Church teaches (via undisputed documentation) would offend anyone who is interested in Truth. If I'm deceiving people, how? Is the Catechism lying?
Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists and even other Christians can all read what the Catholic Church believes and teaches without being offended just like I can read what they believe without getting offended. Why should Catholics be offended by the Catechism?
As far as I can tell, you haven't disagreed with what I've pointed out. What you have done is attempt to change the subject any way you can. Feeble deception indeed.
Starhopper:systemic racism does permeate everything.
One Brow: race permeates every social structure we have set up in the US
I honestly don't see it and believe there are often other, and better, explanations for some things that are blamed on racism.
You both make the same claim, so I'd have to ask for the supporting evidence.
Kevin, I suggest you read We Are Called to be a Movement by Reverend Dr. William J. Barber II.
It's a short book, only 81 pages (10 of which are illustrations), double spaced and quite large print. It's actually a sermon, delivered at the National Cathedral in Washington, D.C. on June 3, 2018.
No need to buy the book. I found the sermon on YouTube, HERE. It seems Reverend Barber edited his words somewhat before printing, but it is essentially the same.
"I honestly don't see it and believe there are often other, and better, explanations for some things that are blamed on racism."
Systemic Racism is one of the superstitions of the Left. It is this foreboding, sinister force that can not be identified, isolated or eradicated. This force is practiced in secrecy, or unconsciously by a powerful cult. It is the witchcraft of 21st century America. The superstition can not be abandoned because it has too much explanatory value and the witches must be discovered and punished.
We are a nation of 330,000,000 individuals with the broad range of personal and mental illness problems. We are bound to have conflict, disparity, violence, hatred and scorn thousands of times every day in the country. Racism is an easy explanation for not just the conflict and violence of the single individual, but an explanation that can cover the whole society.
It is a superstition.
When asked about the rise in racial hate hoxes in the U.S. (around the world today, mostly in non-Western nations, where there is real persecution of ethnic, religious, and political minorities, they don't need to fake it), scholar Wilfred Reilly commented, "We live in a supply and demand culture. There is greater demand for race crimes than there is supply. That explains the hoaxes."
All you'll ever need to know about "left" vs "right" can be found HERE, starting at 33 minutes 34 seconds in. Nothing more ever need be said on that sorry subject.
Systemic Racism is one of the superstitions of the Left.
Agreed. It doesn't take much analysis to conclude that the Left is a cult complete with it's own counterfeit version of original sin and it's own sacrament of abortion.
See what I mean? "Just world theory" is implicit in all conservative thinking, Whether you admit it or not. It's the engine driving the ideology.
If there is systemic racism, that means some people are kept at the bottom of the societal hierarchy through no fault of their own. But conservatives can't abide that; if there are some people at the bottom of the hierarchy, they're there because of personal responsibility, choice, etc. Systemic racism would mean the current societal hierarchy is not natural.
Liberals by contrast, think the system is rigged and unjust, and therefore people at the bottom of the hierarchy deserve help.
What a bunch of hooey.
Talented and worthy people don't reach the top of a hierarchy for lots of reasons unrelated to race while mediocre and untalented people often do (like Obama and Biden) regardless of race.
The Sinister* Parable of the Prodigal Son
A father has 2 sons. The younger son asks for his portion of inheritance from his father, who grants his son's request. This son, however, is prodigal (i.e., wasteful and extravagant), thus squandering his fortune and eventually becoming destitute. As consequence, he now must return home empty-handed and intend to beg his father to accept him back as a servant. To the son's surprise, he is not scorned by his father but is welcomed back with celebration and a welcoming party. Envious, the older son refuses to participate in the festivities. The father tells the older son: "you are ever with me, and all that I have is yours, but thy younger brother was lost and now he is found."
His disciples asked. "Sinister Lord, what became of the father and the 2 sons?"
Sinister Lord answered:
"Those wicked men were guilty of double systemic racism. One way was by passing on inheritance of knowledge and wealth to their progeny (of the same race) and thus perpeptuating their racial privilege. The second way is more basic. They accumulated wealth in the first place and did not equally divide their possessions among their servants (they actually had servants!) and all the tribes of the earth. Those evil men met their fate in the afterlife by being sentenced to eternal Trump rallies where they sang YMCA along with the OMB**!"
*See definition #4
** Orange Man Bad
Regarding *.
Maybe makes more sense to include definitions 1 through 4.
"Liberals by contrast..."
I make a distinction between liberals and the Left. I have many things in common with liberals. In some regards I am a liberal as the words used to be defined.
I have nothing in common with the Left.
My middle son had great academic talent. He went to a very good University. When I visited him, I was stunned to see separate student unions on campus divided by race. Separating people by race in public spaces is abhorrent. Liberals and conservatives agreed on this. It's the Left that thinks it's a good idea.
"See what I mean? "Just world theory" is implicit in all conservative thinking"
No, I don't see what you mean. I don't believe in a just world. I believe in a completely unjust and corrupt world. Racism is a part of that injustice and corruption. Again, anyone who has visited your child in the hospital, who has seen... well, there's too many examples to list. Anyone who has lived doesn't believe in a just world. I don't believe in a just world. It's idiotic. Stop repeating nonsense.
I make a distinction between liberals and the left as well, but only insofar as "left" and "right" have broad application and can even refer to a spectrum within a leftwing or rightwing political movement, such as within socialism, a leftwing movement, which contains leftwing positions (anarchists) and rightwing positions (parliamentary socialists). And of course, the terms originate from the French Revolution, wherein the right defended the monarchy and the left defended the Revolution. In each of these disparate cases, spread over two hundred years, the only commonality among "the left" is that they are against social hierarchy, and "the right" is that they are in favor of the hierarchy, or not messing with the hierarchy.
Of course "just world" does not mean the world is literally just. Only that it is bad to artificially interfere with the naturally existing hierarchy.
Why do conservatives love when a cop-murdered black man turns out to have had a criminal record? Because then there is a better reason for the shooting than that the hierarchy itself is bad (e.g. "shoulda complied!")
Why do conservatives refuse to accept the (overwhelming) evidence for systemic racism? That would entail that the hierarchy is not natural.
Why are conservatives consistently against civil rights movements? Because that is an attempt to artificially move people up the hierarchy from their (natural) positions.
Why are conservatives ok (or indifferent) with welfare and support for the wealthy, but vehemently against it for the poor? Tax cuts that predominantly help the rich are ok because they are in their natural place in the hierarchy, so they deserve it. Poor people don't deserve it because they didn't try hard enough. Remember Reagan's "welfare queen."
As I said, this is very implicit, but it's behind the scenes in everything conservatives and liberals do.
Excellent posting, Martin. Wish I could "like" it.
Of course conservatives don't love to see a man die. That's as dishonest a reading of my comment as you could make. What conservatives "love," or more accurately "feel relief," is when a black man murdered by cops turns out to have had a criminal record.
I feel relief when I quote dishonest people in their own words. You did a like from Starhopper. That's not common here.
Martin's comment was so intelligent and well written that it deserved acknowledgement. Whether or not you agree with what he wrote, it should serve as an example to us all, to raise the general tenor of discourse on this site.
You're right Star, us conservatives loved to see George Floyd die. That he was a criminal gave us comfort to see the end of a life a man. A man about the same age as me. Thanks for acknowledging that Martin raised the bar. He nailed it.
Limited, you are engaging in the logical fallacy that says one exception to a rule invalidates the rule. You personally may not have rejoiced at George Floyd's murder, but I can assure you that millions of "conservatives" did, while no "leftists" did.
It's like a Venn diagram. Not all Republicans are racists (not by a long shot), but nearly all racists are Republicans. Of course there are exceptions, but by and large that is the case. The exceptions are outliers.
Not all stars are nuts, but all Starhoppers are crazy. It's like gravity.
I realize how absurd my Limited conversations have become. I need to sign off from the internet for a few weeks. Miller, keep up the good work.
Not all Republicans are racists (not by a long shot), but nearly all racists are Republicans.
Every single progressive is a racist, else they wouldn't be a progressive. And I'm being completely serious here. If there is someone judging a person differently because of their skin color, such as the bigotry of low expectation, it is likely someone who votes Democrat. Also check out what happens when a "person of color" dares to advocate for conservative causes. Needless to say, true feelings are exposed.
But people on the left reject those versions of racism as being racist, so they are blind to their own faults. Defining the word to only apply to whites and conservatives is a nice rhetorical stunt, but most people aren't impressed.
The video you posted is 40 minutes long. Is there a particular timestamp you would refer to that is the evidence for universal systemic racism?
Martin,
Where do you get such poppycock? Are you entirely ignorant of American history?
The American Founding Fathers were the opposite of the Throne and Altar "right" and the American revolution preceded the French Revolution. The "left" of the French Revolution were liberals and looked at the American Revolution as inspiration to rebel against the French "right". The Founding Fathers were liberals...classical liberals as Limited explained. And it is classical liberalism that American conservatives (and also American liberals used to) seek to preserve.
Read a book for heavens sake. Start with the link I provided earlier to Bastiat's essay.
Have you been drunk posting again? Or is it other drugs? Or pure ignorance?
Why do conservatives love when a cop-murdered black man turns out to have had a criminal record? Because then there is a better reason for the shooting than that the hierarchy itself is bad
The alternative is preferring a man shot by police be innocent. Of course conservatives prefer they be societal predators. That's called being a good person.
And similar to how progressives prefer mass shooters and terrorists to be white men on the right instead of Muslims, partly because a Muslim committing the violence has negative repercussions against all Muslims, conservatives prefer justified shootings that don't have negative blowback against all police.
No need to appeal to some hierarchy.
Why do conservatives refuse to accept the (overwhelming) evidence for systemic racism? That would entail that the hierarchy is not natural.
I have yet to see this evidence. The few times I've seen attempts to display this overwhelming evidence of universal racism, they have universally failed. Perhaps Starhopper's sermon video presents it, but I haven't watched it yet.
Why are conservatives consistently against civil rights movements?Because that is an attempt to artificially move people up the hierarchy from their (natural) positions.
I can't speak for the MLK era since I wasn't there, but I do note that it is progressives now who call for segregation, and conservatives who quote MLK.
As for other demographics, conservatives oppose abortion because it kills the offspring. They oppose "Me Too" because it is a guilty verdict without a trial. They opposed gay marriage because of their religious beliefs. They oppose the current transgender movement because men are not women, and to conservatives man and woman are synonymous with male and female, and gender is a tangled mess of a concept.
No hierarchy in sight.
Why are conservatives ok (or indifferent) with welfare and support for the wealthy, but vehemently against it for the poor? Tax cuts that predominantly help the rich are ok because they are in their natural place in the hierarchy, so they deserve it. Poor people don't deserve it because they didn't try hard enough.
Worded too strongly I think, but some of that is true. There are other reasons as well, such as the common acceptance of trickle-down economics. "I've never been hired by a poor person!", as it goes.
Worded too strongly I think, but some of that is true. There are other reasons as well, such as the common acceptance of trickle-down economics. "I've never been hired by a poor person!", as it goes.
As I mentioned, America's founding tradition was based on classical liberalism and the Anglo take on it and that means heavily influenced by John Locke. Feser's book on Locke is a quick read and has good insights. Both the American left and the American right have made claims to being supported by his philosophy. The American left today is more in line with the French socialists Bastiat mentioned.
Lockean philosophy is to make the government accountable to the people and limit it's power. The government should protect people's rights to life, liberty and property (Jefferson used "pursuit of happiness"), but pretty much stay out of their business otherwise. It was a novel introduction to let people run their own lives without Lords, Kings or local magistrates running them.
It provides for a limited safety net, but not an expansive welfare state.
Like you mentioned. No hierarchy in sight.
bmiller,
>The American Founding Fathers were the opposite of the Throne and Altar "right" and the American revolution preceded the French Revolution. The "left" of the French Revolution were liberals and looked at the American Revolution as inspiration to rebel against the French "right". The Founding Fathers were liberals...classical liberals
Yes...? The left in America and France were rebelling against monarchy (a hierarchy). Classical liberalism is a rebellion against hierarchy. Modern American (non-classical) liberalism was born when people started to realize that the wealthy elite were slowly becoming a de facto monarchy, in having all the money and political power and the ability to bend the government to policies that help them instead of the working class. So from the perspective of modern liberalism, classical liberals are defending a hierarchy: the wealth elite. What drives us modern liberals is the recognition that a "ruling" class of oligarchs is almost as bad as monarchy was.
So, the hierarchy vs anti-hierarchy dichotomy is not contradicted by anything you said here.
kevin,
>Of course conservatives prefer they be societal predators. That's called being a good person.
You see how "just world" is implicitly embedded in this? The man wasn't shot because of a bad system; he was shot because he did something wrong. He's right where he deserves to be in the hierarchy.
>I have yet to see this evidence
I won't get into this. Similar to how conservatives reject the overwhelming evidence for global warming, I can give you graphs and graphs until I'm blue in the face and it won't matter. I've been arguing with conservatives about global warming for 13 years, all futile. I'm very worried about the next generation having to pay for the damage from global warming.
>I do note that it is progressives now who call for segregation
I am not aware of any progressives calling for segregation.
>They opposed gay marriage because of their religious beliefs. They oppose the current transgender movement because men are not women, and to conservatives man and woman are synonymous with male and female, and gender is a tangled mess of a concept.
There's absolutely an implicit hierarchy. Gays shouldn't get married because men and women have their place in the hierarchy. Traditionally, of course, women in the kitchen and men at work, with men being "above" women in the social hierarchy. Conservatives have backed off that a bit, but it's still simmering behind the scenes. And if a transgender person tries to alter his/her genitalia, that's an attempt to artificially move themselves elsewhere in the hierarchy.
There's a natural place and everybody is right where the deserve to be. Any attempt to artificially move up or down the hierarchy is anathema.
Please note this is not an attempt to "smear" conservatives. This applies to liberals equally. I'm just noting how we can explain and predict the behavior of conservatives and liberals with the "just world" theory.
bmiller,
Lockean philosophy is to make the government accountable to the people and limit it's power. The government should protect people's rights to life, liberty and property (Jefferson used "pursuit of happiness"), but pretty much stay out of their business otherwise. It was a novel introduction to let people run their own lives without Lords, Kings or local magistrates running them.
It provides for a limited safety net, but not an expansive welfare state.
Like you mentioned. No hierarchy in sight.
Hierarchy is central to this, and it's right there in front: the Kings above Lords, the magistrates under the Lords, then the commoners, under them animals, plants, and minerals, etc. Locke is opposed to this hierarchy (classical liberalism). As I said above, in the early 20th Century liberals started to think that the concentration of wealth was a new de facto hierarchy, and should be opposed for the same reasons Locke opposed Kings and Lords: the wealthy elite were starting to have all the control.
Look here for evidence of systemic racism in the police. This analysis of course does not address the equally real systemic racism in real estate, banking, education, health care, and employment opportunities. All real, all provable.
Martin,
If American conservatives are trying to conserve Lockean principles and Lockean principles opposed this "natural hierarchy" you claim someone favored, then it follows that American conservatives oppose this "natural hierarchy".
Therefore people who claim that American conservatives favor a "natural hierarchy" are not telling you the truth.
America has no kings or lords, but they do have an overreaching federal government that seems to want have the same power as kings and lords used to. The Constitution was ratified to protect the people from that type of overreach. The elites who rule the country are indeed a minority and there is a hierarchy of political elites, but to claim that conservatives think it's just and "natural" is such a ludicrous whopper, that I'm embarrassed for you. Where do you even get these ideas from?
Do free market classical liberal conservatives like when the government creates laws that restrict business or boss it around? Such as minimum wage laws? Of course not. In a free market, there are winners and losers, and the free market should determine who comes out on top and on bottom. Some people on top, some on bottom: a hierarchy. And messing with this hierarchy is bad, according to conservatives.
Not sure why you are resistant to this idea. It's as obvious as the Sun.
You are just advocating for the federal government to be at the top of THE hierarchy. So are you a conservative?
And since the government is naturally at the top of the leftist hierarchy, everything it says is the truth!
In related news, famous author admits that Biden is a genius.
Kevin,
One Brow: race permeates every social structure we have set up in the US
I honestly don't see it and believe there are often other, and better, explanations for some things that are blamed on racism.
You both make the same claim, so I'd have to ask for the supporting evidence.
Well, I don't have enough time to cover every aspect of life in the US, but we can start with housing. Would you agree that where you live affects your life in multiple, significant ways?
Have you heard of red-lining? That created concentration of black people in certain neighborhoods. Those neighborhoods were also much more likely to be zoned industrially, creating greater health disparities for the residents. Because redlining meant property rates were not rising as quickly, it meant local schools were losing funding. The relative disenfranchisement of black people meant they could not have these issues addressed via local governments. Since it's easier to sell to wealthy people than to poor people, supermarkets started to pull locations from impoverished areas, creating food deserts.
If you're really interested, you can find several studies on any of those statements in the previous paragraph. Those all areas of life affected just by redlining, and persisting for decades afterwards. when you add in all the other effects of racism (differential hiring, differential policing and criminal justice, etc.), what parts of life do you think would be unaffected?
Limited Perspective,
It is a superstition.
Superstitions can't be measured. Racism can, and has been in thousands of studies over the years.
When asked about the rise in racial hate hoxes in the U.S. (around the world today, mostly in non-Western nations, where there is real persecution of ethnic, religious, and political minorities, they don't need to fake it), scholar Wilfred Reilly commented, "We live in a supply and demand culture. There is greater demand for race crimes than there is supply. That explains the hoaxes."
You quote-mine like a creationist. Even by Reilly's largest estimate, less than 10% of accused hate crimes are hoaxes. You're right that they don't need to fake it, and the rarely do.
Kevin,
Every single progressive is a racist, else they wouldn't be a progressive. And I'm being completely serious here. If there is someone judging a person differently because of their skin color, such as the bigotry of low expectation, it is likely someone who votes Democrat. Also check out what happens when a "person of color" dares to advocate for conservative causes. Needless to say, true feelings are exposed.
You'll find just about everyone who denies race is a real biological trait on the progressive side of the fence. You'll find the people who say blacks are less intelligent/etc. by dint of biology almost exclusively on the right side of the fence. Expecting that someone who was impoverished growing up didn't have the same opportunities as a middle-class person is not "low expectations", it's reality.
So, who are these black right-wing black people that get treated worse than, say, Sean Hannity or Tucker Carlson?
But people on the left reject those versions of racism as being racist, so they are blind to their own faults. Defining the word to only apply to whites and conservatives is a nice rhetorical stunt, but most people aren't impressed.
We are not impressed by the rhetorical stunt of pretending real, measurable effects don't exist.
Have you ever woke up and couldn't tell whether it was day or night?
I woke up this morning and can't even tell what year I'm in. I've been hearing the left screaming and rioting about women's rights. Have their minds all suddenly been spontaneously infused with such PhD levels of biological knowledge that they now know what a woman is? What ever happened to birthing persons? 😲
Oh. And bodily autonomy is now a thing?
Many countries in the West have become totally secular. America stands alone against that trend however and most of the population remains devoted to religion.
Happy Mother's Day.
This seems like the most appropriate post to make these wishes for a number of reasons.
So blessings to all mothers reading here and the mothers of all readers here and elsewhere.
Whether mothers or children are living or dead.
May is the month of Mary according to the Catholic liturgical year as it was through Mary that God uniquely sanctified motherhood by way of the Incarnation. Mary is also the Patron Saint of the Americas and so it may (ahem) not be a coincidence that many prayers are being answered this month. It has happened before.
I grew up in Scottsdale, Arizona, where back in the 60s there was every Cinco de Mayo a gigantic parade, at the head of which rode the mayor and which ended with a 12 foot tall statue of Our Lady of Guadalupe surrounded by roses, carried through the streets by parishioners from Our Lady of Perpetual Help Catholic Church. (I remember my father one year being one of the carriers.) After the parade, everyone walked over to Scottsdale High School, where they showed a movie in the auditorium about the story of the Virgin of Guadalupe (in Spanish, but we all loved the bloody Aztec human sacrifice scene at the beginning).
Just try to imagine that happening today!
Tlaloc needs the tears of children to be satisfied before they are sacrificed. So the priests made them cry on the way to killing them.
Photo of Elizabeth Warren giving firey pep-talk at pro-abortion pot-luck.
I wonder who had to eat the.. er... "private parts".
All recipes and serving etiquette rules can be found in Elizabeth's 1984 cookbook Pow Wow Chow
"Superstitions can't be measured. Racism can, and has been in thousands of studies over the years"
"What is the unit of measure for racism?
"You quote-mine like a creationist."
Thank you. I've always liked the cut of their jib.
"What is the unit of measure for racism?
The percentage, usually.
Thank you. I've always liked the cut of their jib.
I have never questioned the sailing abilities of creationists.
"I have never questioned the sailing abilities of creationists."
Now that is a great line. It really made me laugh. Thanks.
"The percentage, usually."
I don't want to sound like a math jackass, but a percentage is a ratio not a unit of measure.
If you measure something it has to have a unit of measure. Measuring distance (length) you can use, for example: inches, microns, cupids, barleycorns, meters, light-years. It's a standard to evaluate the measurement.
Measuring pressure: millimeters of mercury, pounds per square inch (psi), millibars (mb), standard atmospheres...
You said racism has been measured. What is the unit of measure?
Limited Perspective,
Ratios can also be measures. Concentration is a ratio (5% salt solution vs. 10% salt solution) that measures the amount of A per unit of B. IQ is a ratio. The unemployment rate is a ratio.
Racism has been measured in studies about hiring, including studies that control for clothing, hairstyle, etc. It's been measured in studies of classroom behavior. It's been measured in criminal justice contexts. In all of these, the comparisons are ratios.
Ratios can be measurements only if they have units of measure. If I report that the concentration of seawater is 3.5%, it is a meaningless number. If I say it is 3.5% NaCl, then I have a unit of measure.
Once we have the meaning of the number/ratio/percentage, then we can discuss why seawater has this amount of (this one form of) salt.
That was my only point. Why there are different ratios regarding salt or ethnicity or homosexuality, I will leave for another day.
Limited Perspective,
I'm sure you're aware that the NaCl in "3.5% NaCl" is a chemical signifier, not a unit of measure. "3.5% KCl" would signify the same concentration of a different substance, not a different level of concentration.
However, in that vain, you might sell "50% hiring rate" (for employment) or "125% of the term of imprisonment" for similar crimes with similar priors. Is that what you were looking for?
Brow. It's math. 3.5 is meaningless without a unit of measure. Good grief, the unit of measure in this example happens to be a salt, it's what is being measured.
Yes, hiring rates and sentencing for criminal activity can be units of measure. I asked for a unit of measure and you said a percentage. Your reply was meaningless.
I prefer studies that, for example, measure the resonance of infrared light (actually lack of) on NaCl. It is non-political non-emotional and credible.
I have looked into many studies that both agree with my point of view and disagree with it. I've also read the debunk on studies that agree with my point of view and disagree with my point of view. When the study becomes political and emotional it loses credibility in my mind. My goodness, it's hard for me to believe you want to argue about a measurement having a unit of measure. It makes me wonder if you even understand how to critically think about a study.
Limited Perspective,
The thing that is being measured can not be the unit of measure. That's basic science. You can measure saltiness (a concentration), but there is not a measure called "a salt".
All topics in social sciences are political in one form or another. That means there are motivations to criticize them not based in the fundamentals of the study, but in the results.
You are correct. I was mistaken. Concentration is a unit of measure. Salt is what is being measured.
I left science about 25 years ago. Thank you for the correction.
Limited Perspective,
You're welcome. I look forward to further exchanges.
Post a Comment