Imagine yourself in this situation. A young girl is accused of a heinous crime — use your imagination here, too, and think of the most horrible thing a person can do — and she is trapped in front of you, helpless. You have a rock in your hands. People around you are urging you to kill her; they say that you are justified in taking her life. What would you do?
Let’s say you don’t have a rock, but are just part of the large crowd of spectators, witnessing a small group of men killing this girl. What would you do then?
Be honest now.
I wouldn’t be able to do kill anyone, and I would try to stop the killers. She could be an unrepentant mass murderer, and I couldn’t be an executioner — I wouldn’t want to sink to her level, and I think killing is an easy ‘solution’ that solves nothing. At the same time, it reduces the humanity of the killers, and diminishes the quality of our culture. I may not be the target myself, but such acts harm me.
That makes this story of a 13 year old girl stoned to death for adultery in Somalia incomprehensible to me. I know that people do evil all the time, but this was a mob of a thousand people watching 50 thugs murder someone in a particularly brutal fashion. Couldn’t just a few have raised a voice in protest, couldn’t some small fraction of that thousand intervened? Are the killers so divorced from empathy and morality that they would gladly snuff out the life of someone who can do them no harm?
What’s especially appalling is that the murderers weren’t driven by a fundamental human need — they didn’t kill her because they were defending themselves, or because they were starving, or because she had some real power that could harm them. She was killed because she offended their sense of sexual propriety. Because they perceived her as sexually potent, she challenged their own insecure, mouselike manhood. This is outrageously vile.
And even at that, she was an innocent. She was a 13 year old girl who had been raped by three men, and for this she was dragged out, begging for her life, buried up to her neck, and then stoned to death by weak, blustering men who let their machismo overwhelm their humanity.
And of course, this was driven by Islamist delusions. Religion is excellent at elevating intangible, untestable lies to a higher plane of moral significance than something as real and as simple as the life of a child.
I should also add, before everyone condemns this as simply the act of a primitive society, that the same impulse is at work right here in America. Those people who voted yes on Proposition 8 in California were simply performing a slightly more civilized version of casting a stone at those who offend their moral and religious sense of propriety.
Sure, but there’s a helluva difference between being asexual or ambivalent about sex, and thinking it’s destructive, negative and ignoble.
True. I just worry about someone with such obviously serious issues. Sexual issues are usually symptoms of something deeper.
That does not only apply to Walton,but to society as a whole.
Sexual repression is never far from religion.
Sorry, that was the Captain Obvious comment of the day.
Time for beer.
One of the things that guarantees that humanity will continue to amuse Me is that sexuality and aggression are controlled by the same hormonal signaling system, and the portions of the brain that control the respective behaviors are confusable.
There will always be some subset of the species that sees pursuing an attractive mate to be psychologically equivalent to destroying a hated enemy, or controlling a chattel slave, with all the concomitant anguish that implies.
Not to mention all of the other psychological factors that can be confused with sexuality, generally guaranteeing that there will always be someone for whom either giving in to desire or repressing it will lead to unhappiness and neurosis.
As I’ve mentioned before, if you found out what I did to bring about the creation of humanity, you would never stop throwing up.
Walton, I’ll be honest. I know I’m prone to attack you, but it’s because you drive me up a freakin’ wall. However, I think all of us her are kind and well-meaning people. I’ve noticed that you seem to gravitate towards discussions of sex, even raising some questions recently on a completely unrelated thread. When it is discussed, as here, you seem to wish to, ahem, penetrate more deeply into the subject. Since you’ve received personalized replies in the past, you had to expect that you would again. This all makes me think that perhaps you do want to talk about it. Maybe this isn’t the best forum (although I do recall that when you discussed some personal issues in the past you received sympathy and offers of help), but I hope you do find someone with whom to talk about this.
Hey God where’s that bike I prayed about in 5th grade?
Oh, jeez. Now God’s here. Talk about a boring, sexless drone! I mean, this guy hasn’t been laid since Sodom. And have you tried to read his book?! zzzzzz
I’m a little pissed that Walton was able to hijack this thread, which began as an expression of horror and outrage over a female Somali child being killed by the fundamentalist Islamic patriarchy running roughshod over the region. Please, stop being so solipsistic!
That being said, Walton, maybe you’d be better served if you spent less time on the ‘net and went out more often. Find yourself a nice girl (or dude, if your natural inclination is in that direction) and try to develop a genuine relationship, which may lead to a satisfying sex life, which would (ironically) make sex and sexual mores less of a consuming obsession for you.
On my own part, I’ve found that the sheer brutality of this act has stirred up some ugly feelings in myself. Sure, we can all hypothesize what we’d do if we were armed, and could intervene to save the girl, but what would any of us do if we were flying overhead and could drop a M.O.A.B. on the stadium after the fact? It terrifies me that a Kurtzian “Exterminate the brutes” even crossed my mind, but I’d be lying if I said it hadn’t.
That reason alone convinces me that every effort must be made to restore the moral/social fiber of the U.S. come January. Not only must we restore habeas corpus, end the major land war, and conduct our anti-terrorism efforts in a smarter, more humane fashion, but we must overhaul the justice system in this country and put an end to the prison-industrial complex that made Abu Ghraib possible.
Brutality breeds brutality, dehumanization/demonization is contagious.
What part of “you exist to amuse Me” did you not understand?
Or ever.
Boy, have you not been reading the right parts. Come on, it starts out with shame, pain, banishment, continues on with murder, then graduates to mass murder.
There’s boring begats in there, but then, there always are.
I know. At least he could have taken a lesson from Zeus and shown Mary a boots-knocking, heavenly good time rather than just zapping her from afar with magic jizz to knock her up.
Or maybe that’s just what she told Joseph…
All of the steamy stories about Zeus and his wild affairs were made up by horny Greeks who wished to justify their own… goings on.
Sometimes they were made up to explain an unexpected pregnancy. “No, no, our daughter would never spread her legs for any random schmuck! It must have been Zeus in disguise! Her child will be a demigod at the very least!”
And so on and so forth.
Nothing to do with Me, except for My amusement in seeing their obvious lying.
Sheesh. It was only a bike. What part of you’re a big meanie face do you not understand.
Just because you’re all omnipotent and all powerful and father of the savior of the world and have a great ass is no reason to be an asshole to a 5th grader.
Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM (451):
You clearly still haven’t broken those Abrahamic shackles. What you call “harm” is itself nothing more than a particular interaction between cell-clusters. To attach any kind of moral significance to this particular physical phenomenon is a superstitious reflex …
To begin with, an experience of His presence that lasted approximately 20 minutes.
Patricia (452):
Nothing to lose.
Nerd of Redhead (453):
That’s a completely arbitrary and pointless condition. You asked for evidence – what does its source matter? If an inquirer came seeking an authoritative in-depth explanation of evolutionary theory & you suggested he e-mail Dawkins or PZ Myers, what would you think if he responded with “Fuck them, I want to hear it from some guy who posts occasionally in Pharyngula’s comboxes!”
Owlmirror (459):
And how do you know He doesn’t respond with such actions? Perhaps He just likes to be a bit more more discreet nowadays than in the past.
Maybe you’re just hard of hearing. Or not listening hard enough.
You wouldn’t have shot your eye out, at any rate.
Not so much with any of that, either. I’m immaterial. Literally and completely.
No, I’m assholy to you, and to everyone else, because it amuses Me to be assholy. That’s the only reason there is, and the only reason I need.
That was not Me.
Heh. You are so gullible.
What a gigantic dodging load of shit that is. Punching someone in the face is causing physical harm to someone. Abrahamic religions meaning exactly shit in this. It is harm. Are you suggesting that only the Abrahamic religions have a monopoly on that is and isn’t harm?
That’s really your answer? Weak. My comment above stands even stronger now that you’ve deposited that reeking pile of fecal waste above.
No, it’s basically because I’m assholy.
Nah. The silent treatment is my favourite psychological torture.
Pilty, you just don’t have any idea of burden of proof. I don’t have the burden of proof to disprove you alleged, god. Since you are the one positing god you have the burden of proof to show that your god exists with the proper physical evidence, or to shut up about god. You keep shirking you duty to prove god, which is an admission that you know you cannot prove god. The continued talk of god just makes you appear to any rational person, and the atheist who blog here, to be a congenital liar.
You’re going to have to be more specific
Ah, Pilty. The prophecy has been fulfilled. I wrote in #417:
And you’ve waited until truth machine left, too. Two from two.
Anyway, you don’t have much of a point. Just because a society developed morals and ethics at the same time as believing in a super-invisible bestfriend doesn’t mean the existence of the super-invisible bestfriend is responsible for the morals.
Of course, no civilization that didn’t take on an abrahamic religion has ever managed to survive, has it? They can’t have; they’d have been incapable of having any morals, wouldn’t they?
Longtime Lurker,
This is just one incident amongst many other superstition-based atrocities going on in Africa. They don’t generally make the news, but search for child witches, for example, and you’ll find even worse than this incident. It’s not just Islam, it’s all superstitions that are enablers.
You clearly still haven’t broken those Abrahamic shackles.
What a tiresome git you are. The foundation of all morality, pre- and post- composition of the Torah, the gospels, or whatever literature we’re calling “Abrahamic,” is the same: do unto others, or more generally, and in modern terms, treat your fellow persons as ends in themselves and not means to an end. The idea that some Judean scribe invented this, or having written it down, owns it and holds it in trust for his spiritual descendents and no others is just ignorant and parochial.
Pilty, I was just wondering…
For those who believe in Satan (I don’t know if you are one of them), do you think they believe he would be powerful enough to fool you into thinking you had felt “an experience of His presence that lasted approximately 20 minutes.“? If not, why not?
We know that we (humans) are capable of experiencing illusions. Of believing things that are simply not so. Of being fooled by someone who is able to manipulate what we experience. I am genuinely curious–how is it that you can guarantee that your 20 minute experience could not possibly be anything other than what you believe it to be?
It’s not just Islam, it’s all superstitions that are enablers.
Yeah, even political ideologies and economic theories can enable brutality… it’s just hard to maintain one’s equilibrium when confronted with news of such monstrous acts.
Bill Dauphin (471):
Non sequitur. Just because an act is not inherently immoral, it doesn’t necessarily follow that representations of that act cannot be inherently immoral.
Another long post without any proof for your alleged god. Pilty, you just look pathetic. Just one little bit of proof that can be shown to be of divine origin by scientists, debunkers, and magicians. And then to try theology with a god? Sheer insanity on your part. First god, then showing the holy book is divinely inspired, and then, and only then, theology.
Anon (#524):
Now that’s an interesting question. Unfortunately it’ll have to wait — it’s getting late and I really must have some rampant sex with my good lady wife.
What have peace, forgiveness and redemption, charity, mutual support and turning away from materialism got to do with communism (a system of thought that, if nothing else, was avowedly materialistic)?
Love the equivocation on “materialism,” there. Keep it up; you’re easily in the running for our most mendacious and intellectually craven regular commenter. I’m pulling for you.
And this bit, from Luke 18, doesn’t strike you as advocating something a lot like collectivism?
Posted by: Piltdown Man | November 7, 2008
Unfortunately it’ll have to wait — it’s getting late and I really must have some rampant sex with my good lady wife.
That is as truthful as your name.
Piltdown Man:
You really must have unrestrained and violent sex? So, all this talk of the morality of sex was just to get you in the mood for a bit of savagery, then. Kinky! Just try not to bruise her too much, please.
Piltdown Man wrote:
Got to get that twenty-minutes of ‘proving god’ in so you don’t wake up an atheist, huh?
“I personally feel that sexuality is one of the most destructive and negative aspects of human nature, and that we would all do better to transcend such purely physical desires in favour of devoting energy to more noble pursuits.”
Jesus H. FUCK, Walton!!! What the fuck is WRONG with you?!??!!?
Seriously. That is an absolutely horrifying statement to make, and makes me want to make damn sure that you never ever ever get within shouting distance of my kids or any of my friends. I get that you’ve got issues, you’ve alluded to them before, but a sick statement like that is completely and utterly inexcusable.
Eric Saveau, #533, wrote:
On the plus side you’d know that he wouldn’t be trying to have sex with any of them…
Eric Saveau,
Agreed. For one thing, it’s the rationale for infibulation.
Again Walton, you skate around the question of your gender preferance.
Blockquote fail, I’ll try again
Fuck off that’s what I meant! It’s not solely a Judao-Christian enterprise to conduct sex in private, nor is it to reject nakedness. Don’t take the inherent social bias we have towards the biblical doctrine as a source of the sense of morality and shame; it’s as bad as those who think that without the bible society would descend into that!
Fuck off I am! Do you think that the only thing stopping people from copulating in the streets is the Judao-Christian religious doctrine? If so, fuck you! If not, then your point is mute.
@Pilty #528…
I really don’t know which to wish…
if good lady wife has cloven hooves and horns, she may rock your world tonight. If not, you may be saved… and bored to death. I can perfectly understand that you want both demon and angel in your bed tonight…
Just remember, it is only a bronze-age religious ideology that insists you must choose between the two. Reject superstition, and have a wonderful evening…
Posted by: Patricia | November 7, 2008
Again Walton, you skate around the question of your gender preferance.
Just send him both a Margaret Thatcher lookalike and a Ronald Reagan lookalike. That should get some iron in his pants. He is free to act on one or both.
I shudder typing this out.
That ol’ perv Piltdown Man just got all excited by the thought of Walton being a virgin, and trying to drop his pen in the room and peek up the Rev. BigDumbChimps cassock.
So far as his rampant sex fantasy – I’ll bet 5 cyber ducats his good lady wife holds less than 100 pounds of air pressure.
Janine, We are all wasted on that boy. He is the most joyless, poker up the ass, young waste of organs I’ve ever seen.
Again Walton, you skate around the question of your gender preferance.
He’s in the U.K. equivalent of ROTC… I don’t think the UK has anything equivalent to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” but he may be avoiding a razzing in boot camp. I don’t think, however, admitting to being a virgin/asexual would be regarded in a better light, though. Maybe he just uses a copy of Atlas Shrugged as a “beatin’ bible”.
The fact that I actually know about Wally’s personal history/career trajectory is kinda scary, but he DOES always carry on about himself.
Usually they prize celibacy in combination with doing away with personal property… I have gotten the impression that to you the acquisition of property isn’t such a negative and destructive pursuit, though?
Also, these cultures didn’t know about effective birth control. So people who wanted to dedicate themselves to something else besides raising a family might not have had much choice. If science had been invented earlier, we might have celibacy oaths for grad students :)
Then again, there was Feynman…
Unfortunately you’re right Lurker. Walton proves that there are blue ribbion winning christian idiots in countries other than America.
I’ve had Walton killfiled for ages, but the rest of you fuckers keep quoting the guy…
Celibacy? Celibacy?
8-D>
There’s all kinds, no?
Mmmmm, why thank you Sven for calling me a fucker. I take that kindly. Middle aged women don’t often get that sort of- suggestive compliment.
First, Walton:
I’m genuinely sorry the conversation has made you uncomfortable. I know we sometimes play rough around here, but I’m sure I’m not alone in being sincerely concerned for your happiness. When I said earlier that some of your comments broke my heart, I was not being facetious: For whatever reason, you seem to have preemptively cut yourself off from one of the things that makes life truly wonderful… and I suspect this arbitrary denial of your own pleasure extends to areas of your life other than sexuality. I urge you to reconsider: There is no nobility or virtue in self-denial for its own sake, nor is there any inherent dishonor in pleasure. I hope you can shake off this unnatural asceticism, and find a balanced, happy approach to life.
Now for the fossil (@526):
OK, if you say so. Suppose you convince me that pictures of people having sex (the pictures themselves, I mean; not any particular display of them… and assuming their production was consensual on all parts) are immoral… and do so without also arguing (or implying) that sex itself is immoral?
This is situational, the sort of thing that courts and legislatures at all levels of government handle all the time. As I said, “engineering, not science.” And in any case, this competition of rights in no way suggests that the behavior in question is intrinsically immoral.
Mebbe so… but I stand by my contention that, in the eyes of the Catholic church (and of many other religions, esp. the “Abrahamic” ones), the “true nature” of sex is that it’s evil except when confined to certain narrow, divinely authorized channels. Nothing you’ve said persuades me otherwise.
And while this line of conversation might seem like a thread hijacking to some, I don’t really think it is: This notion that sex=lust=evil, based on religious mythology rooted in prescientific understandings of the world, is precisely what not only allows but promotes atrocities like the Somalia story in PZ’s OP… not to mention countless other similar tragedies large and small.
If we could just let the fuck go of this idea that our physical appetites (and the pleasure we get when we satisfy them) are shameful and depraved, half of what makes the world scary and sad and violent would go away with it.
Oh Bill we always play rough around here. Are you drunk?
I’ll walk you home man, cause I’m slightly less drunk.
Then I hope Janine walks me home, so we can sing slutty songs, laugh and twirl.
Patricia:
Careful, now… sounds like that might lead to some of that evil stuff!
Nah, it’s just a kinky position, is all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attitude_(heraldry)#Rampant
Anon (#524):
Hence the rules for the discernment of spirits.
Nerd of Redhead (519):
There is no burden of proof. I don’t have to prove anything to anyone – I’m satisfied God exists. If you wish to remain lost in your errors, that’s entirely your affair.
Are you also satisfied to the same extent that a cracker turns into Jesus and PZ Myers is under demonic possession?
Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM (517):
Nope, obviously there is such a thing as harm which is very unpleasant to those who experience it. What I don’t understand is how one can assign moral significance to that unpleasantness if one accepts truth machine’s particular materialistic premises.
CJO (529):
What equivocation? Christ did indeed teach a “turning away from materialism”. He assigned the spiritual a higher place in the hierarchy of value than the material. Which is the exact opposite of historical communism.
I see no advocacy of “collectivism” whatsoever. I see a directive to avoid entanglement with worldly concerns.
Still playing dumb pilty. Your belief is irrelevant if you keep it to yourself like a polite person would (that is don’t post here about it), nobody would care. Once you post here and posit god, we have every right to challenge your belief and the facts behind the belief. So, I am questioning the facts behind your god. There appear to be no facts or evidence, which makes you out to appear deluded. Are you ready to show physical proof for your god yet? If not, why not do the polite thing and quit posting about god, religion, and theology here.
Pilty, your argument entire rests on the assumption that the Judao-Christian God exists, you have a burden of proof if you want that assumption to be valid. If you don’t feel like taking that burden of proof then please stop basing your arguments on that assumption.
Because “discretion” is utterly inconsistent with the performance of such actions. We cannot tell that God is performing them if he does not explicitly make it clear that they are being done and that it is himself that is doing them.
Then the onus is on God to speak up. Since God does not speak up, and has not spoken up for my entire lifespan, clearly God is the one with the problem.
And how do you know that it was incontrovertible? How do you know that it could not be explained by a seizure of some sort, perhaps in the temporal lobe?
What peace? “Do not think that I came to send peace upon earth: I came not to send peace, but the sword.”
And as for materialism…. Funny how cult leaders in all eras demand that their followers give up everything either for the cult leaders, or to the cult leaders. Either way, they demand that the followers make themselves dependent upon the cult leader.
Bill Dauphin (549):
I’n not a fossil. I’m a real live dinosaur.
Well in talking about immorality, I’m not one can draw a meaningful distinction between the “pictures themselves” and “any particuar display of them”. Moral evil is meaningless outside the context of rational beings — there is no inherent quality or essence of evil that mystically inheres in a picture; any evil arises from the uses rational beings make of it.
In the case of sex, one must draw a distinction between an innately good natural act and various evil perversions of it. In the case of sexually explicit imagery, the evil would lie in the exposure of a properly private act in the public domain and it the artificial stimulation of sexual arousal in a context divorced from the sexual act itself.
But engineering depends on the prior existence of objective scientific laws. The very notion of competing rights assumes a) their existence and b) the intrinsic moral desirability of their being fulfilled.
I wouldn’t quarrel with that, although to say something is “evil except when …” is not the same thing as saying something is “innately” evil. And again, the evil lies not in the thng itself but in the (mis)use to which it’s put.
I would say most people in the Western world let go of that idea a long time ago. What taboos are left intact today?
– Western society has in the past few decades become saturated with images of a highly sexualized nature. These can be seen on television, on cinema screens, in magazines, advertising billboards, etc.
– These images often don’t even relate specifically to sex as such – they could be advertising motor cars or chocolate. In other words, a ‘pan-sexualism’ has crept into the culture, whereby an erotic component is gratuitously grafted on to something that has nothing to do with sex.
– At no point is this pervasive eroticism linked to the conception and raising of children. Quite the reverse – the possibility of conceiving a child is an annoying inconvenience that gets in the way of a free and easy hedonism. Hence the urgency with which contraceptive devices and procedures are devised and promoted.
– As the years have passed, these images have become more and more explicit. This is in conformity with the inner logic of a consciously taboo-breaking mindset – once one sacred cow has been killed the hunt is on to find an even bigger and more sacred one to slaughter in order to achieve the same frisson. This ‘drift’ toward the ever more extreme can easily be confirmed by watching a 10-year-old movie whose sexual content was considered shocking in its day. Chances are it will now seem quaint, innocent even.
– Younger age-groups are being exposed to these processes. Witness, for example, the emergence of sexualised children’s toys such as the Bratz range of dolls. Observe how the so-called ‘lads’ mags’ that took off in the 90s are regularly displayed in newsagents’ where they can easily be seen by children, despite featuring soft-porn cover imagery.
These developments are indisputable. What you think the consequences will be depends on your view of sexuality. Liberals say: The weakening of taboos surrounding sex has been a positive development, long may it continue! [That’s what they say when they’re not moaning about how repressed we all are.]
There seem to be two main arguments to support this view:
1. Sex is utterly harmless and innocuous. To fence it round with puritanical taboos is cruel and unnecessary, breaking a butterfly on the wheel.
2. Sex is a primordial powerhouse of raw dionysiac energy. To attempt to dam this volcano is both futile and dangerous.
These kind of contradict each other but the same liberal will often come out with both. I recall having a conversation many years ago with a feminist colleague concerning a news story about a girl who’d been sexually assaulted while out alone wearing what some would consider ‘provocative’ dress. The feminist waxed indignant about males – all potential rapists, uncivilized, utterly unable to control their savage instincts, little better than brutes basically. Should, then, the victim have dressed less provocatively so as not to inflame this uncontrollable savagery? Certainly not, exclaimed the outraged feminist – men should be expected to exercise self-control!
Personally I believe sexuality to be a tremendously powerful force with vast physical, psychological and spiritual ramifications. Society has a stake in it & so cannot fail to take an interest in it. In that sense it cannot be a purely private matter but must be ‘legislated’ for.
Re: celibacy.
Remember that religious asceticism is not the renunciation of worldly pleasure for no reason. It is a sacrifice undertaken in devotion to the deity. In the case of Christian asceticism, there is the further dimension of uniting oneself with the sufferings of Christ. Finally there is the role of ascetic practices as a way of disciplining the passions and achieving self-mastery — which even on a purely natural level can be extremely satisfying and psychologically fruitful, as many pagan ascetics well knew.
It’s easy to scoff at a pious virgin who chooses to renounce the world. You can dismiss his choice as the product of an immature or unbalanced psychology. But you’ll have a harder time explaining away the likes of St Augustine, St Francis, St Ignatius of Loyola and many others, all experienced worldy men who perceived that the earthly and divine economies do not always coincide in matters of profit and loss. At any rate, they thought it worth undertaking.
“I am the door. By me, if any man enter in, he shall be saved: and he shall go in, and go out, and shall find pastures. The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy. I am come that they may have life, and may have it more abundantly.”
“If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life, shall lose it; for he that shall lose his life for my sake, shall save it. For what is a man advantaged, if he gain the whole world, and lose himself, and cast away himself?”
You can continue to build up whatever strawman version of what TM said you’d like. I’ll even bring you the match.
Quit twisting the facts to make them support your corrupted logic.
Now are you still claiming that the Abrahamic religions hold a monopoly on what is harm and what isn’t?
What? Rev. BDC, a fundie godbot using corrupted logic? Well, that confirms my sense of their being delusional fools. Just the concept of god is enough to make one mad if it isn’t tightly compartmentalized. When it takes over, there is just no hope for rational thought. Our old troll PR is a classic example.
Personally I sometimes wonder if straights aren’t jealous of us queers based upon some strange perception that we have more fun or somehow have easier relationships. Straight women especially have remarked to me about how nice it must be to share child rearing with another woman rather than a man. I can’t imagine that straight men are such lousy co-parents as they seem to imply. I sometimes get the weird vibe that I am shirking some responsibility to join in the supposed stress of the heterosexual lifestyle.
I’d also really like a definition of the heterosexual lifestyle. Is it Nascar rather than Project Runway? Burgers rather than tofu? Stretch pants for women rather than fitted jeans? Manscaping rather than hairy backs for men?
Don’t forget Guns, God and guts. And by guts I mean beer guts.
@Piltdown Man-Thing
*knock knock knock*
[Big scary used car salesman smile]
Hello, friend! Are you familiar with the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints? Good! We are here to bring Jesus’ message of love of salvation to all the people in these perilous times! Have you received the love of Jesus into your heart? No, not at THAT church; we bring the REAL message of Jesus. All other churches are just part of the evil liberalgaycommunisecularhumanislamofascist conspiracy! You’d better get on your knees and join up with us pronto, because we saw some Jehovah’s Witnesses down the street and you know what they’re like! You want the TRUTH of Jesus in your life, right? Right? RIGHT?!?!?!?
It almost makes it worse when you hear about this sort of thing being used as a lever in unrelated disputes. Like the recent episode in (I think!) India where a teenager was mauled by dogs and shot – allegedly an ‘honour killing’ but more sinisterly the end result of a land dispute between the girl’s husband and her father. Hilarious, no?
Consider that most lynchings in America had economic motives, thinly justified by racial hatred combined with trumped-up charges, often sexual in nature- rape, attempted rape, or simply disrespecting white women- supposedly intended to maintain the social order by reminding the negroes of their place. Usually though, the victims were successful business owners or farmers, their heirs were forced out of town with nothing, and the property ended up in white hands- often the original accuser’s.
Meaning that the given excuse, as evil as it is- sexual impropriety and maintaining the racial heirarchy- was itself a rationale intended to cover up a real motive of theft by terror and violence. A property crime disguised as a hate crime disguised as vigilante justice. Layers of evil.
Pure speculation on my part follows, take with appropriate grains of salt:
I suspect that a lot of “honor killings” (and black lynchings can be considered a form of these) are similarly motivated- false accusations of sexual impropriety used to punish someone who has inspired enmity and/or envy from the local powers that be.
That these parents went to the local authorities (the militia) in the first place, rather than keep quiet or even punish her themselves, indicates that they did not subscribe to the hateful ideology of fundamentalist extremism. Perhaps her death was as much a punishment on them for daring to speak up against that ideology by seeking justice for their daughter and a warning to everyone else.
In other words, it serves to enforce a sense of terror in anyone else who may challenge the religious authority at least as much as it enforces a norm of sexual propriety. It may, as with lynchings in America, be a punishment for sexual misconduct on the surface, a means of suppressing dissent from the social order beneath that, and possibly a means of taking from the family in question to boot.
Did the surviving family have to leave town after this? (How could they stay and face their neighbors who stood by and let their daughter be raped and then publicly murdered?) If they left, did they leave any property behind, a farm or business? Were they known locally as dissenters or just insufficiently respectful to local religious authorities? It wouldn’t surprise me one bit if the answer to all these is yes.
…Einstein, Darwin, Heisenberg, Bohr, Huxley, Hooker, the Curies, Lord Kelvin, Euler, Gauss, Descartes, Russell….
Hell, Stephen Hawking has an active (and tumultuous) sex life, even during periods of severe disability.
Rousseau slept with anything that moved and had to drop out of school because he masturbated too much to finish his homework.
The numbers don’t lie: If you want to be a great scientist, mathematician or philosopher, have sex.
Shorter Piltdown Hoax: Better to be fucked by big sky daddy than to have intercourse with a fellow human.
The one who renounces seems weak to the one incapable of renunciation.
– Nicolás Gómez Dávila
Look out Janine, ol’ Pilty could get frisky again.
C is for cookie, it’s good enough for me.
-Cookie Monster
*snort* You’re citing that particular oversexed hypocrite?
“Give me chastity and continence, but not yet.”
Augustine was a rabid horndog.
Why do caterpillars crawl?
Why is there a sky?
Why is there a world at all?
And why do I ask why?
– Mokey Fraggle
Pilty – Just whom are you trying to irritate?
Muppet fans.
Oh, then that would be me.
In that case, fuck off Pilty.
Obviously you’re not that familiar with Augustine.
There’s the point that Augustine proclaimed the benefits of chastity, but his only sexual experience was with mistresses. That skews his views. He taught that Original Sin was transmitted by concupiscence and lust. According to his Confessions, Augustine always felt ashamed about his sexual relationships. Possibly if he had been married, he would have had a different view towards sex.
It’s interesting that the Catholic Church is very anti-sex. Perhaps the fact that the hierarchy are professional virgins doesn’t allow them to accept that much of the rest of the world have different viewpoints about sex.
My favorite comment of the evening, by far.
I’ve read quite a bit about church practices in regard to the witch trials, do to some of my ancestor’s being hanged.
It’s the smug manner that they tortured, and sexually abused them upsets me the most.
I love a good bum on a woman, it makes my day.
To me it is palpable proof of God’s existence, a posteriori.
Also I love breasts and arms and ankles, elbows, knees;
It’s the tongue, the tongue, the tongue on a woman that spoils the job for me.
Please understand I respect and admire the frailer sex
And I honour them every bit as much as the next misogynist.
But give some women the ghost of a chance to talk and thereupon
They go on again, on again, on again, on again, on again, on again, on.
I fell in love with a woman with wonderful thighs and hips
And a sensational belly. I just never noticed her lips were always moving.
Only when we got to the altar and she had to say “I do”
And she folded her arms and gathered herself and took in a breath and I knew
She could have gone on again, on again, on again till the entire
Congregation passed out and the vicar passed on and the choirboys passed through puberty.
At the reception I gloomily noted her family’s jubilant mood,
Their maniacal laughter and their ghastly gratitude.
She talks to me when I go for a shave or a sleep or a swim.
She talks to me on a Sunday when I go singing hymns and drinking heavily.
When I go mending my chimney pot she’s down there in the street,
And at ninety-five on my motorbike she’s on the pillion seat
Wittering on again, on again, on and again and again.
When I’m eating or drinking or reading or thinking or when I’m saying my rosary.
She will never stop talking to me; she is one of those women who
Will never use three or four words when a couple of thousand will easily do!
She also talks without stopping to me in our bed of a night;
Throughout the sweetest of our intimate delights she never gives over.
Not even stopping while we go hammer and tongs towards the peak –
Except maybe for a sigh and a groan and one perfunctory shriek.
Then she goes on again, on again, on again on and I must
Assume that she has never noticed that she’s just been interrupted.
Totally unruffled she is, and as far as I can see
I might just as well have been posting a letter or stirring up the tea!
She will not take a hint, not once she’s made a start.
I can yawn or belch or bleed or faint or fart – she’ll not drop a syllable.
I could stand in front of her grimly sharpening up an axe,
I could sprinkle her with paraffin, and ask her for a match –
She’d just go on again, on again, on again even more.
The hind leg of a donkey is peanuts for her, she can bore the balls off a buffalo.
“Mother of God,” I cried one day, “Oh, let your kingdom come
“And in the meantime, Mother, could you strike this bugger dumb?”
Well, believe it or not, she appeared to me then and there:
The Blessed Virgin herself, in answer to my prayer, despite the vulgarity,
Shimmering softly, dressed in blue and holding up a hand.
I cocked a pious ear as the Mother of God began.
Well she went on again, on again, on again, on, and I
Will have to state how very much I sympathise with the rest of the family.
Give some women the ghost of a chance to talk and thereupon
They go on again, on again, on again, on again,
And again, and again, and again, and again
They will go on again, on again, on again, on again, on again, on again, on …
(words & music: Jake Thackray)
Piltdown Man #582:
And your point is?
What a colossal ass you are.
That he’s proud to be in a cannibal cult
That’s got to be the least pious tune I’ve seen in a while.
What has gotten into you, Pilt?
Perhaps someone’s hand is up your arse?
The Piltdown thing has apparently been reduced to naked trolling, now that the vacuity of its professed dialectic has been exposed. Bah.
Holy shite Owlmirror! Stand back, he may just tell you what’s gotten into him. *shudder*
Ewwwwwww!
John Morales how could you try to plant that image in my brain?! Naked trolling Pilty. Oh, my brain!
Ewwwwww!!!
I see Pilty left a big pile Patricia, we will need your big pitchfork to clear that garbage out. I always knew firmly believing in god made men delusional. Pilty is showing us what happens when you think you hear god.
Well Nerd, it’s a ten tiner, but I don’t think I can lift that big a pile.
PZ’s got a big pile when he gets back. We just had a blood bath on the RFK thread.
The moon isn’t full until the 13th, I don’t know what’s got into people tonight!
Maybe the BigDumbChimp can lift that Pilty pile. I’ll leave the manure fork in the corner.
Oops, sorry Patricia. Bad choice of words.
Could’ve been worse, though – I might have put the word “rampant” there somewhere.
<ducks>
Arrggh! John!
Please, not rampant naked trolling….
I haven’t had my supper yet.
And think of Owlmirror too. We are delicate flowers. Now stop that. ;o)
PZ,
You state that killing a mass murderer would solve nothing. You say that as if there is a solution to murder but, as a society, we’re going about it all wrong. Admittedly killing a mass murderer does not solve the problem of mass murder but how do you cure murder? Do you think it’s possible that one day humans will not murder? I see your point that you yourself can not do it but, assuming you’re an omnivore, do you kill your own beef? Chances are that you do not. Instead you pay a butcher to do it. Having said that I think it’s a little unfair to ask us to put ourselves in the shoes of the executioner. I admit it would be tough to take the life of another human, but I can imagine a situation where I would do it. If, for example, my family is the victim of a home invasion by drug crazed murderer’s and I thought a member of my family was at risk I would absolutely kill another person. I’m sure you can think of a situation where you would take the life of someone else. I realize there is a difference between self defense and corporal punishment but you said that you didn’t think you would be able to kill anyone but isn’t there immorality in absolute pacifism? What punishment should we hand down to a child murderer?
Ophiuchus,
Bad example, I think.
Were killing a steer murder, abbatoirs would not legally exist.
It wasn’t a general hypothetical case, it was very specific.
To use this rhetorical approach is sophistry, given PZ’s unambigous first two paragraphs.
Again, PZ was most clear regarding the specific situation.
Instead of answering PZ’s question, you’ve avoided and misrepresented his point. Shameful, that is, unless of course you’re simple, in which case it’s merely pathetic.
Oh please, what kind of idiot are you?
This is a thirteen year old girl that has been RAPED by THREE men.
She is the victim.
Do you get this idiot? She is the victim.
If I were prone to praying, I would pray that you have no daughters.
Wait… did someone call me?
I’m busy drinking whiskey and watching Sharon Jones and the Dap Kings on Austin City limits. I’ll take a stab after I quit boogyin’ down
Jake Thackray
by the way anyone whose PBS station is playing Austin City Limits right now should watch. Sharon Jones is one bad mutherfucker.
Yes please Chimpy, help a strumpet out.
Nasty old Piltdown perv left a horrid pile on the thread. I have a ten tined manure fork but the pile is simply to heavy for a delicate morsel like me to lift.
If you could hold your nose, and fork it into the trebuchet basket I would be ever so grateful!
PM (@561):
So? Admittedly I haven’t paid much attention to dinosaur taxonomy since I was about 9, but I could’ve sworn “Piltdown Man” was something else….
Privacy has, as near as I can tell, only two stakeholders: Those whose act would be revealed (in this case, the participants in the sexual acts the imagery depicts) and those to whom it would be revealed. I have already stipulated that one thing (perhaps the only thing) that can make a sexual act “immoral” is lack of consent… and that would include lack of consent to be photographed (or filmed or videotaped or sketched or painted or sculpted in sweet-cream butter) in the act. In addition, my whole point was to recognize the right of the public not to be forced to view them.
So once again: Assuming the consent of both the subjects and the viewers of explicit sexual imagery, how can it be immoral unless sex itself is immoral? Are you suggesting that privacy has some external moral value independent of the wishes of the involved parties? If so, on what basis? And on what basis do you suggest that this platonic privacy is “properly” attached to sexuality in particular? I say you can’t make your case without reference to the whim of some deity regarding the moral nature of these acts… and my whole point in this conversation has been to reject the validity of such whims (and the existence of their putative author).
Two points about your list:
1. The items you tick off (esp. “[a]t no point is this pervasive eroticism linked to the conception and raising of children.”) aren’t particularly shocking or dismaying unless you think there’s something morally wrong with sex in general, and “recreational” (which is to say, nonprocreative) sex in particular. The notion that religion holds sex per se to be innately depraved has been my point all along. You seem to want to deny that idea, but your arguments always end up (inadvertently, I assume) supporting it rather than attacking it.
2. The fact that there’s quite a bit of taboo-breaking going on in no way supports your contention that there are no taboos anymore. (Quite obviously, it does support the contrary position.) My position has never been that there’s not a lot of sex in our culture; my position has been that there’s a lot of (IMHO unwarranted) guilt and shame about it. Or haven’t you noticed that people often do things despite taboos, and then feel guilty, or are subjected to shaming by their fellows? Your solution is to stop the taboo-breaking; mine is to stop thinking of it as taboo, and stop the shaming.
Look, human sexuality is a wonderful thing (and remains so even when it’s used “merely” for physical pleasure)… and yet… those people in Somalia believed that a single sexual act — even one cruelly forced on her against her wishes — so irredeemably stained that girl that they could not suffer her to continue living. They believed that because they had internalized, both culturally and as individuals, a taboo born of mystical hogwash that demonizes the “things of the flesh” in contrast to a perfect (albeit illusory) supernatural realm.
And you want to argue that those taboos are good? Really???
[shakes head in some combination of disbelief and disgust]
OH Flinging poo!!! Something I’m intimately knowledgeable about. This time with engineering!!
Oh thank you Rev. BigDumbChimp, I’m always happy to sail a cow chip or two myself, but Pilty left such a huge pant load that a lady couldn’t handle the job alone.
Just the smell makes a girl head for the fainting couch.
Posted by: Patricia | November 8, 2008 10:44 PM
Oh please, what kind of idiot are you?
This is a thirteen year old girl that has been RAPED by THREE men.
She is the victim.
Do you get this idiot? She is the victim.
Exactly. All this chatter about religions, morality, and sexuality is interesting, but it’s a distraction.
The point I was trying to make (at #568) is that she is not the only victim here (her family, neighbors, everyone who had to watch) and that this was only superficially about religion and sexual propriety- this was a terrorist act, intended to enforce obedience to the militia, who represent a particularly vile strain of religious fundamentalism.
It’s about political power, and the religious authority’s hold on it through terrorist violence. The message is: “Adhere strictly to our prescription for your behavior, do not deviate and do not complain, or you and your loved ones will be horribly killed. If we are willing to do this to an innocent little girl, imagine what we’ll do to you if you cross us.”
…this was a terrorist act, intended to enforce obedience to the militia, who represent a particularly vile strain of religious fundamentalism.
I completely agree, and it is indeed a horrifying act. I don’t think it can be ascribed to the influence of a specific religion; rather, there’s something deep and dark within humanity which drives people to elevate an abstract belief above human life, to the point that capricious killing becomes not merely acceptable, but a duty. Virtually all religious traditions have at some time or another been used to justify murder, as, indeed, have secular doctrines such as Marxism.
What all of us need to remember, IMO, is that human life is precious; and it is not justifiable to murder someone in pursuance of an abstract ideal, whatever that ideal may be. If there is a God who wants little girls to be murdered for the “wrong” of having been raped, then I certainly would not choose to worship such a sadistic deity.
Rather, IMO, the better path is to follow the innate sense of right and wrong which inheres in all of us; to value and respect human life above all else. If there is no God, then we can die in the knowledge that we have done right and made the world a better place for everyone. Conversely, if there is a benevolent God, then I would hope that he would reward those who have done right and shown mercy, rather than those who have killed in His name. If not, then He is not worth worshipping.
Walton,
Indeed, it’s a better path, but to claim human life should be “respected above all else” is itself ideology. That path leads to horrible outcomes, too (e.g. there are times when euthanasia can only be seen mercy, the denial of which is cruelty).
Better, I think, to use that innate sense to which you refer and rationality and our knowledge base, and to not have iron-cast inflexible opinions, but to judge each case on its merits.
Walton, further to “… value and respect human life above all else.”, this is in contradiction to your earlier claim
That path leads to horrible outcomes, too (e.g. there are times when euthanasia can only be seen mercy, the denial of which is cruelty).
I agree, but I don’t see euthanasia in itself as a lack of respect for human life. An informed adult of full capacity is ultimately entitled to choose when his or her life will end; and when someone is terminally ill and has few or no remaining worthwhile life prospects, I wouldn’t condemn them for making that choice, nor those who assist them in dying. So euthanasia is not murder, IMO.
(This is why I think it’s a mistake, as so many do, to lump euthanasia and abortion together as “life issues”. One is the voluntary and informed choice of a consenting adult, faced with terminal illness and no prospects, to end his or her life. The other is the killing of a foetus, which has no capacity to make choices of any kind, for the benefit of another person (the mother). Hence why I am pro-life, albeit with exceptions, but in favour of voluntary euthanasia.)
OOT
Walton, sorry, I can’t continue this now; I’ll check back and respond, though.
*facepalm,on so many levels*
Walton, as you have indicated before, your expertise is politics and economics, although many of us question your real expertise versus regurgitating ideology there. When you get into other threads, your youth and black/white way of looking at the world becomes very apparent. Your prudishness and semi-fundamentalist background make you say things that appear to be just ignorance to those of use who have debated the issue of abortion for thirty years. So here’s a word of advice. Stick to the politics and economics. Just read the other threads and try to expand your knowledge base.
Funny you take that stance yet you think that those same informed adults making choices about how they have sex can be immoral.
Owlmirror (586):
… even in [Thackray’s] most secular songs, religion is an intrinsic part … and in most of his songs some mention of his religion comes up. … It’s the writing of a man for whom faith is a part of life, but an everyday part, and a faith that’s secure enough that it can be mocked.
I am actually rather terse.
Do not think that either he or you will be forgiven for spreading this blasphemous calumny.
Open your Holy Bible and read Galatians 6:7, you filthy little man.
Bill Dauphin (600):
Comrades, it has been nearly fifty years since the Glorious Sexual Revolution and much progress has been made in that time. Taboo after taboo has fallen. But we must not be complacent, comrades. Much remains to be done. Sinister counter-revolutionary elements of “guilt” and “shame” continue to impede the onward march of human bliss. Our next Five Year Plan of compulsory sex re-education will root out the fascist fifth columnists and usher in the new dawn. Forward comrades! Forward as one!
Over reaching strawman comment for 1000 Alex.
Ooh, Ooh,
Why fundies can’t do humor/satire?
Daily Double!
I think not.
I wouldn’t call the Magnificat “terse”. Nor the Secret of La Salette.
The reviewer used that word; I wouldn’t say mockery is quite the right expression. Familiarity, perhaps. In any case, the reviewer referred to “faith” not “God”.
Ecce Crucem Domini,
Fugite, partes adversae,
Vicit Leo de Tribu Juda,
Radix David, alleluia.
Cum homine de cane debeo congredi
Hence the rules for the discernment of spirits. – Piltdown Scumbag
You fool, Scumbag, don’t you realise those rules are the work of Satan, designed to deceive the stupid, such as yourself. Go directly to Hell, do not pass go, do not collect $200!
Don’t believe him, PS! That’s Zebulon talking!
Consorting with atheists has resulted in a liberal corrosion of your faith.
Impudent damned whelp.
And a damned captious legalist as well.
INSUFFICIENT.
I fear you might be right.
Such language!
If you were who you say you are, “inappropriate” would have made more sense.
Vade retro.
I notice ol’ Pilty didn’t respond to my comments on Augustine in #579. Not that I’m surprised, mind you. Logic and rational discourse do not appear to be his strong points.
Those qualities aren’t to be found in the True BelieversTM. Now if they got sane by discarding the final god……
For Godbots, the superficial appearance of such is sufficient.
“Ecce Crucem Domini,
Fugite, partes adversae,
Vicit Leo de Tribu Juda,
Radix David, alleluia. ”
Humperdido!
I think the first line went something like this: “en hic mentitus sum”
Where is your sense of priority?
Is fucking around really more important than addressing the reality or unreality of God’s alleged presence?
And I am satisfied that God, as defined by all religions, cannot exist.
Oh? The Church teaches you to have such utter apathy towards unbelievers?
I don’t believe that you did experience God’s presence, but given your indifference, it certainly looks like you don’t really believe that you did either.
PM:
Yeah, because wishing for a future in which people can “pursue happiness” without guilt or shame and our politics can get on with dealing with true public concerns instead of getting itself into a twist over what’s going on in everyone’s bedroom… yeah, that’s so similar to a Leninist revolutionary cabal.
Just bite me, won’t you?
Owlmirror (629)
Absolutely. Rendering the conjugal debt is a Christian duty as well as a pleasure. For a married layman like myself, it takes priority over arguing with infidels over the internet, thank God.
Fair enough, it’s a free cosmos. We are all free to believe what we choose and are all responsible for what we choose to believe.
It’s not apathy or indifference, just a realistic awareness of the limits of what one can achieve, particularly via such an unsatisfactory medium. (There’s a very entertaining talk by Bp Williamson in which he makes a pertinent remark about “dialogue” with moderns.)
+++
Bill Dauphin (630):
The obvious difference is that Leninism subscribes to the rationalistic belief that happiness can be achieved through massive regulation, whereas you subscribe to the romantic/antinomian belief that it can be achieved by sweeping away regulations.
But it’s the same utopian impulse — the delusion that individual and social happiness can be attained by a reorganization of society without reference to supernatural reality.
“Unsatisfactory”? Do you mean that you could satisfactorily provide evidence of God via some other medium?
But “supernatural reality” is an absurdity. Indeed, it is essentially the absurdity that, as Voltaire pointed out, belief in which leads to atrocities.
[sigh]
I promised myself last night that I had written my last comment on this, but I feel compelled to take just one more turn around the dance floor.
You’ve been disputing my claim that religious folk, and the Catholic church in particular, treat sex as if it were innately depraved, but your language belies your position: Nobody would use language like “conjugal debt” if they thought of “servicing” the “debt” as an intrinsically positive, joyful thing.
Well, you’ve got me entirely wrong: I’m all for rational regulations (ones that seem “massive” to folks like Walton and Scott from Oregon; those guys would laugh out loud at your characterization of my “belief”) that serve the public good. But I also believe that people have rights, and that it requires a truly compelling public interest to justify legal infringements to those rights. I just don’t see where there’s any compelling public good served by a system of regulations and (mostly unenforced and unenforceable) criminal laws that have the aggregate effect of preventing people from enjoying their sexuality in ways that make them happy or making them feel guilty when they do.
I mean, is there really any public good served by stigmatizing gay relationships that are every bit as enduring and enriching as the best “traditional” marriages? Was there any public good served by labeling (until as recently as 1998) those people in Georgia who enjoy anal or oral sex (including, no doubt, quite a few straight Christian people in traditional marriages) criminal sodomites (even though they were almost never prosectued)?
More broadly, is there any public good served by the fact that concern about what’s happening in people’s bedrooms (and on their bookshelves and in their DVD players) often completely overwhelms discussion of economic policy, foreign policy, public infrastructure, etc., in our political discourse? Personally, I don’t think so. When “culture wars” (which are essentially all about sex)blind us to the truly important shared problems we face as a nation, there’s no public good being served.
Ahhh, now I see how you can compare my POV to Leninism: You’re asserting that all godless ideas are equivalent; thus, a secular approach to public policy around sex is obviously similar to Leninism. Right. Got it.
But (and leaving aside the obviously oxymoronic character of the phrase “supernatural reality”) I’ll point out that our society, as codified in the Consitution, is already organized “without reference to supernatural reality.” I’m not looking to reorganize society at all; I’m hoping our public culture will evolve to reflect the true, extant organizing principles of our society.
Bill Dauphin:
Surely sex, like all aspects of human existence, is multi-faceted? To say it is intrinsically good is fine; to say it is always and everywhere an unalloyed joy in all its manifestations is an assertion as silly as the contrasting puritanical attitude.
I accept your position is more nuanced than my simplistic and somewhat facetious characterization of it.
Actually, I think sex is far more important than economics, politics or the infrastructure. It is one of the primordial human experiences. Tell me — why do you think people have historically hedged it around with so many and so fearsome taboos? Was it simply a question of elites exercising social control? Can you be sure they didn’t know something we’ve forgotten?
That’s basically it. “He that is not with me, is against me: and he that gathereth not with me, scattereth.”
True enough. Novus Ordo Seclorum and all that …
So you would pit the Enlightenment current that runs through the history of the United States against the Puritan current?
I keep wondering if you will ever respond to my characterization that you like the idea of death and/or re-education camps for non-Catholics; “Convert or be killed”.
And you never do. Indeed, you continue to support those who in the past did use that blood-soaked binary.
So much for nuance…
Which, taken to the extremes that religion so often does, leads to setting people on fire over which fiction and fan-fiction they support.
So much for… what was it you said above? “Peace, forgiveness and redemption, charity”, and so on?
Ignorance and superstition, rooted in our prescientific past (i.e., before we correctly understood the causes of pregnancy, disease, genetic defects, etc.).
Yeah, quite a lot of that, as well.
I can’t possibly root for a future based on nothing better than blind hope our forebears weren’t as stupid about this stuff as they appear to have been. If that’s the best you can imagine, I pity you.
And now I’m done with this.
Instead you cling to the back of a runaway horse in the blind hope it’s heading in the right direction.
@637, boy that was malapropos. Heh.
Er, why?
Because you’re still being simplistic and somewhat facetious?
Not to mention being more than a little hypocritical.
Remind me again how you reconcile your stance against modernism and secular liberal society when you live in a modern secular liberal society, enjoying its benefits and using its tools.
Or don’t.
@639, this should be good :)
Tell you what, Piltdown, you tell me, regarding your idiomatic allegory purportedly addressing his claim:
* what does the horse represent?
* in what sense is it runaway?
* in what sense is he clinging to it?
* in what sense is he blindly hoping?
and I’ll elucidate.
John Morales:
The ever-increasing cultural pansexualism described above. It could also represent the wider cultural revolt against Christianity of which the sexual revolution is part.
It’s progress is fast and it’s out of control.
He says he approves of it. He gives his intellectual assent to the revolution.
He insists it will all be for the best in the end. He subscribes to the liberal narrative of progress.
“Quarry the granite rock with razors, or moor the vessel with a thread of silk; then may you hope with such keen and delicate instruments as human knowledge and human reason to contend against those giants, the passion and the pride of man.”
Is anyone else turned on?
Is anyone else turned on?
No. Noooo. A world of no.
On a more serious note: I think we may be drawing a false dichotomy here.
I shouldn’t think anyone is seriously arguing that sex is an activity with no special moral consequence, from the standpoint of human beings. If that were so, then one’s sexual preference would be no more consequential than what flavour of ice cream one prefers. And sexual fidelity in a relationship would be unnecessary, since, if having sex were not considered an activity with emotional and moral ramifications, having sex with a person other than one’s partner would be no more significant than playing a game of cards with them.
In reality, we all know that human psychology doesn’t work like that. Sex is, regrettably, so fundamental to human nature that it is one of the basic driving forces behind human interaction; and we accord a special significance and importance to the sexual act, which we do not ascribe to any other everyday activity. Even in the absence of religious strictures, relatively few people have “open relationships”; fidelity in a long-term relationship is still instinctively prized. Ask the average (non-religious) person on the street whether they’d attach any moral and emotional significance to the fact of their partner cheating on them. Most would say yes. And the reason for this is not religious, or social, or cultural; it’s because human beings instinctively know, or feel, that sexual activity is something of great importance and significance. Indeed, this makes sense, given that sex is a procreative act, and the proper raising of children in a stable environment is vitally important to the future of our species and our society.
So I don’t see that there’s any serious point being argued here in the ongoing saga of Piltdown vs. everyone else.
Define “cheating”
Define “great importance and significance”
Only ?
Define “proper”, “stable”, “vitally important”
Define “cheating”.
The act of, when in a long-term committed relationship, engaging in sexual intercourse with a person other than one’s partner.
Define “great importance and significance”
In this context, I’m talking about the fact that it has inherent emotional and personal significance beyond that of other physical acts. As I said, if this were not so, one’s sexual preference would be no more consequential than what flavour of ice cream one prefers. And sexual fidelity in a relationship would be unnecessary, since, if having sex were not considered an activity with emotional and moral ramifications, having sex with a person other than one’s partner would be no more significant than playing a game of cards with them.
Fair enough – I was wrong: it’s not particularly good (amusing), but your explanation matches the allegory.
If you meant what you said, it’s not malapropos – so I was wrong about that, too.
Still, a promise is a promise.
Let me review the comments leading to your response to Bill, far enough back so as to provide context.
BD:You’ve been disputing my claim that religious folk, and the Catholic church in particular, treat sex as if it were innately depraved
PM:Surely sex, like all aspects of human existence, is multi-faceted?
[…]
Tell me — why do you think people have historically hedged it around with so many and so fearsome taboos?
BD:Ignorance and superstition, rooted in our prescientific past.
PM:[…] Can you be sure they didn’t know something we’ve forgotten?
BD:I can’t possibly root for a future based on nothing better than blind hope our forebears weren’t as stupid about this stuff as they appear to have been.
PM:Instead you cling to the back of a runaway horse in the blind hope it’s heading in the right direction.
Let me now apply the key you’ve helpfully provided, yielding:
BD:I can’t possibly root for a future based on nothing better than blind hope our forebears weren’t as stupid about this stuff [sexuality and its biology] as they appear to have been.
PM:Instead you approve of a fast-progressing, out of control, ever-increasing cultural pansexualism, insisting it will all be for the best in the end.
Of course, now I consider the response a failed attempted witticism, inasmuch as it requires an explanation for it to be understood.
And, of course, your response’s claim that cultural pansexualism is ever-increasing, fast-progressing and out of control is totally at odds with the reality (remember Proposition 18?).
So you’re still making a ludicrous claim, only now it’s not obscured. And you still haven’t addressed BD’s claim regarding the Catholic Church.
My previous was rushed, but it should be clear it’s responding to Piltdown, that I mean Proposition 8 (also there’s Florida Amendment 2 etc). There’s probably other minor errors, but I’m too tired to continue tonight.
(And I’d better get some sleep.)
So if said person is dating someone else, but there’s no “sexual intercourse”, that’s not cheating ?
And if said person has had “sexual intercourse”, but that both partners have established that such an occasional event is not a threat to their relationship which is based on trust and mutual respect, that’s cheating ?
Walton, not all relationships are based mainly on sexual fidelity. I’ve been with my partner for the last 15 years, and sexual fidelity doesn’t rank amongst the most important and signifcant aspects of our relationship.
Walton:
Well, I think I agree that I’m not making precisely that argument. Virtually all human activities have consequences of some kind, and many of those consequences have moral dimensions.
That said, I am saying that I don’t believe there is anything inherently morally negative about sexual pleasure, per se, in any form. Reckless, coercive, or abusive expressions of sexuality may be immoral because they are reckless, coercive, or abusive; IMHO, no expression of sexuality is immoral because it’s sexual. IMHO, immorality is almost about doing harm to others; sexuality may be used in harmful ways, but it is not itself inherently harmful.
That is, I think, where I part company with the religionists and moralists in this conversation, who seem to think that any expression of sexuality outside of narrow God-approved channels is intrinsically immoral. That is, I don’t think there’s anything two (or more) people can do sexually that’s immoral (no matter how bizarre or perverse it seems to outsiders), as long as they’re happy about it and they don’t harm anyone else. The opposite side of the argument, with which I profoundly disagree, is that pre- or extra-marital sex, or gay sex, or any other sort of sex that’s not straight, “normal,” and within marriage is always immoral, even when there are no objectively negative consquences for anyone.
You pays yer money and you takes yer cherce…
neg:
No!! Don’t go there! Don’t you remember the last time we got into this territory, when we argued over whether cybersex counted as “cheating”? It’s not worth it!
One correction/clarification:
It dawns on me that I shouldn’t have included the words “two (or more)”; I didn’t mean to exclude autoeroticism or any other sorts of solo expressions of sexuality (e.g., private enjoyment of erotica) from my expansively perverse approval! ;^)
What “special moral consequence” does sex have?
You’ve said that there is (at least) one, I’d just like to know what it is.
What “special moral consequence” does sex have?
This is what i was trying to answer in my post.
Bill Dauphin and others seem to be, essentially, arguing that sexual conduct is not by its nature any different, morally, from any other kind of physical conduct. Thus, coercive or violent sexual activity is wrong solely because it is coercive or violent, not because it is sexual; and any consensual, mutually enjoyable, non-harmful sexual activity, provided it doesn’t impact on any third parties, is not immoral.
This is certainly a rationally defensible viewpoint, but I don’t see it as consistent with the reality of human interaction and behaviour. If it is accepted that sex has no special moral dimension in and of itself, making it distinct from any other physical activity, then it would necessarily follow, for instance, that it is irrational to insist on fidelity within a relationship. One wouldn’t usually complain about one’s partner, say, playing a game of cards with someone else; but most people, except the small minority who are in consensual “open relationships”, would not tolerate their partner having sexual intercourse with another person, and would treat this as grounds to end the relationship. Thus, if your view were one which accurately reflected human nature, then monogamy and fidelity in relationships would be rare. But in reality, this is not the case; nor is it only religious people who, generally, expect fidelity from their partner. It is in our instinct to expect such fidelity.
Likewise, if your view were accepted, one’s sexual preference would be no more significant than, say, what flavour of ice cream one prefers. People do not identify as being part of the “vanilla-ice-cream-eating community” in the same way as they identify as being part of the “gay community” or the “transgender community”. Sexual identity is, for most people, a crucial part of one’s personal identity and one’s life, much more so than any other preference for a physical activity. You don’t get adolescents agonising and questioning themselves because they can’t decide whether they prefer strawberry or mint-choc-chip ice cream. You don’t get people proposing constitutional amendments to ban raspberry ice cream from being called “ice cream” on the grounds that it’s “a threat to the traditional definition of ice cream”.
Like it or not, sex is fundamental to the human psyche and the way that we define ourselves, in a way that no other physical activity is. And surely it follows from this that it must have a special moral dimension in and of itself?
Walton:
Your argument seems to be that our personal and cultural hangups about sexuality prove that it must have a “special moral dimension.” That is, it goes…
Walton: Sex is morally special.
Rest of Us: No it’s not; prove it.
Walton: Well, it must be morally special, because we act like it’s morally special.
Me, I think we act like it’s morally special because we’ve spent all of recorded history telling ourselves (and being told by priests, all falsely IMHO) it’s morally special.
Before we knew any better, we attached a great deal of superstition and fear to a natural biological function. The fact that we continue to be bedeviled by the social residue of that superstition, in the form of guilt and shame and the utter distortion of our political discourse, does not constitute proof that the superstition is either objectively true or socially useful.
I can almost hear you wondering, “well, if sex weren’t morally special, why would folks get so worked up about it, in either direction?” The answer is deceptively simple: It’s fun. Have you failed to notice the general antipathy of religious leaders to anything that people derive pleasure from without reference to God(s)? Living as you do in a relatively secular modern society, it may be easy to neglect the vast percentage of human history (all over the world) during which “religious leader” and “leader” have been precise synonyms. It’s no surprise that sex is almost universally (as PM would put it) hedged around with fearsome taboos.
You mention food:
Leaving aside the fact that people self-identify as part of the “gay community” or the “transgender community” because they’re ghettoized as persecuted minorities (if California had just passed a constitutional amendment denying basic civil rights to vanilla ice cream eaters, you can bet they’d become a “community” right quick), I suggest you ask observant Jews, Muslims, or Hindus about this. They may not use the terms “non-pork-eating community” or “non-beef-eating community” but they certainly do define themselves, in part, by how they eat.
Eating and sex have some enlightening commonalities:
* Both are essential to survival (of the species, if not of individuals)
* Both can give intense physical pleasure
* Both can make people ill in ways difficult for pre-scientific cultures to understand.
Those facts alone are, IMHO, sufficient to explain all the taboos and cultural/religious angst around eating and sex, without any reference to any absolute external moral categorization.
Interesting. So would you, then, argue that it actually would be a positive thing if open relationships, rather than monogamy and fidelity, became more prevalent? Don’t you think this would run the risk of further precipitating the decline of the two-parent family, and therefore be detrimental to the raising of children?
No, I would argue that if we just stopped worrying about what kind of sex people are having, that would be a positive thing.
I suspect that the benefits of living in a sane, rational, secular culture would outweigh any hypothetical decline. “It takes a village to raise a child,” after all [Walton’s head explodes], and it helps if it’s a sane village.
Actually, I doubt the removal of cultural shaming around sexual preferences would result in any decline in two-parent families. It might actually go the other way, if you’re willing to accept gay couples as “families.” Pairing off seems to be a comfortable arrangement for most people; why should that change just because we stop scolding folks about sex?
Pairing off seems to be a comfortable arrangement for most people; why should that change just because we stop scolding folks about sex?
Exactly my point! My argument was, in general terms, that the desire to achieve monogamy and fidelity (albeit often failing to do so) are natural to human beings, and that these particular sexual mores are to some extent inbuilt and not merely culturally defined.
Btw, I agree completely that stable, monogamous gay partnerships can be treated as families; indeed I think this is a trend that should be encouraged. (On that level, gay marriage is a positive good for society.) I also have no problem in principle with gay couples adopting children; there are many, many children requiring adoption – more than existing systems can adequately deal with – and it’s certainly better for them to be placed with a gay couple than with an abusive or incompetent straight couple.
“It takes a village to raise a child,” after all [Walton’s head explodes], and it helps if it’s a sane village.
My cranium appears to remain intact; but I will say that I disagree in principle with this maxim. The people principally responsible for the raising of a child are that child’s parent, parents or legal guardian. Studies show time and time again that the behaviour of a child’s parents, in early childhood, is a very significant factor in that child’s mental and emotional development. There is, in other words, no substitute for good parenting; and few excuses for bad parenting. It is not the proper role of the state to raise children.
Walton,
#653 evades the question. The answer to “what colour is the sofa?” is not “it’d be bad if the sofa weren’t coloured” or “everyone agrees that the sofa is coloured”.
You’ve asserted that sex has “special moral consequences” and I want to know what they are.
Walton, I’ll hazard a guess that this refers more to the indirect influences on a child’s life – other children, radio, television, books, the internet etc. – than anything ‘socialist’.
No parent can control 100% of what their child has access to; ergo, they’re going to have to rely to an extent on the ‘village’ of society – unless you raise a shut-in home-schooler and prevent any access to the outside world.
Hmm, I wonder what Walton would think of Bitch, PhD . Also, naturalistic fallacy applied to social construct, to repeat others.
Lets try that link again.
Bitch, PhD
Studies show time and time again that the behaviour of a child’s parents, in early childhood, is a very significant factor in that child’s mental and emotional development. There is, in other words, no substitute for good parenting; and few excuses for bad parenting. It is not the proper role of the state to raise children.
“Village” here =/= “State.”
The meaning of the maxim is that, while pair-bonding has always been a feature of human family life, the modern ideal of a self-sufficient nuclear family in a single family dwelling far from the influence of the larger social world of extended family is drastically far removed from the social environment in which we evolved. “A village” here is aunts, uncles, cousins, grandparents, in-laws, etc.
Many social scientists have identified this emphasis on the health of the nuclear family to the exclusion of a larger social world of kin relationships as a significant factor in the alienation and disaffection that plagues so many of us moderns in childhood and adolescence. There is, in fact, if not a substitute for good parenting, then a neglected supplement to it: good grandparenting, or uncling or what have you. Kurt Vonnegut wrote eloquently on this theme.
Walton:
Have you any anthropological basis for this belief?
What “special moral consequence” does sex have? You’ve said that there is (at least) one, I’d just like to know what it is.
I really meant internal consequences for the human psyche. Since we attach a lot of emotional importance to sexual activity, sex that is formally consensual may, nevertheless, have a damaging impact on the other person’s mind, emotional health and self-worth. (Of course, so can being permanently involuntarily celibate; I can attest to that.) The point I was trying to make is that sex is not just like any other activity; it can change a person’s life and the way they see themselves. That could just be the result of culturally-imposed guilt and shame, but I doubt it.
Bill Dauphin: The fact that we continue to be bedeviled by the social residue of that superstition, in the form of guilt and shame and the utter distortion of our political discourse, does not constitute proof that the superstition is either objectively true or socially useful… I would argue that if we just stopped worrying about what kind of sex people are having, that would be a positive thing.
As I understand it, there is a Judeo-Christian response to this. Genesis teaches that in the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve were unashamedly naked, and seem to have been uninhibited about sex. The implication is that sex was intended to be a shame-free, normal part of daily life, no different from eating or other physical activities – just as you are suggesting that it should be. But with the fall from grace, Adam and Eve became ashamed of their nakedness and made clothes to cover themselves. And the narrative also claims that it was at this point that childbirth was made difficult and dangerous for women (and it’s reasonable to presume that the danger of childbirth, in the absence of modern medicine, is one of the major reasons why primitive cultures were so concerned about sex, and why they often had so many rules governing women’s behaviour).
This, if true, would seem bizarre: it would suggest that the guilt, shame and risks surrounding sex are a kind of punishment on us for Adam and Eve’s disobedience to God’s commands. I’m not suggesting that this teaching is any use as an guide to historical fact; like most rational people in this day and age, I don’t believe in a literal Garden of Eden, or in the Genesis creation narrative as any more than metaphor. But from an anthropological perspective, the underlying idea perhaps tells us something about why human sexuality is how it is, and why we, whose culture is founded in major part on the Abrahamic religious tradition, have such a strong inbuilt sense of guilt and shame about sexual matters.
Walton,
I don’t give a toss about what happened to Adam and Eve because, like you, I don’t believe they ever existed. If they can teach us anything it is only how limiting it must be to use an ex post facto rationalisation made by one particular – hierarchical, patriarchal – society to guide our thinking on what may or not be natural.
From both historical and anthropological perspectives the nuclear family to which such attention has been paid in a few countries and for only a few decades is an aberration. It is abnormal. it is odd.
A short excursion into neuroscience would soon demonstrate that the human brain and the personality develop in response to multiple stimuli. The growing child needs more than two people from whom he can learn, with whom he develops relationships, who are there to provide an alternative viewpoint and to offer support through any minor crisis. Hence the phrase “it takes a village.”
Those who promote the nuclear family with such zealotry never stop to tell us either of the much poorer quality of life nor the much greater damage suffered when something really goes wrong within an enclosed nuclear family for a child who may find himself without social skills, without confidence, literally without anywhere to turn.
Even worse if the child has been taught to reject and be suspicious of all those “outsiders”.
Huh? What’s this “we” business? It’s you who attaches the bizarrely disproportionate emotional importance to sex. What does “formally consensual” mean? That sex can be “formally consensual”, but “informal rape”? What kind of horseshit is that?
Some people are very emotionally attached to winning at cards (to use your example), and get very upset when they lose. Do the rest of us, then, have to be sensitive to the possibility of “internal consequences for the human psyche” and always try to lose to avoid “a damaging impact on [their] mind, emotional health and self-worth”, or do we just play cards, on the assumption that everyone at the table has a reasonable perspective on winning and losing?
What’s this “we” business?
“We” as in “humanity at large”, as I was trying to explain. The fact is that most human beings will attach a lot of emotional importance to, say, their spouse or long-term partner having sex with another person. If sex did not carry any more emotional importance for them than playing a game of cards, why would they care?
What does “formally consensual” mean? That sex can be “formally consensual”, but “informal rape”? What kind of horseshit is that?
An example would be where a naive 17-year-old, from a sheltered background, is sweet-talked by a much older man into having sex. She consents. It is formally consensual; it is not rape and she is over the age of consent. But she has been cynically exploited, and the emotional and psychological consequences for her are likely to be very damaging (especially if she conceives a child, and has to either give birth or have an abortion).
So it’s not a simple case of “all consensual activity between legal adults=OK”.
Walton, you’re projecting.
The importance that people attach to sex is personal and influenced in the same way as any other emotional reaction: by our parents, our families, our society, and by our own musings and experience. In this respect, it really is no different from winning and losing at cards. Some people are so attached to winning that they’ll murder an opponent; others don’t care. Similarly, some people attach no significance to sex whatsoever, others think that people who deviate from their (often religious) notions of “the right kind of sex” should be stoned to death. Social norms differ from place to place and from person to person. The fatuous cliché that you present as an example reveals only your own prejudices and hang-ups.
Walton (@various):
Not exactly your point. My comment that people “seem comfortable” organizing themselves in pairs as a social subunit has nothing to do with any “natural” desire to achieve “monogamy and fidelity.” It’s typical of this whole conversation that you automatically assume a socially useful partnership must be accompanied by a narrow interpretation of sexuality.
My point was actually something close to the opposite of yours: I was speculating that if they were freed from concern about conforming to sexual orthodoxy and lifelong exclusivity, more people might form socially useful pair bonds (and other small partnerships). I’m guessing (and it really is just a guess) that even if we somehow managed to abandon all our taboos and superstitions about sex, a large majority of us would still form fairly traditional looking families, because pairs (within “larger” small social units like extended families and local communities) are convenient and most of us are naturally heterosexual. But evidence suggests that for large numbers of us, lifelong monogamy is not so natural, nor is the narrow orthodoxy of “traditional” sexuality… so I speculate that removing them as moral requirements for forming social/domestic partnerships might make those partnerships more appealing… and more enduring once formed.
So you agree with me that the only reason we humans (at least, those of us who live in cultures dominated by the legacy of “Abrahamic” religions) feel shame about sex is prescientific religious mythology? Glad we got that straightened out.
Also, keep in mind that the alleged original sin of Adam and Eve had nothing to do with their sexuality (titillating descriptions of their original nakedness notwithstanding). It was all about a jealous God concerned that they might get to similar to him in power and knowledge.
The fundamental problem with this is that you assume that having (presumably nonmarital) sex is invariably emotionally and psychologically damaging to a 17 year old young woman. This is the essential circularity that pervades your comments in this conversation: You keep trying to prove sex has a special moral dimension that makes it immoral outside a narrow orthodoxy by assuming that sex is shameful and immoral outside a narrow orthodoxy.
But for the sake of argument, let’s imagine a particular case in which the 17 year old really does suffer some emotional, social, economic, or even physical harm. I agree that’s not OK (I’m assuming we’re talking about a jurisdiction in which a 17 year old can legally give sexual consent)… but is it any less OK, just because it involves sex, than it would if the same older man had “sweet talked” her into some other (nonsexual) decision — an ill-advised purchase, for instance, or perhaps joining the military — that ended up causing her a similar amount of distress? I say what’s “not OK” (aka, immoral) here is that one person abused another’s trust and inexperience, and that’s immoral regardless of whether the activity is sexual or not.
The world is full of older people who sometimes try to talk younger, more naive people into doing things that are not in their best interest; does that make all those potential activities fundamentally immoral, or put all those activities in some special moral category? I think you can see how ridiculous it would be to put eating, drinking, buying things, signing contracts, volunteering for things, taking jobs, skydiving (as an example of possibly dangerous recreation), etc., all in the same sort of special moral category you want to put sex in… and yet, all of those (and other too numerous to list) are things you might be talked into doing, and that might (but, like sex, are by no means certain to) cause you harm.
… but is it any less OK, just because it involves sex, than it would if the same older man had “sweet talked” her into some other (nonsexual) decision — an ill-advised purchase, for instance, or perhaps joining the military — that ended up causing her a similar amount of distress? I say what’s “not OK” (aka, immoral) here is that one person abused another’s trust and inexperience, and that’s immoral regardless of whether the activity is sexual or not.
Fair point – you are of course right that exploitation of the naive is just as bad when it’s financial, for instance, as when it’s sexual.
All in all, I’m going to have to concede defeat on my attempt to demonstrate, without referring to religious authority, that there is some special objective moral quality associated with sexual conduct. All I can say is that I’m instinctively inclined to believe that there is such a quality, and that sex outside of a stable monogamous relationship is a bad thing – but I have no way of proving that this particular ethical inclination is the result of inbuilt fundamental human nature rather than cultural conditioning. The only way to test this would, presumably, be by raising a child in a cultural and social vacuum, without imparting any prior socio-cultural influences, and see how s/he grew up to view sex and relationships (and such an experiment would clearly be grossly unethical).
Walton:
Sorry to backtrack a bit, but I didn’t want to leave this unanswered:
I didn’t mean to suggest (nor do I think the maxim means) that the “village” (nor, certainly, the “state”) should replace parents. Of course parents are principally responsible for raising their children; “the village” here refers to the social context required to enable and support good parenting. Partly that means (as others have said) extended families… but I also mean to include the support inherent in neighborhoods, schools, and local communities. In addition, it refers to the health of the larger societal matrix in which those institutions exist.
Even people of exceptional personal quality struggle to achieve “good parenting” when they live in dysfunctional or failed communities. At first glance, that may seem like a point in support of the idea that we should police up all the “perversion” in communities and media, but that’s not my point. Instead, I mean that all our superstition, fear, guilt, and shame around sex tends to conflict our social decision-making processes and drive social dysfunction (e.g., people who withhold their support — and their kids — from public schools because of irrational fear of sex education). This is by no means the only thing driving societal dysfunction, but IMHO it’s a nontrivial part of the problem.
The bottom line is that parents will be better able to provide “good parenting” if they’re attempting it in a more rational, less fearful, cultural matrix.
Or you could just take a brief look at societies over the world and through history and see that your view is actually the aberrant one.
Walton:
Thank you for your gracious addition (@670) to this conversation, and for the conversation in general. While I still disagree with your position, you have argued it cogently and patiently, and you have evidently listened to the arguments of others… all of which is more than some other posters [cough]Piltdown Man[/cough] can say.
I appreciate conversations like this one, because arguing with you has forced me to regularize and put into clear words my previously inchoate ideas on this subject. Because I’ve had to explain (and defend) my ideas to you, I now understand them much better myself.
One last thing: At the risk of sounding paternalistic, I urge you to mentally bookmark this conversation and make a point of thinking about it again in a decade or two: I know my own ideas on a wide range of things — almost all of the broad subjects we discuss here, in fact — are radically different now than they were when I was your age. You might be surprised at how your own thinking will evolve.
I’m in full agreement to Bill Dauphin above @673.
Walton, I find you unusual (in a good way).
John Morales (647):
OK it was a pretty clumsy metaphor (I stole it from a half-remembered episode of Babylon 5).
A setback for the forces of the revolution perhaps but too early to say whether it heralds a turning of the tide. Time will tell.
Piltdown, that was gracious.
Remember too the USA is not world culture, there’re countries that consider its sexual mores loose and libidinous. (Much of Asia, for instance, not to mention Muslim states).
Walton, I agree with you that there are strong instinctive and emotional forces favouring aspects of traditional sexual morality. If you want to posit a naturalistic explanation of traditional taboos, that seems a far more plausible basis than paranoid fantasies of killjoy elites ever on the lookout for new ways to stop the masses having a bit of harmless fun.
The problem is that there are other, equally powerful instinctual forces working against traditional sexual morality — the lust for immediate gratification at the expense of long-term considerations, the lust for ruthless or sadistic domination, and the lust for irresponsible free-wheeling liberation from social or emotional constraint.
One doesn’t have to believe in the Fall to perceive this inherent disorder in the human psyche. Instinct alone cannot serve as a guide to behaviour because our instincts are not unified; they war with themselves. How are we to choose between them? Only by appealing to something that transcends them.
And I wouldn’t put too much faith in the ability of the unaided human intellect to reason out a solution to the problem. As subsequent responses to your post have demonstrated, there are no shortage of intellectual justifications for a wholly anti-traditional morality. That obviously intelligent people can see no problem with incest or infidelity, or no essential difference between the sexual act and a card game, only proves the need for divine revelation to act as a plumb-bob for the intellect.
As an aside, I find it curious that apologists for the revolutionary morality accuse traditionalists of uncritically accepting culturally conditioned intellectual or social constructs as universal natural norms – yet never pause to consider whether their own ‘self-evident truths’ might not be culturally conditioned …
CJO (662):
Couldn’t agree more. It’s very frustrating when zealous advocates of “family values” assume the nuclear family is the traditional family, whereas in fact it is the mutilated remnant of the traditional extended family – mutilated by the economic and social pressures of modernity!
It’s equally frustrating when liberal zealots seize on the aberrant nature of the modern family in order to further their own agenda – to supplant natural families of any sort with an army of state hirelings brainwashed by the destructive ideologies of rationalistic busybodies and crypto-perverts.
Piltdown, traditional sexual morality, eh? ;)
John Morales (676):
Indeed. And currently the Enlightenment/Masonic ideals of the American & French Revolutions are locked in combat with a resurgent Islam determined to restore the Caliphate. Whoever wins, it’s the catacombs for us Christians.
Piltdown, “The Enlightenment is a term used to describe a phase in Western philosophy and cultural life centered upon the eighteenth century, in which Reason was advocated as the primary source and basis of authority.” – not quite what you seem to advocate. Really, Islam sounds like it should appeal to you – it’s monotheistic, abrahamic and theocratic, and it sure as heck opposes pansexualism!
John Morales (679):
Here’s a traditional Roman Catholic perspective on polygamy:
“Polygamy, though definitely not willed by God and not looked up to by the Jews as an ideal, was certainly permitted, as was divorce in certain circumstances. … Some latitude could be allowed the Jews and mankind in general before the Incarnation, as our Lord put it, ‘because of the hardness of your hearts,’ but now no longer. Now [the sacrament of] marriage represents and draws its life from the union of Christ and His Church, which is a monogamous marriage. Sacramental marriage today must be monogamous to be at all between Christians. …
“Are primitive peoples who still practice [polygamy] today hopelessly depraved? Hardly. Outmoded as it is under the New Dispensation, polygamy cannot be dismissed as simply ‘unnatural’, as a sexual perversion. Theologians and Christian jurists are quick to warn us against trying to defend monogamy by any specious appeals to natural law, as if the evils of polygamy were self-evident among all peoples.
“God did permit polygamy, but not in the same way He permits sin, for He countenanced it. Why? He certainly never countenanced polyandry. … What’s the difference? There’s a big difference. … Polygamy reflects a truth in the spiritual order; polyandry does not. The latter is unnatural, a real perversion in itself. Although polygamy among the baptized, clothed in flesh and living in Christian society, has become impossible both sacramentally and practically, the great truth it mirrors is still true. … Members of the Bride of Christ [the Church] are themselves wedded to Christ. All of us who are in a state of grace are so many wives in a polygamous union with Almighty God. Because there is only one God, polyandry has been rooted in falseness from the beginning. Polyandry could only reflect a union between a human soul and several gods. These could only be devils.”
John Morales (681):
From the American Atheists site.
Piltdown Man at #682:
He certainly never countenanced polyandry. … What’s the difference? There’s a big difference. … Polygamy reflects a truth in the spiritual order; polyandry does not. The latter is unnatural, a real perversion in itself. Although polygamy among the baptized, clothed in flesh and living in Christian society, has become impossible both sacramentally and practically, the great truth it mirrors is still true. … Members of the Bride of Christ [the Church] are themselves wedded to Christ. All of us who are in a state of grace are so many wives in a polygamous union with Almighty God. Because there is only one God, polyandry has been rooted in falseness from the beginning. Polyandry could only reflect a union between a human soul and several gods. These could only be devils.
Doesn’t this rest on a presumption of the identification of God with the biological male gender? My understanding was always that the identification of God as “male” was purely metaphorical; surely God, not having a physical body, is beyond human concepts of gender?
Surely there’s an easier explanation for why God allowed polygamy for the early patriarchs? In a primitive, nomadic desert society, without modern medical care, most women died in childbirth; so polygamy might well have been a more efficient mode of ensuring the survival and perpetuation of the species. Furthermore, since society of the time was inevitably violent and lawless, women needed the protection of men. Centuries later, in a settled and civilised society, polygamy was no longer necessary or appropriate.
It’s rather like the dietary laws, I would think. God’s prohibition on the eating of pork, shellfish etc. made a lot of sense in an early society; those foods, if not cooked properly, can carry many diseases dangerous to humans, and the eating of wild pigs in particular is known to be dangerous. But as human civilisation and knowledge advanced, the dietary laws were no longer relevant; hence God’s dispensation to Peter, in the book of Acts, to eat any animal, clean or unclean. That, at least, would be my interpretation; God gave His people the laws which were best for them in the context of the time, but those laws can change when they are no longer the best thing for society, the context having changed.
Piltdown,
@682, you don’t provide sources for your quotes.
I, however, point you to the Catechism of the Catholic Church at the Vatican – it doesn’t get any more official:
“Other offenses against the dignity of marriage
The predicament of a man who, desiring to convert to the Gospel, is obliged to repudiate one or more wives with whom he has shared years of conjugal life, is understandable. However polygamy is not in accord with the moral law.” [Conjugal] communion is radically contradicted by polygamy; this, in fact, directly negates the plan of God which was revealed from the beginning, because it is contrary to the equal personal dignity of men and women who in matrimony give themselves with a love that is total and therefore unique and exclusive.” The Christian who has previously lived in polygamy has a grave duty in justice to honor the obligations contracted in regard to his former wives and his children.”
@683, that article is interesting, but, as it says (my emphasis), “While there are many currents to this period, one of the fascinating and little-explored backwater eddys of particular interest to Atheists and libertarians is the role of Masonic lodges and “secret societies” during this time.”
Surely you see the progression of Renaissance -> Age of Reason -> Enlightenment -> Secularism/Humanism.
Walton, you have an enquiring mind.
I’m certainly no scholar, but over the years I think I’ve pieced together some understanding of the origins of Judaism, which is syncretic and hardly a newcomer. Its singular achievement seems to have been the invention of monotheism. The Old Testament is essentially the “Cultural Epic” of the Jewish people.
I promise this will be my last post in this thread; I’m getting tired of paging back to find it.
But what if that transcendent “something” doesn’t actually exist? It might be useful to have a Sky Daddy to serve as a final authority in resolving our inner conflicts over social behavior, but if the universe actually contains no such authority, what then? Might we not invent such a God? In fact, I think that’s exactly what happened in the prehistoric and ancient worlds. But if God is actually a human invention, wouldn’t He ultimately reflect, rather than resolve the sort of conflicts you refer to?
This comment only makes sense if you presume that that there is a (moral) problem with incest or infidelity or an essential (moral) difference between the sexual act and a card game… things you’ve been singularly incapable of demonstrating without reference to an arbitrary external authority figure that most of us here believe to be fictional.
And note my parenthetical insertions there. Nobody’s been claiming that there’s never any problem with incest or infidelity, or that there’s no practical difference between the sexual act and a card game. Instead, we’re saying (or at least, I am) that the rightness or wrongness of those things depends on situations and outcomes and social context, rather than on some arbitrary external morality. You don’t have to believe that, for example, “infidelity” (a less prejudiced term might be “sexual nonexclusivity”) is fundamentally (and invariably) morally wrong in order to understand that it can sometimes be wrong depending on the impact it has on those involved (e.g., what promises have been made and whether anyone has been betrayed or ill-used). The opposite position (i.e., yours, unless I misunderstand you) is that nonexclusivity is always wrong, even if everyone involved is happy with it. That, I find hard to credit.
Presumably you see it as “revolutionary” because it’s so different from your own conception of morality, but what I’m actually hoping for is less revolutionary than evolutionary: I see sexual moralism (and belief in absolute, divinely given moral rules in general) as a trait that was pro-survival for prehistoric and prescientific ancient human populations, but is no longer pro-survival in any important way. If such a trait gradually falls away, and is eventually extinguished… well, “think of it as evolution in action.”
Nope. I think certain things are “self-evident truths” in that they are, so far as we can tell, universal… much in the same way that the theory of evolution is fact because the (vast amount of) evidence universally fails to falsify it. But I don’t believe anything, no matter how self-evidently true it appears to be, has been handed to us by an external, supernatural, omniscient/omnipotent authority. Some of what you’re calling “cultural conditioning” may be so universally accepted as useful that it will never change; I don’t believe our cultural hangups about sexuality are in that category… but even if they are, it’s not because God said so.
PS: Any of you evolution experts out there can feel free to enlighten me if my use of evolution as a reference point is off base. I may be pretty opinionated, but I’m educable.
Rubbish and nonsense. Ridiculous, pearl-clutching, vaporous panicking, and fearmongering.
If Islam “wins”, which it will almost certainly not, the historic respect of Muslims for the prophet Isa will ensure that Christianity will be allowed to continue as is, albeit perhaps with financial penalty.
If secular liberal society “wins”, well, the whole point is that religions will have no restrictions placed on individual and group practice. The only way Christianity will enter the “catacombs” is through volitional mass suicide (and why would you commit yourselves to damnation?), or through volitional abandonment by young people disgusted by your hypocrisy and irrelevancy, in which case you have only yourselves to blame.
Sure he did. Is God not 3 persons? Is Mary not the spouse of God?
Therefore, Mary did marry 3 guys, which is polyandry.
QED.
Therefore, Mary did marry 3 guys, which is polyandry. Owlmirror
And gave birth to one of them! Now that’s what I call kinky!
Did I hear kinky? Giving birth to one’s husband?
–All You Zombies– by Bob Heinlein beats that hands-down.
Polygamy reflects a truth in the spiritual order; polyandry does not. The latter is unnatural, a real perversion in itself. Although polygamy among the baptized, clothed in flesh and living in Christian society, has become impossible both sacramentally and practically, the great truth it mirrors is still true. … Members of the Bride of Christ [the Church] are themselves wedded to Christ. – Piltdown Scumbag
Good grief, you have some filthy thoughts, Scumbag. I’d really rather not know any more about them. Have to reinstall the killfile, I think.
Owlmirror:
Hail Mary, beloved Daughter of the Eternal Father!
Hail Mary, admirable Mother of the Son!
Hail Mary, faithful spouse of the Holy Ghost!
– St. Louis de Montfort
We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the begotten of God the Father, the Only-begotten, that is of the essence of the Father.
God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten and not made; of the very same nature of the Father, by Whom all things came into being, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible.
— The Nicene Creed.
So it is a kinky incest-fest as well as a polyandrous marriage.
One substance, three persons.
It’s not rocket science, just unfathomable mystery.
this is an important chunk of the story: http://scienceblogs.com/aardvarchaeology/2008/11/only_population_size_really_ma.php?utm_source=networkbanner&utm_medium=link
I know the link is at the top of the page, but this is a permanent part of the comments now, so it will be easy to go back to. I think navigating this site to be amazingly cumbersome, simply because it is so massive. If any of you guys have helpfull hints, i would be glad to have them! Oh and to put the link inside of a word, so that i don’t have to continue to paste unweildy addresses in the middle of my comments all the time! it sucks to be n00b
@695, so what. One substance, 6+ billian humans.
Not very profound.
“unfathomable mystery” = complete bullshit.
That one substance Pilty, is information. Which, the last time i checked, was androgenous, unsympathetic, and, completely deviod of meaning. Nothing you say about your God is unfathomable, just excessive.
Yawn. Yes, I know.
Not just incest, not just polyandrous, but also conjoined triplets. Kinky cubed.
Because primitive logic-choppers who had no empirical or logical demonstration of their arguments came up with something insane and incomprehensible, and demanded that people say they believe it or be kicked out of the club.
Or be set on fire.
Indeed owlmirror. Have you read Alper’s The “God” Part of ther Brain? very enlightening i should say….
Polygamy reflects a truth in the spiritual order; polyandry does not. The latter is unnatural, a real perversion in itself.
Tell that to the Buddhist, Lama people of Nepal you parochial git.
A woman marries the eldest brother in the family and takes all younger brothers as husband too. This effectively controlled population in a land-poor country while giving the family enough manpower to support them in a harsh environment.
Seems hugely more sensible than one man fathering lots of mouths to feed in order to reflect some misogynistic idea of ‘spiritual order’.
When even the most facile christian sophists can’t, with all their twisting and turning and ducking and weaving, come up with an answer then it must be that ‘god just doesn’t want us to know’.
How convenient.
Don’t forget if Jesus is the son of God and Jesus is the same as God then Jesus is his own father, and therefore a motherfucker.
Props for linking to a picture which denies that equality is transitive.
On the topic of polygamy and polyandry, I don’t think that either is inherently “a perversion of the natural order”; rather, such things depend on context. As I said, for the ancient Israelites polygamy made a lot of sense; for nomads wandering in the desert, in an era with no modern medicine in which most women died in childbirth, polygamy may well have been necessary and appropriate in order to ensure that women could be protected and to assure the continuance of procreation. But in a modern civilised society, it became unnecessary – which, for those who believe in God, would be why He no longer approved of it in later parts of the Bible. (Conversely, a sceptic could simply argue that as social needs changed, so did the social rules which people ascribed to divine authority. It makes sense either way.)
Likewise, as Kitty pointed out at #702, there are some historical contexts in which polyandry was useful and necessary. Since my conception of “God” is not limited to the Judeo-Christian God – I believe that God, as the embodiment of universal good, can manifest Himself through many different religious traditions – I have no difficulty in assuming that God was probably happy with that practice in its original context. It is not for me to condemn other peoples’ way of life, unless such way of life is manifestly harmful or unethical.
But I do think that in our modern Western society, the traditional two-parent family is a model which is positive and effective in the raising of children; this is borne out by much social science research. I do therefore think that marriage should be encouraged. (I should make clear, though, that when I talk about “traditional marriage” and “stable relationships” I’m not, unlike some who use those terms, trying to exclude same-sex couples. Gay and lesbian couples have loving relationships too, and I have no problem whatsoever with gay marriage – so long as traditionalist religious sects are not compelled to perform such marriages contrary to their moral beliefs – or with the adoption of children by gay couples.)
Anton, you’ve lost me.
Surely equal things are by definition transitive, and equality as a relation only applies to equal things.
Are you saying things that are only “equal” regarding some set of criteria need not be equal by different set?
Walton,
1. That it’s positive and effective is is no argument that other forms of families aren’t, anymore than saying apples are nice is saying oranges aren’t. Are you trying to imply that this is so?
2. I have a friend (now a widow) who was partnered for 32 years, had a child with, and inherited the possessions of her partner upon his death. The child now has grandchildren of her own, and they have a “granny”.
They never “officially” married, but in every sense but a ceremony, they were one of the purest and “marriages” I know of, utterly devoted and faithful.
Does that count as a marriage to you? No ceremony, not even a civil one.
PS you keep referring to God. I don’t recall you ever addressing my question of why you consider monotheism superior to polytheism. I have asked it of you at least twice; are you avoiding it, is it unmeritorious, or what?
They never “officially” married, but in every sense but a ceremony, they were one of the purest and “marriages” I know of, utterly devoted and faithful.
I think it all depends on their personal beliefs. It’s not for me to judge whose relationship is a “marriage”, in moral terms, and whose isn’t. Obviously, for a devout Catholic the ceremony of marriage is a sacrament and is significant in itself; conversely, for people of no faith, or from some more liberal faith traditions, the ceremony may not be particularly important, and it is the nature and quality of the relationship which counts. Not knowing the people in question, I wouldn’t presume to make any comment.
But from an objective social science perspective, the relationship you describe is not qualitatively different from a marriage, and is just as good, naturally, for the purposes of raising children.
That it’s positive and effective is is no argument that other forms of families aren’t, anymore than saying apples are nice is saying oranges aren’t. Are you trying to imply that this is so?
It’s self-evident that other forms of families can also be positive and effective. I know plenty of people raised by single parents who’ve turned out just fine. The most important thing is to have a loving and caring family. However, at the same time, I would contend that being a single parent is not easy (a statement which I’m sure most single parents would agree with) and it’s probably easier overall to be a good parent if you’re in a stable two-person relationship. And I do think children benefit, to some extent, from having both male and female role models in their lives.
…you keep referring to God. I don’t recall you ever addressing my question of why you consider monotheism superior to polytheism. I have asked it of you at least twice; are you avoiding it, is it unmeritorious, or what?
I think the dichotomy you’re trying to draw here is too simplistic. I believe in a God, in terms of a benevolent force beyond our understanding which is inherent in the universe itself. I would say that different faith traditions have different paths to God (albeit that most faith traditions also contain much which is misleading and intolerant, due to the fact that they are limited by the flaws in human nature). Although I don’t have much knowledge of polytheistic religions, my understanding is that Hinduism, for instance, while outwardly appearing polytheistic, does in fact accept the idea of a supreme being or supreme spirit. And as regards the truly polytheistic religious traditions, I think they can perhaps be interpreted more as metaphor or allegory. But I don’t have sufficient understanding of non-Abrahamic religious traditions to have a meaningful or definite opinion; I prefer to be open-minded for the time being.
At the same time, I’m also open to the idea that there are malevolent supernatural forces (indeed perhaps this follows naturally from the idea of a benevolent God; if God is benevolent, while the universe in which we live is not perfect, then there must be some force of evil at work making it other than perfect). I couldn’t be sure whether concepts of “the Devil” and “demons” in various religious traditions represent real beings of any sort, or are simply allegories for the malevolence in human nature itself. Again, I’m largely open-minded.
Thank you, Walton, for responding.
I note your terminology:
Specifically, the singular vs. the plural in the converse, leading me to infer that you’re utilising unexamined assumptions unknowingly.
Why would polygamy be necessary for procreation when many (not likely most) women died in childbirth? Please show your work…
Walton,
That seems backwards to me. If many women die in childbirth, and the remainder need to be protected, then it would make sense to have a polyandrous system where multiple men could care for a single woman.
Women get less attention in a polygamous marriage.
John M,
You’d think, but that’s not what’s implied by the picture to which Piltdown linked.
Apparently, God is the Father and God is the Son and God is the Holy Ghost, but the Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Holy Ghost and the Holy Ghost is not the Father.
It’s an unfathomable mystery, you see.
@713: D’oh.
Of course! And unfathomable mysteries are inscrutably ineffable. What was I thinking!
John Morales @685:
The quoted passage is from a book by the Catholic author S. Hertz. Published in 1961 (pre-Vatican II vintage), it carries the Nihil obstat and Imprimatur.
The excerpt from the Catechism makes it clear that polygamy is not an option for a baptized Christian, reaffirming what my original passage said.
The Catechism passage is written in mushy humanistic Vatican II-speak (“the equal personal dignity of men and women who in matrimony give themselves with a love that is total and therefore unique and exclusive”). By contrast, the Catechism of the Council of Trent, which is arguably more authoritative, speaks plainly:
“Thus under the law of nature we read of many of the ancient Patriarchs that they had several wives at the same time; while under the Law of Moses it was permissible, should cause exist, to repudiate one’s wife by giving her a bill of divorce. Both these concessions have been suppressed by the law of the Gospel … Though some of the ancient Patriarchs are not to be blamed for having married several wives, since they did not act thus without divine dispensation, yet Christ our Lord has clearly shown that polygamy is not in keeping with the nature of Matrimony.” … Hence it is that when an infidel who, following the customs of his country has married several wives, happens to be converted to the true religion, the Church orders him to dismiss all but the first, and regard her alone as his true and lawful wife.
I do see the progression, although I would expand it to Renaissance -> Reformation -> Age of Reason/Enlightenment -> Revolution.
And I would say that Masonic and para-Masonic groups did play a significant ‘networking’ role in this process – just look at the Franklin-Voltaire axis!
Walton @684:
Yes, it is a metaphor, as God is an incorporeal spirit. However, it is a divinely inspired metaphor (for those of us who believe Scripture to be divinely inspired). So while the occasional mystic might be allowed the latitude to em[ploy maternal metaphors when speaking of the divine, it can never be normative for Catholics.
But the fact that a particular custom might have benefits in the natural order doesn’t in itself mean that those benefits are the root cause or “explanation” of that custom. Natural benefits are only to be expected from a practice which reflects, however imperfectly, supernatural reality – just as natural harm is the inevitable result of practices which deviate from it …
Piltdown @715, both Catechisms make it clear that polygamy is not on*, so you’re arguing against your own claim that “Polygamy reflects a truth in the spiritual order”.
Besides, as far as the Patriarchs go, it’s a classic Christian excuse that the “New Covenant” excuses the differences between religious obligations between the old and new testaments.
Re your second point: To speak of Enlightenment/Masonic ideals is misleading; masonic ideals invariably include a mandatory belief in “a Supreme Being” (the Societies will not accept members who do not so swear), whilst enlightenment ideals include free-thinking (and therefore atheism).
* “Christ our Lord has clearly shown that polygamy is not in keeping with the nature of Matrimony.”
Bill Dauphin @687:
Then, in theory, “everything is permitted”. Leaving aside the question of God’s actual existence, I would simply say that a sufficiently widespread and sustained lack of belief in the Christian God would lead to the collapse, not of society, but of morality — Christian morality, that is. You might think that a good thing now, but I suspect you might change your mind when the full consequences become clear.
Of course! Which is why atheism is doomed.
A ‘god’ that is a purely human invention would certainly do that — indeed, it would exacerbate them.
Pilty, any god is a purely human invention. Your god exists only in your mind. You have not shown any physical proof for a god. Philosophy doesn’t make god real, just allows one to pretend that god exists.
Looks like you want it both ways. Polygamy reflects supernatural reality so it’s OK, except it’s also wrong and to be rejected.
Remind me again where Jesus speaks out against polygamy? He’s down on divorce, thus directly contradicting the Word of God as he so casually did, but never says that a man can’t marry again while still married to his first wife — as long as he does not “put her away”, he should be OK. Especially since he’s “reflecting spiritual reality”…
Owlmirror @688:
I doubt those Christians who were enslaved by the Barbary pirates, or whose children were abducted for Janissary service, would have agreed with you.
That assumes secular society will remain liberal. What if, in order to defeat militant Islam, it becomes more militant itself, while remaining secular?
Piltdown @718, you address your comment to Bill’s comment where he wrote “I promise this will be my last post in this thread”, so I’m taking the liberty of addressing it.
In the sense that people can do what they can do, that’s trivially true. I can drive at 100 km/h in a 60 k zone, I can go and mug my neighbour and steal his wallet, etc.
But, see, there’s this thing called “conscience”, not to mention this thing called “consequences”.
So, either both from an utilitarian or ethical basis, that something is permitted does not imply that something is desirable.
You are indulging in specious sophistry.
Yes, Japan is a horrible place to live, as are other first-world non-Christian counties… :)
John Morales@717,
“Masons” is just one of Piltdown Scumbag’s code words for “Jews”.
And under Christianity as well. All you Catholics need to do is proclaim that “God permits it”, and you do it.
“Deus lo vult!”
Since “Christian morality” has included the permissible murder of (and theft from) those accused of not being Christians, or not being Christians in the right way, the “full consequences” are probably not too bad, as long as some system of humanistic ethics is present.
And if you bring up Stalinism and Maoism again, I will again have to point out that they made rabid cults out of their ideologies which specifically rejected humanistic ethics.
Piltdown @721, Christians were slavers par excellence. Very moral.
Nick, if P really uses “Masons” thus, then I’ve been giving him too much credit. Hm.
Surely he’s not anti-Semitic… Jesus was a Jew, after all! :)
Which has what to do with today?
And if you want to talk about slavery, consider that “slave” comes from “Slav”, who in the past were eagerly and gladly sold by Christians, never mind the African slave trade. You hypocrite, even the Popes dealt in the slave trade!
That didn’t stop John Chrysostom, Martin Luther, or Hitler…
John Morales @717:
My understanding was that the Enlightenment was characterized by deism rather than atheism – and deism has obvious affinities with Masonic notions of the Supreme Being.
Moreover, even that attenuated belief is “mandatory” only for Anglo-American Freemasonry, not the Continental strain.
Nick Gotts @723:
Really? What are my other ones?
John,
If you can face it, look back through Pilty’s entire oeuvre here. I’m afraid I can’t point you to the thread(s) concerned, but it was pretty clear he had a considerable animus against Jews. He’s a “traditionalist” Catholic, and it is a traditional Catholic belief that the Jews “murdered Christ”. I think the first pope to repudiate this was John XXIII, whom the traditionalists loathe.
Nick Gotts:
Then stop hurling accusations if you can’t back them up.
Fiddlesticks and flapdoodle.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen so many grotesque oversimplifications and outright distortions in one sentence.
Piltdown,
I agree with that, but consider why freethinkers advanced to Deism in a culture steeped in Theism – they did their best given knowledge at the time.
I refer you to this comment in a past thread:
Deism is the last stage inculcated yet free-thinking theists reach before achieving atheism, and it’s how I’d characterise Walton’s belief.
Nick, I’ve no wish to review Pildown’s corpus – but if he wishes to he can outright deny the claim – which I note he’s been careful not to do.
He’s been careful not to deny the claim that he supports setting people on fire.
A look at “That Explains Something” from September is interesting with respect to Pilty’s attitude to the Jews. Oh, he’s not so crude as to come out and say “I hate Jews”, but he carefully never repudiates the traditional Catholic teaching that they are God-killers who insolently rejected the Messiah God sent them, despite numerous opportunities to do so. He’s concerned to claim that the Church never preached a racial anti-semitism (Oh dear me no – not like those vulgar Nazis), and to distinguish between “anti-semitism” and “anti-Judaism”. Basically, it’s the sort of stuff you’d expect to find from any Christian antisemite when he’s not in “safe” company.
For the record — I deny that I harbour any feelings of hatred or contempt for the Jewish people.
And when I say “Mason” I mean “Mason”, not “Jew”.
(Just don’t get me started on those Jewish Masons …)
I think you and Jackie Mason would get along like a house on fire.
We must also remember Pilty’s love for the Inquisition, one of who’s favourite pastimes was killing Jews; and of the medieval Catholic theocracy, with its denial of equal rights to Jews, and events such as the sanctification of “Little St. Hugh of Lincoln”, who was at the centre of one of the outbreaks of the “blood libel” against Jews. Pilty says the Catholic Church never endorsed this libel, but in this case Hugh’s sanctification was an absolutely clear endorsement. It’s abundantly clear that if Pilty had his way and “Christendom” was restored, the Jews would have plenty of reason to regret it.
Nick Gotts:
Sigh.
As I recall, that distinction was merely intended as an entry point into a more in-depth discussion with Owlmirror on the subject which unfortunately never quite materialized. All the same, even though it doesn’t exhaust the issue by any means, it’s still a valid and important distinction — the fact that I consider Islam to be a false religion doesn’t mean I harbour a racial antipathy toward Arabs. And, yes, I maintain that the Church has never preached such racialism.
Owlmirror @733:
Cue Babylon 5 quote:
You notice how Pilty can’t quite bring himself to make a straightforward denial? Oh of course he can say “Don’t get me started on those Jewish Masons” was just a joke – but jokes are very revealing.
By the way Pilty, do you deny that the Jews bear collective guilt for the death of Christ? What would be their place in your restored Christendom? Do you regard “Little St Hugh of Lincoln” as a genuine, honest-to-goodness saint?
Piltdown @735, I’ve been reviewing the “That explains something” thread, and I don’t see you being anti-Semitic (in an overt sense) therein. What I see is you being anti-anti-Catholic, inasmuch as I consider that you consider (religious) Judaism to be recalcitrant against the New Covenant*, and ignore ethnicity.
So, I’m not convinced by Nick’s claim that you’re using “masonic” as code for “judaic”, however I am even more inclined to consider that, overall, what you’ve written is “the sort of stuff you’d expect to find from any Christian antisemite when he’s not in “safe” company.”
Regardless, I’d find it odd that you so harshly condemn Islam (in particular) and Judaism, given they’re such close spiritual/ethical cousins to your own beliefs, were it not for human nature.
Christianity is just a heretical version of Judaism, as is Islam – which is why Muslims refer to “People of the Book” and give them preferential treatment. Which is more honest than Christianity.
* I note that Covenant was made between God and the House of Israel, and with the house of Judah – i.e. with Jews. If you abide by that “covenant”, you are de-facto putting yourself in their place. Another instance of double-think.
Nick @740, Yeah, I noticed.
And I further noticed he’s quite capable of so doing should he choose to (e.g.from the September thread:)
An evil that priesthood doesn’t preclude, by the way, the significance of which Piltdown didn’t acknowledge.
John@741,
A more accurate way to put my hit at Pilty about “Masons” being code for “Jews” would be to note that “anti-Masonism”, like “anti-Judaism” is “code” in the sense that it allows a denial of antisemitism, while giving a hefty nudge to any fellow antisemites around. There has, historically, been a very close association between anti-Freemasonry and antisemitism: the text of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion assumes that the reader already “knows” about the Masonic conspiracy, and introduces the idea that Freemasonry (like liberalism) is really just a front for the Jews, who form a conspiracy within the conspiracy. This will of course be well-known to any educated antisemite.
Nick Gotts @740:
What the hell do you call this @735:
I deny that I harbour any feelings of hatred or contempt for the Jewish people.
Or is that antisemitic code for its opposite?
Scumbag,
I meant you couldn’t bear to leave that denial alone, could you? You had to put in the “joke” about “Jewish Masons” – who were, of course, precisely the subject of the best-known antisemitic work in history, as a nod and a wink to your fellow antisemites, which others would see as a bit of harmless humour. I’m on to you, Scumbag: you’re a lying, hate-filled, sadistic, antisemitic monster, without a truthful or compassionate bone in your body.
Nick,
Previously I might have considered describing Pilty as such to be a little harsh, but now I know better; on the Chumbawamba thread he dismissed my description of conquistadores – ‘catholics who raped and murdered thousands for the glory of their bloodthirsty god.’ with this quote:
Not only a scumbag, but a lying scumbag at that.
Piltdown,
Fair enough, that’s clearly a denial of anti-semitism regarding Jewish people per se, and thus, ordinarily, tantamount to a repudiation of professed anti-Semitism.
Thing is, such a denial is not definitive – after all, I don’t “harbour any feelings of hatred or contempt for the Catholic populace”, yet I am unashamedly anti-Catholic, because of the harm* this ideology does.
Nick, I must note the claim I suggested Piltdown could deny was that he equated “masonism” with “judaism”**, in the sense of an influential, conspiratiorial agenda, and I think this he has done. I still think he’s basically anti-anti-Catholic, and I am wary of attributing unexpressed opinions to others.
* without denying the good, but noting the harm exceeds the benefit.
** Zionism?
Oh, for pity’s sake. J. M. Straczynski is an atheist.
You know the line that demonstrates the extremes that God-fearing conservative Catholics will go to in condemning the “bad guys”. You know it, I know it, and you’ve seen it before, and you’ve been very, very careful not to deny that you agree with it completely.
Cue Abbe Arnaud Amalric quote:
And I’ve just read an interesting post by Jack Carlson, which I think is most apposite to the above:
PS If you see this, Jack, I hope you consider it an endorsement of your post and of the FreThink site, rather than a rip-off.
Deism is the last stage inculcated yet free-thinking theists reach before achieving atheism, and it’s how I’d characterise Walton’s belief.
I’m not a pure deist; I’m open to the idea of direct and perceptible divine/supernatural intervention in the material world, though I would acknowledge that there isn’t enough positive evidence to affirm any such account. I don’t subscribe to orthodox/conventional Christian belief, nor do I view the Bible as inerrant. Hence I respectfully disagree with many of Piltdown’s remarks on this thread. I suppose I’m best labelled as an ultra-liberal or open-minded theist. But my views change somewhat from day to day – I really haven’t decided where I stand – so I’ve probably confused and/or irritated many people with my intellectual meanderings. :-)
(Oddly enough, this stands in direct contrast to my views on politics and economics, which are very fixed and committed, and definitely on the right.)
Nick Gotts @745:
You’re right, a sense of humour just gets in the way of serious debate.
“I know I’m paranoid – but am I paranoid enough?”
Don’t hold back, Nick, say what you really feel.
Since you’ve made it clear you regard anything I say as a lie, further discussion seems a bit pointless. I will just note that our encounters seem to follow a set pattern: 1) You come steaming in making various unpleasant accusations and abusive remarks. 2) You flounce off amid melodramatic declarations that you can’t bear to read any more of my posts and are adding me to your killfile. 3) -> 1).
Forgive me for saying so, but that does seem rather obsessive behaviour.
John Morales at #749:
Interesting quote, and I see its value – but I think it perhaps errs somewhat in drawing too simple a dichotomy between the theocratic right and the Enlightenment/rationalist/secular school of thought.
Much like Bill O’Reilly’s constant invocation of the so-called “culture wars” between “traditionalists” [though he uses the term improperly, since, as you point out, Enlightenment ideals also have a long history in America] and “secular-progressives”.
By these standards, I am an Enlightenment secular progressive; I believe in religious freedom and a secular state, diversity of opinion, personal autonomy, and rational thought. So, of course, were most of the Founding Fathers – Jefferson being my favourite example.
But the problem is that this doesn’t take account of another big divide in American political life – that of the proper role of government in economic affairs, a divide which is at least as, if not more, important. Like Jefferson and most of the Founding Fathers, I believe in a limited government, minimal taxation and freedom of trade. Yet most of today’s secular liberal/progressives are economically leftist, believing in bigger government and more state initiatives. This pushes Jeffersonian individualists like myself into the right-wing camp.
The root of the Reagan coalition’s success was that it united religious-right social conservatives with fiscal conservatives and secular libertarians. That was effective at the time, because in the 1980s the most important goal was cutting down the absurd federal bureaucracy, crippling taxation and government waste that had grown during the post-war years. That was achieved, to some degree (though the Bush administration has, depressingly, actually increased government waste).
But the problem now is that the coalition is falling apart. And those who subscribe to the ideals on which America was really founded have no obvious place to go. The religious right stands against Enlightenment ideas of freedom, autonomy and rational thought; yet the liberal left stands against the Founding Fathers’ vision of a limited government and an economically free society.
John Morales@747,
I don’t think Pilty has repudiated the idea that Judaism, like Freemasonry (in his opinion), has “an influential, conspiratorial agenda” – not that I’ve seen, anyway. His views appear to be pretty much straight counter-Reformation Catholicism – I’ve never seen any deviation from this – according to which Catholic “sacral monarchy” is the only legitimate form of goverment; Protestantism, liberalism, Freemasonry, democracy are all rebellions against God; and all these have the Jews as natural allies, if not behind-the-scenes manipulators (of course this wouldn’t be “the Jewish people”, just those who have any form of power or influence), due to their refusal to recognise the divinity of Jesus. One of the main objections to Freemasonry was precisely that it admitted Jews on an equal basis with Christians; and as I say, the main theme of the Protocols – by no means a new one – is that Freemasonry is actually controlled by a Jewish cabal. Pilty delights in avoiding straight answers whenever he can – partly just because he thinks he’s being very clever; partly because he won’t repudiate his real views, but realises the extent of the disgust they would cause if he was open about them. Just remember – he’d be delighted to see all of us tortured and murdered by the Inquisition.
Nick, I’m not au fait with fringe conspiracy-monging of that flavour, nor do I care to be. That said, I have opinions regarding the respective credibility I assign to you and your opponent based on all postings I’ve seen, so I believe you have that opinion on a substantial enough basis for you to express it.*
That, I don’t doubt whatsoever.
My childhood rearing in Franco’s Spain exposed me to what was close to a fascistic, theocratic milieu – yet only an echo of the olden days. I know the story of the conversos, and I remember the reverence I was taught to have for Fernando II (“el catolico”) in school – the guy who set up the Inquisition specifically to address deviance from dogma. The imperatives were blind obedience and respect for authority, under penalty of punishment for “the salvation of my soul”.
I know damn well what would quickly happen if Catholics were to again gain temporal power – conversion at “sword-point” and utter intolerance of any deviation from orthodoxy.
* well, unless you’re weird on this one topic, unlike all others I’ve seen you expound on :)
John,
Thanks. I’m by no means an expert on conspiracy theories, but my ex-partner was the daughter of German/Austrian Jewish refugees; and she plus a long-term subscription to Searchlight, the British anti-fascist magazine, have sensitised me to antisemitism and the masks it wears (by no means always right-wing ones!). I could be wrong about Pilty, but I’d take some convincing. I’d be astonished if Nick Griffin (the British National Party leader) wouldn’t be happy to give the same public assurance Pilty gave – with a similar nod and wink to those in the know. I’m interested to hear you were brought up in Franco’s Spain – his following were the classic mix of Pilty’s type of ultra-reactionary Catholicism and “modern” fascism, which are natural allies because they share so many hatreds. I’m sure Pilty (if he’s old enough) was as sick as a parrot with a rubber beak when Juan Carlos sided with democracy rather than re-establishing a “sacral monarchy”!
Walton @752, it does seem dichotomous, but note that the Rabbi is constrasting attitudes and aspirations.
No, that quote doesn’t address the means of achieving those aspirations (and aren’t you here drawing a simplistic dichotomy yourself?).
I’m not knowledgeable regarding applied politics or economics, nor do I have expertise in American current affairs other than what I absorb from reading news stories and blog posts/comments.
That said, I find it jarring when you write
As I see it, the Bush administration has, since 2001, greatly expanded the role and power of Government and restricted freedoms (e.g. TSA, Patriot Act), and as for non-economically-leftist policies, I can but quote Wikipedia:
“Under the Bush Administration, real GDP has grown at an average annual rate of 2.5 percent,[63] considerably below the average for business cycles from 1949 to 2000.[64][65] The Dow Jones Industrial Average peaked in October 2007 at about 14,000, 30 percent above its level in January 2001, before the subsequent economic crisis wiped out all the gains and more.[66] Unemployment originally rose from 4.2 percent in January 2001 to 6.3 percent in June 2003, but subsequently dropped to 4.5 percent as of July 2007.[67] Inflation-adjusted median household income has been flat while the nation’s poverty rate has increased.[68] By October 2008, due to increases in domestic and foreign spending,[69] the national debt had risen to US$11.3 trillion dollars,[70][71] an increase of over 100% from the start of the year 2000 when the debt was US$5.6 trillion.”
Perhaps the past 8 years have seen a too-leftist administration? ;)
Perhaps the past 8 years have seen a too-leftist administration? ;)
Not leftist per se, but certainly too authoritarian and collectivist for my liking, yes. I have never been a strong Bush supporter.
Walton,
That is pure and utter bullshit ! The only thing that Reagan (and successive administrations) achieved was false prosperity built on easy credit.
That’s his greatest achievement : get Americans to stop saving, spend, and take vasts amounts of credit:
A few figures to refresh your memory ;
household debt ratio :
1962 : 55%
1982 : 60%
2002 : 95%
2008 : 130%
Personal savings rate :
1962 : 8%
1982 : 9%
2002 : 2%
2008 : -2%
(compare with France and Germany which ahve been approx. constant over this period at about 10%)
The U.S. is the country in the developed world with the lowest savings rate. Canada and Japan are trying to keep pace. Germany and France have social programs which allow for more savings. The US may come in last in savings, but no other country in the world can spend like them. Their motto is live for today, the government will bail them out in the future.
“I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears, and sweat. We have before us an ordeal of the most grievous kind. We have before us many, many months of struggle and suffering.” – Winston Churchill – May 13, 1940
Well, after 9/11, you would have thought Bush would have said the same, instead, he assured them they were doing their patriotic act in buying SUVs and houses at credit, to paraphrase Churchill, he could have said :
” I have nothing to offer but tax cuts, tax rebates, 0% auto financing, and no-doc mortgages. ”
Seems logical that a country going to war coïncides with the largest housing boom in history ? Usually, when you go to war, you ask your country to sacrifice, but not in the minds of those who believe in miracles.
So now what ? All this pseudo wealth that has been created since Reagan with easy credit, mortgage equity withdrawals, deregulation in the shadow banking system, etc… is going to have to be paid back. And that’s at least 1 to 2% of GDP growth over the last 27 years accrued that has been completely artificial and doesn’t represent the real productivity of the American economy. So you can calculate what that means.
And you call that conservatism ? I just call it Irresponsibilism.
Like Jefferson and most of the Founding Fathers, I believe in a limited government, minimal taxation and freedom of trade. – Walton
You forgot to mention slavery Walton!
John, you merely fail to appreciate The Walton Algorithm, which is temporally agnostic when it comes to ascribing blame: given an event, categorise as good or bad, trace back to plausible proximate contributory factors, yielding a tree. Starting at the leaves, if event is bad, prune branches ending in Republican/Conservative leaf nodes; if event is good, prune all branches ending in Democratic/Labour leaf nodes.
Typically, the obvious optimisation (not ever adding Republican/Conservative actions to a tree rooted at a bad event) is employed to avoid exposing the mind to dangerous leftist heresies.
Correct application of the Walton Algorithm leads to things like “the financial meltdown was Clinton’s fault” and “the Iraq War is Grover Cleveland’s fault”.
Piltdown @738:
Cum nimis absurdum:”Cum nimis absurdum was a papal bull issued by Pope Paul IV dated July 14, 1555 and taking its name from its first words
[…] Since it is completely senseless and inappropriate to be in a situation where Christian piety allows the Jews (whose guilt–all of their own doing–has condemned them to eternal slavery) access to our society and even to live among us; indeed, they are without gratitude to Christians, as, instead of thanks for gracious treatment, they return invective, and among themselves, instead of the slavery, which they deserve, they manage to claim superiority […]”
John@761 – good find! However, it wasn’t racial: there wasn’t anything wrong with the Jews’ blood, but with their souls. In theory, and sometimes in practice, they could escape the just consequences of their ancestral guilt by conversion – although if they converted and then put a foot wrong, or annoyed a neighbour or commercial rival, they could expect a visit from… The Spanish Inquisition!!!
The pseudo-biological categories of modern racism have their roots in European imperialism, and didn’t really gel until the 19th century. That’s also when the term “antisemitism” stems from – it was invented by a German antisemite, Wilhelm Marr.
Expect a visit? Surely not! Nobody …
Nick, OK you got me there. It’s not racial – it’s worse.
Pedantically, I note it was the Romans who did the executing of a Jew… but the Jews were blamed, and Rome itself became the nucleus of Catholicism when Peter set up shop there. Typically incomprehensible rationalisation.
On a linguistic level, the very term “antisemite” offends me – it should be “antijudaic”, since it’s addressing one particular semitic group – it’s strange to recognise that the Arab League is officially antisemitic.
To be fair, I have a number of such annoyances – e.g. islamophobia refers to hatred, not to fear. But I’m weird this way, I know.
OOT
Something completely different.
John@764,
No, you’re quite wrong about the term “antisemite” and its cognates: as I say, it was invented by an antisemite, and antisemitism is a very specific ideology. It’s not just anti-Jewish prejudice, but the belief that there is a powerful Jewish conspiracy. (What the Jews are supposedly conspiring to do varies, and may be entirely unspecified, but that they are conspiring is central.) So technically, someone who hated Jews just because he thought them mean, or gluttonous, would not be antisemitic. “Semite” is a term from the 19th century pseudo-science of racial anthropology – it has no useful modern meaning at all, so neither Jews nor Arabs should be referred to as “Semites”. “Semitic” is used in modern science only to refer to a group of languages, or to ancient cultures, not to human individuals or populations. About 40 years ago some people began to claim that Arabs could not be antisemitic “because they are Semites”, but such claims are either simply erroneous (because they are not Semites, and nor is anyone else) or part of the Zionist/anti-Zionist propaganda battle. The Arab League is indeed antisemitic – and I say that as a (moderate) anti-Zionist. One of the ironic, and tragic, consequences of Zionism has been to infect large parts of the Muslim world with the most virulent forms of European antisemitism.
Walton,
the result of Libertarianism : the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:h.r.05660:
(this law alone is going to cost more than 90% of all future bailouts necessary to save the financial and insurance markets to the tax payers)
Credit Default Swaps, or weapons of financial destruction, exposed by 60 minutes
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4546583n
I say, the accounts of all those who benefitted from this should be seized, the amounts confiscated and used to fund the bailouts.
Nick @766, I appreciate the clarification; that’s very informative.
I’ve been doing some reading about it.
Nick Gotts @759: The founding Father’s didn’t believe in slavery, it was meant to be abolished in 1820. When the fascists in the Cotton Belt (That is, big business controlling the behavior of the government, not the European fascism. Seriosly, i need to look up the name for this.) failed to keep that part of the bargain, it was giving the North an excuse to engage in the Civil War (that and preserve the Union. Too bad they did preserve it, just from todays political climate. Ah, it probably would’ve been worse to have a second country that was impovrished and agrarian so close to an industrialized society such as the North…), though i have heard rumors that the Civil War had really nothing to do with slavery, but with tarriffs. hmmm, this warrents further study i think…
RickrOll,
Actions speak louder than words: many of the FFs were themselves slaveowners, Washington, Jeffereson, and Patrick “Give me liberty or give me death, but ah’m keepin’ mah niggahs” Henry. What’s your source, though, for saying it was “meant to be abolished in 1820”? Was there any institutional mechanism for ensuring this happened? After all, it required a constitutional amendment to do it after the Civil War. You might be interested in Simon Schama’s “Rough Crossings: Britain, the Slaves and the american Revolution”. I think there’s a lot of sentimental hagiography of the FFs: the “American Revolution” was basically two factions of a gang of thieves and murderers falling out over the spoils.
Nick Gotts @740:
Yes I do. More precisely, I deny they bear any particular burden of guilt over and above that borne by every human being. (See Catechism of the Council of Trent, Article IV, Part II.)
The same as that of any other non-Christian minority – subordinate yet protected.
As far as I know, he is still held to be a saint by the Church. That he was murdered doesn’t seem to be in dispute – whether some among the local Jewish community were guilty of the crime is another matter. I’m perfectly willing to accept that the executions were a ghastly miscarriage of justice fueled by irrational hatred.
Interestingly, one eminent Jewish scholar apparently thinks the accusations of ritual murder may have some basis in truth. Even if that were proved to be correct, I still wouldn’t regard it as an indictment of “the Jews” or even of “the Jewish religion”.
Regarding definitions of “anti-semitism” (racial) and “anti-Judaism” (religious), I would suggest a more important category is simply “Jew-hatred”. Some Catholics express anti-Judaism with such vehemence that it oversteps the bounds of reason and charity, and I would call them Jew-haters even if they are not strictly speaking anti-semites. Conversely (and bizarre as it may seem) I have read certain militant neopagan writers who regard the Jewish people as racially alien, unassimilable and at least potentially inimical – anti-semites in other words – yet who also show a curious respect for the Jews and deplore any violence against them – and so perhaps are not Jew-haters.
Nick Gotts @ 747:
The psychological dangers of indulging in conspiracy theories are too obvious to require comment. The idea that a single elite could implement an octopus-like conspiracy responsible for all the ills of the world over a period of centuries is absurd.
That said, to reject a priori the thesis that certain limited conspiracies can have a major historical impact strikes me as equally irrational. No one has a problem with the idea that there was a conspiracy to assassinate Julius Caesar – why shouldn’t there have been one to assassinate JFK? No one disputes that a group of disgruntled Catholics unsuccessfully conspired to bring down the Protestant monarchy of England by blowing up the Houses of Parliament – so why is it so implausible that a network of Freemasons successfully conspired to overthrow the Catholic French monarchy by fomenting the Revolution? (As was claimed by no less a Masonic luminary than Grand Commander Albert Pike of the Scottish Rite, Southern Jurisdiction.)
As for certain Jews being “natural allies” of the Freemasons, there does seem to be a certain affinity.
The same as that of any other non-Christian minority – subordinate yet protected.
Oh, goody! Y’all hear that? We get to live in the zoo!
John Morales @747:
Isn’t the sentiment expressed in the bolded words essentially the same in principle as I expressed @738?
@ 749:
The good rabbi confirms what I said about the US being an unstable amalgam of Enlightenment and Puritan ideologies.
From Rabbi Wine’s Wiki entry:
The congregation, now known as the Birmingham Temple, purchased land in Farmington Hills, Michigan, and moved into a newly-constructed building in 1971. The Torah scroll was placed in the library rather than at the usual place in the sanctuary. Instead, the sanctuary was adorned with a large sculpture spelling out in Hebrew the word Adam, meaning “man” or “people.”
Heh. Might as well have been a golden calf. What would Moses do?
Inquire carefully and diligently, the truth of the thing by looking well into it, and if thou find that which is said to be certain, and that this abomination hath been really committed, thou shalt forthwith kill the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, and shalt destroy it and all things that are in it, even the cattle.
Nobody expects the Israelite Inquisition.
And yet, when I suggested that that would be exactly the fate of Catholics in a restored Caliphate, you immediately brought up Muslim pirates and slave traders, and child conscripts….
So, Scumbag, the Jews and other non-Christian minorities would be “subordinate but protected”? As in medieval times you mean? Ghettoised, excluded from most professions, and intermittently tortured and murdered en masse when a scapegoat was needed, or it was inconvenient to pay the money they were owed. As if even being a “subordinate but protected” minority is something any decent person would seek to impose on everyone who disagrees with them!
Interestingly, one eminent Jewish scholar apparently thinks the accusations of ritual murder may have some basis in truth. – Piltdown Scumbag
Now why is that “interesting”? Cranky historical theories surface regularly. It’s “interesting” to you because you really like to spread such vile ideas around, without taking any responsibility for them yourself.
why is it so implausible that a network of Freemasons successfully conspired to overthrow the Catholic French monarchy by fomenting the Revolution?
Come on, Scumbag, you’re not that stupid. The French Revolution happened because of the financial and moral bankrupcy of the Catholic French monarchy. You can’t “foment a revolution” in a robust society; they follow the internal collapse or loss of confidence of the old order. Even if the 1605 plotters had succeeded in killing James VI/I and his Parliamentarians, they would not have had the slightest chance of overthrowing the Protestant monarchy. To do that, even temporarily, required a real revolution, set off by suspicions Charles I designed to reinstate Catholicism with foreign help.
As for certain Jews being “natural allies” of the Freemasons, there does seem to be a certain affinity.
So, according to you it’s plausible that a Masonic conspiracy brought down the Catholic French monarchy, and Jews are “natural allies” of Masons – yes, I see what you’re hinting at here, Scumbag. Without, as usual, the moral courage to say it outright.
Oh by the way, Scumbag, on the subject of “Little St. Hugh of Lincoln”. I was asking for your opinion as to whether he’s a saint – whether it would be worthwhile to pray for his intercession for example. His sanctification was based on the premise that he had been ritually murdered by Jews. If this was not so, surely his sanctification was, at best, an error? Or do you believe God takes his orders from the Catholic hierarchy and would give the unfortunate lad an intercessory role anyway?
More precisely, I deny they bear any particular burden of guilt [for the death of Christ] over and above that borne by every human being.
A good example of just how batshit insane Christianity really is: we all bear guilt for something that happened long before we were born.
Nick Gotts wrote:
That’s one of the aspects of xinanity that I take the greatest exception to – namely, that someone would presume that I would be okay with them dying for me, and that I was expected feel guilt and/or gratitude to them for doing so – not to mention the implicit obligation to ‘return the favour’ by becoming a slave to god.
How, exactly, does that fit in with the argument from free will? I didn’t get to choose whether or not anyone got nailed to anything.
As far as I recall (and my recollection of Catholic insanity is hazy), the Original Sin, with which we are all born, is the sin committed by Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. Since the Church also teaches that the GoE is allegorical, it seems that no real sin was ever actually committed. In other words, it’s entirely imaginary. Presumably it was Yahweh doing the imagining, since who else would give a shit, right? So, Yahweh had his own son tortured and nailed to a stick because he imagined two people using their genitals for the purpose for which he designed them.
The batshit is piled ever higher and deeper.
That’s Deuteronomy, all right. Mass murder in the service of religious hegemony encoded as law.
Did you have any particular point in citing it?
I suspect his point is, ‘well, ethnic cleansing was good enough for the Jews so it’s good enough for us’ – or perhaps a variation on the alway-indicative-of-true-moral-character ‘they started it’ defence.
Forgive me if I call bullshit: What Christian society ever bothered to protect any non-Christian minority that was in their reach? I can think of several Christian societies that have persecuted Christian minorities, even.
Or, are we to presume that Piltdown’s definition of “subordinate yet protected” means “being mocked for the societal roles they are legally allowed to play, while being stuffed into ghettos in order to make lynchings and pogroms more convenient”?
perhaps a variation on the alway-indicative-of-true-moral-character ‘they started it’ defence.
Particularly odd in that, from the beginning, gentile Christians appropriated the Torah as their own scripture and given that Matthew (whose Jesus “came to fulfill [the law and the prophets]”) takes pains to portray Jesus as a new Moses.
But then, what do I know? It’s always struck me as bizarre that Christians would denigrate Jews and Judaism at all since they claim to follow the example of a Jew. Which is not to say I don’t understand the origins of anti-Judaism in Christian thought, just to say that it appears to arise in the first place from a willful misreading of Paul (another Jew).
Well, there are those who believe that the ‘true’ children of Israel aren’t the jews at all, but a tribe which left the middle east earlier and ended up elsewhere – northern Europe, no doubt. Batshit loonery, of course – but at least it’s they’ve attempted to justify it.
Emmet Caulfield @779:
For some reason it’s specifically designated as Adam’s sin, even though Eve’s was committed first. Perhaps Catholicism is a crypto-matriarchy …
Whatever gave you that idea?
Adam and Eve’s sin wasn’t sexual in nature.
Nick Gotts @775:
Prof Ariel Toaff’s academic credentials make it hard to dismiss him as a “crank”. And exactly what is “vile” about his thesis? As I understand it, he’s not saying child sacrifice was a normal or common Judaic practice but that a lunatic sect of fanatics might have been responsible. You of all people are well aware of the dangerous extremes people can be driven to in the name of religion. There are whackaloon Christianist sects whose members have murdered children – why should Judaism be exempt from such aberrations?
I never said French society of the pre-Revolutionary period was particularly “robust”. The Martyr-King’s two immediate predecessors both made bad decisions which had a detrimental effect on society – which anti-Christian forces were quick to exploit.
@776:
If the Church says he’s a saint, he’s a saint. So yes, you could pray to him (although I haven’t done so and don’t have any personal devotion to him).
I’m willing to be corrected on this, but my understanding was that he’s considered a saint specifically because he was martyred – and since his body apparently bore marks of crucifixion, that’s a reasonable assumption. Whether he was martyred by a sect of Jewish fanatics or a sect of Gentile devil-worshipping paedophiles is a secondary issue.
@755:
It may have oversensitised you into seeing anti-semitism or Jew-hatred where none exists. I have Jewish relatives who fled Austria when the Nazis took over – they didn’t have any problem with the Catholic “theocratic fascist” government of Chancellor Dollfuss, whom the Nazis murdered. As for Searchlight, it’s a controversial publication with communist & criminal connections.
Piltdown @773:
Well, @738 you’re responding to Nick who writes [1] He’s concerned to claim that the Church never preached a racial anti-semitism … [2] and to distinguish between “anti-semitism” and “anti-Judaism”, and write
The sentiment is indeed similar; we both want to make a distinction between the ideology and the professors thereof (i.e. Nick’s 2nd point is upheld), and, as per my link, Nick’s 1st point is also upheld.
It is notable, however, that whilst I address your Catholicism (as an apposite example), you evade by citing your opinion as relating to Arabs/Islam rather than (religious) Jews/Judaism, and you cite your own opinion, though Nick’s contention related to the Church’s opinion.
You do realise you’ve supported your interlocutor’s contention, right?
Prof Ariel Toaff’s academic credentials make it hard to dismiss him as a “crank”. And exactly what is “vile” about his thesis?
I said his theory was cranky – otherwise reputable scholars and scientists can get a bee in their bonnet. the thesis is cranky becasue it is based only only the evidence of confessions under torture – utterly worthless. It is vile because of the ammunition it gives to antisemites such as you.
Where is the evidence that the French Revolution was to any degree due to “anti-Christian forces”? Anti-clerical forces yes, because parasitic Catholic clergy had long battened on the middle classes and the poor. A clash was probably inevitable, as the Church had enormous privileges it wished to keep, but opposition to Christianity as such was insignificant until the Vendee risings of 1793, where the Church put itself in clear opposition to the revolution, siding with its foreign enemies.
If the Church says he’s a saint, he’s a saint. So yes, you could pray to him
So you do think God takes orders from the Catholic hierarchy. “Little St Hugh”‘s body was discovered in a well a month after his disappearance. What “evidence of crucifixion” do you claim was found? In any case, how does being murdered in a particular way make the victim a “martyr”? Surely the distinguishing feature of martyrdom is that the victim suffered for their faith.
As for Searchlight, it’s a controversial publication with communist & criminal connections. – Piltdown Scumbag
Communists write for it among many others. Your evidence of the alleged “criminal connections”? Mind the libel laws as you go!
And so polytheism is reintroduced, first with Jews suggesting that I needed angels to accomplish things, then with the absurdity of the trinity, and finally with veneration of saints. Catholics might as well be Chinese for all the bureaucracy they’ve introduced into their theology.
Hey, don’t mind Me. It’s not like My feelings are hurt or anything.
Wait, I thought that was Your idea. You know, as part of the whole blame-shifting and sowing-confusion-for-Your-amusement business?
Is this a subtle hint that I am about to be cashiered? Given the pink slip, perhaps?
No, You fool. It’s part of the whole blame-shifting and sowing-confusion-for-My-amusement business.
I assure You, if I ever stop needing a can-carrier, You’ll be the last to know.