November 2, 2005

OBLIGATORY STEPNFETCHIT REFERENCE:

'Party trumps race' for Steele foes (S.A. Miller, November 2, 2005, THE WASHINGTON TIMES)

Black Democratic leaders in Maryland say that racially tinged attacks against Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele in his bid for the U.S. Senate are fair because he is a conservative Republican.

Such attacks against the first black man to win a statewide election in Maryland include pelting him with Oreo cookies during a campaign appearance, calling him an "Uncle Tom" and depicting him as a black-faced minstrel on a liberal Web log. [...]

Delegate Salima Siler Marriott, a black Baltimore Democrat, said Mr. Steele invites comparisons to a slave who loves his cruel master or a cookie that is black on the outside and white inside because his conservative political philosophy is, in her view, anti-black.

"Because he is a conservative, he is different than most public blacks, and he is different than most people in our community," she said.

Isn't the whole cancer of racism that the majority feels entitled to treat those who are different with less respect? You can criticize his ideas without resorting to racial epithets, can't you?

Posted by Orrin Judd at November 2, 2005 10:07 AM
Comments

Does this mean we can throw Ho-Hos at all black Democratic candidates in MD with impunity?

Posted by: ratbert at November 2, 2005 11:01 AM

The odious treatment of Mr. Steele by some blacks will result in Mr. Steele garnering the votes of many blacks who would otherwise never vote for a Republican. Furthermore, many white religious/rural Democrats will attend to Mr. Steele as they would never do for another Republican.

Posted by: Luciferous at November 2, 2005 11:22 AM

AOG:

Witchcraft is a choice, race isn't.

Posted by: oj at November 2, 2005 11:29 AM

That would also be the cancer of religionism.

Posted by: Jeff Guinn at November 2, 2005 11:30 AM

Jeff;

No, people should be persecuted for bad ideas.

Posted by: oj at November 2, 2005 11:34 AM

Maryland being south of the Mason-Dixon Line, they're simply displaying a traditionalist attitude towards their political party's Southern heritage.

Posted by: John at November 2, 2005 11:40 AM

Jeff Guinn:

Come on, your side has shown far too much disrespect towards religious people for you to get up on that high horse.

Posted by: Matt Murphy at November 2, 2005 11:40 AM

And who gets to decide what is a bad idea? The majority?

Posted by: Anon at November 2, 2005 11:41 AM

oj - Being a conservative is a choice.

Posted by: pj at November 2, 2005 11:41 AM

oj - They believe Steele's ideas are bad, and they're persecuting him for them.

Posted by: pj at November 2, 2005 11:42 AM

PJ is right that this is about beliefs and that they're ostracizing Steele because of a perceived break/betrayal from the community. That doesn't make the insults less hateful or disgusting. This is not appropriate behavior.

Posted by: Chris Durnell at November 2, 2005 11:47 AM

pj:

Yes, his ideas are fair game not his race.

Posted by: oj at November 2, 2005 11:48 AM

pj:

Their persecution of him is using racist tropes.

Posted by: oj at November 2, 2005 11:50 AM

Anon:

Yes. People who can't conform to societal norms may be persecuted.

Posted by: oj at November 2, 2005 11:51 AM

Come on, let's not go soft. Burned alive as well.

Posted by: Al Cornpone at November 2, 2005 11:54 AM

We read that someone stated that a conservative is, ipso facto, "different than" other blacks, thus betraying both a Nazi view of racially determined culture and a niggardliness of correct grammar and usage.

The phrase, "different than" has a definite meaning, as to say, "The man with two heads is different from most men, but the man with three is more different than he."

Posted by: Lou Gots at November 2, 2005 11:55 AM

Yes. People who can't conform to societal norms may be persecuted.

So in a hypothetical society of witches may they burn Christians?

Or to use an actual historical example, how about a pagan society such as the Roman Empire. The Christians did not conform to the Romans societal norms. Was it OK for the Romans to martyr those subversive Christians?

Posted by: Anon at November 2, 2005 11:59 AM

his views make him a Nazi, like the rest of us conservatives, not the other N-word.

Posted by: oj at November 2, 2005 12:00 PM

BTW, the Jews did not conform to the societal norms of Nazi Germany. Was the Holocaust OK?

Posted by: Anon at November 2, 2005 12:01 PM

If they had ideas, they'd attack his with theirs. But they don't so it's off to the store for a box of oreos.

At least Nabisco is getting something out of this.

Posted by: Mikey at November 2, 2005 12:02 PM

Anon:

Of course the pagans had to burn Christians, we were an existential threat, no?

Posted by: oj at November 2, 2005 12:04 PM

People who weren't racist used to be guilty of violating societal norms, at least in some parts of this country. Why don't you go think this one through a little better.

Posted by: joe shropshire at November 2, 2005 12:05 PM

Anon:

Persecution of Jews for ideological reasons is justified, but the Nazis exterminated them for Darwinian reasons, which is not. Ideology is a choice, race isn't.

Posted by: oj at November 2, 2005 12:06 PM

oj, why don't you specify what forms of persecution are justified.

Posted by: Al Cornpone at November 2, 2005 12:11 PM

So if persecution for ideological reasons is justified, was it OK for the Bolsheviks to exterminate the Kulaks?

PJ - what do you think of OJ's views?

The Wife - what do you think?

Posted by: Anon at November 2, 2005 12:11 PM

Of course the pagans had to burn Christians, we were an existential threat, no?

And it's OK for witches to burn Christians if witches are in the majority?

Posted by: Anon at November 2, 2005 12:12 PM

Anon:

Of course, the end of a society can not be its own destruction. But pagans, witches, Nazis, commies, etc. will always lose because they are wrong.

Posted by: oj at November 2, 2005 12:16 PM

Al:

Any persecution is justified if your existence is threatened. We don't persecute much anymore because the nonconformists pose so little threat. But if you're a Nazi, a communist, or what have you it's necessary to kill millions or you'll be overthrown internally. Of course, it doesn't help because your organizing ideology is so disordered you'll fall eventually anyway or we'll eventually come topple you from without.

Posted by: oj at November 2, 2005 12:20 PM

so anon and al c., you approve of using racist demagoguery against steele ? please enlighten us as to the characteristics that make a good negro (in your opinion).

Posted by: Plato at November 2, 2005 12:28 PM

Anon - I think that in a healthy society all views should be freely expressible without persecution. In a fragile unhealthy society, some organized persecution of destructive views (hate, incitement to murder and violence) may be desirable and appropriate. (This for the same reason that as violence increases, law enforcement may need to transition from respectful-of-civil-liberties policing and jurying to civil war and executive justice.) However, it's essential that the persecuted ideas be evil ideas, oriented toward violence and destruction, not merely unpopular.

Posted by: pj at November 2, 2005 1:05 PM

Persecution of Jews for ideological reasons is justified,

So the pogroms directed against the Jews from the Middle Ages onward are OK?

Posted by: Anon at November 2, 2005 1:08 PM

so anon and al c., you approve of using racist demagoguery against steele ?

No, why do you think I would?

Posted by: Anon at November 2, 2005 1:09 PM

PJ, I didn't ask what your views were. I asked what you thought of your brother's views.

Posted by: Anon at November 2, 2005 1:10 PM

That's a matter of theory. In practice, persecution of others tends to push society down a slippery slope toward a hell in which all attempt to persecute all. In America today, we see leftists persecuting those who disagree (hate crime laws, anti-discrimination laws, laws excluding Christianity from public, campaign finance laws, etc.); these persecutions are, I think, both unjust and wicked. And if conservatives began to persecute liberal ideas, it would validate this spirituality of hate and lead us toward a kind of hell, in which all war against all and persecution is validated because everyone does it. And oj's position is bad because it supports that slide and supports leftist persecutions.

Posted by: pj at November 2, 2005 1:11 PM

OJ, very few Americans believe that it is right and proper to burn witches or anyone els whose beliefs are different. In fact you are the only person I've ever heard of that holds this belief. Come to think of it, very few Americans would "happily" kill Gays if only the law would let them. Again, you are th only one I know of who wants to do this.

Neither view conforms to our societal norms.

So is it OK if we burn you?

Posted by: Anon at November 2, 2005 1:14 PM

PJ, aren't OJ's views bad because they propose the killing of people we disagree with? Aren't his views inherently bad in and of themselves, whether they lead us down a slippery slope or not?

Posted by: Anon at November 2, 2005 1:16 PM

Of course, the end of a society can not be its own destruction.

So the proper goal of a society is stagnant, permanent unchanging stasis? Should societies be alive a changing, or dead and trapped in ideological amber?

Posted by: Anon at November 2, 2005 1:18 PM

Michael Steele is a native of, and lives in, Prince George's County, Maryland.

EVERY county and state level elected official in Prince George's County is a Democrat.

The majority of them are Black.

Half of the non-Black minority are Hispanic.

Top school adminsitrators are predominately Black.

If you believe the Democrat's rhetoric, you would expect Prince George's County to be a paradise, especially for "minorities."

You would be wrong.

Prince George's County's rapidly increasing murder rate is second highest in Maryland and the highest in the Washington, DC, suburbs.

Prince George's County's schools are the second worst in Maryland and the worst in the Washington, DC, suburbs. The Black school chief recently resigned while being investigated by the FBI; one of his top assistants ($130,000 per year) has just been convicted on federal drug laundering charges and has been indicted on witness tampering charges.

Prince George's County has more car thefts and violent carjackings than all the rest of Maryland and the DC suburbs put together.

Attacking Michael Steele is just part of the Democrats scheme to distract the public and the press from their ongoing abysmal failure to either protect or educate the people of Prince George's County.

Posted by: Diane C. Russell at November 2, 2005 1:18 PM

Anon:

Of course we don't do such things anymore, because we successfully persecuted them into oblivion in the past--we persecuted witches, decimated the aboriginals, reconstructed the slavers, repeatedly persecuted the Reds, white militiamen, etc. If gays seek to influence society rather than keep their behavior private they'll squander this window where we aren't persecuting them.

We're the most conformist society in the world, which is why we can assimilate immigrants where others, who see differences between peoples, can't.

Posted by: oj at November 2, 2005 1:20 PM

Anon:

Societies are whatever people want them to be.

Posted by: oj at November 2, 2005 1:22 PM

You dodged my specific questions with a pair of non sequetors. So I'll ask again:

Since your views on Gays and witches don't conform to the norms of American society, can we burn you?

Were the anti-Jewish pogroms of the Middle Ages and onwards to atleast the last century OK?

Was it OK for the Bolsheviks to exterminate the Kulaks since it was done for ideological reasons (whether the Bolsheviks were doomed to failure is a separate issue)?

What do you beleive is the proper goal of a society, unchanging stasis and permanent status quo or growth and change?

Posted by: Anon at November 2, 2005 1:47 PM

Anon:

Sure.

Yes, though had they understood Judaism better they'd have understood it was not a threat to Christian society and in Spaiun they actually persecuted former Jews who'd chosen to conform.

Yes, communists have to murder millions or they can't hold power.

The proper goal of a society is toa live in accord witwh God's commands to us. But people needn't organize their societies properly and generally don't try to.

Posted by: oj at November 2, 2005 1:56 PM

This is silly. Why can't Daniel Duffy sign his posts, and why must everyone pretend it's not clear who "Anon" is?

Posted by: b at November 2, 2005 1:59 PM

b:

Would you want your name on his self-loathing Catholic-hating bile?

Posted by: oj at November 2, 2005 2:03 PM

Is the killing of Gays, witches and other nonconformists in accord with God's commandments?

How is it that you know how to organize a society but nobody else does?

Posted by: Anon at November 2, 2005 2:05 PM

Does living in accordance with God's commands result in a static or changing society? And who gets to decide which of God's commands are applicable? Who gets to interpret these often obscure commands?

Given that these commands come from a source superior to any mere human or group of humans, do they no supercede any law or constitution written by mere men? As such should we disregard secular laws, breaking those laws if necessary to be in conformance with God's commands?

Posted by: Anon at November 2, 2005 2:10 PM

Even though you agree that it is OK to burn you, those who would actually want to do so are contrary to our society's norms.

So they would have to be burned.

But the people who burned the burners are also contrary to societal norms.

So they would have to be burned too.

And so on...

And so on...

Posted by: Anon at November 2, 2005 2:12 PM

Would you want your name on his self-loathing Catholic-hating bile?

How is anything I've written on this thread anti-Catholic? Specifics please.

Posted by: Anon at November 2, 2005 2:14 PM

Anon:

Yes. Obedience to God's laws is more important than obedience to men's.

Posted by: oj at November 2, 2005 2:15 PM

Still waiting for an answer PJ, so I'll repeat the question:

PJ, aren't OJ's views bad because they propose the killing of people we disagree with? Aren't his views inherently bad in and of themselves, whether they lead us down a slippery slope or not?

Posted by: Anon at November 2, 2005 2:15 PM

Anon:

Of course, I wouldn't have said it was okay to burn me if it might happen.

Posted by: oj at November 2, 2005 2:15 PM

Anon:

Yes.

Everyone knows how, we generally choose not to follow God's commandments because they demand more than we're willing to give. That's why He was so disappointed in us.

Posted by: oj at November 2, 2005 2:17 PM

Yes. Obedience to God's laws is more important than obedience to men's.

Then why aren't you out killing Gays, if killing Gays is in obedience to God's laws?

Posted by: Anon at November 2, 2005 2:18 PM

Everyone knows how, we generally choose not to follow God's commandments because they demand more than we're willing to give. That's why He was so disappointed in us.

God's disappointed that we are NOT killing large numbers of people?

Posted by: Anon at November 2, 2005 2:20 PM

Of course, I wouldn't have said it was okay to burn me if it might happen.

Then your beliefs are nothing more than empty, hypocritical rhetoric devoid of meaning.

Posted by: Anon at November 2, 2005 2:21 PM

Anon - Yes, killing of innocents is intrinsically evil, and no one should ever be killed because we disagree with them.

Posted by: pj at November 2, 2005 2:26 PM

Anon:

Yes, I'm just as hypocritical as anyone else and more so.

Posted by: oj at November 2, 2005 2:27 PM

So PJ, is your brother intrinsically evil?

Posted by: Anon at November 2, 2005 2:31 PM

OJ, you haven't answered these questions so I'll repeat them:

How is anything I've written on this thread anti-Catholic? Specifics please.

Then why aren't you out killing Gays, if killing Gays is in obedience to God's laws?

God's disappointed that we are NOT killing large numbers of people?

Posted by: Anon at November 2, 2005 2:58 PM

Anon:

Your insistence that there's no such thing as moral laws and that to enforce them is unacceptable is anti-Judeo-Christian, not just anti-Catholic. But on this thread you've not engaged in your usual tedious rants about the Church and we're even still a few comments away from you calling me a Nazi. Your new meds must be working.

Because I'm not much of a Christian.

Yes, God wants His laws enforced strictly because that's ultimately more merciful--ask the 20 million dead of AIDs whether they wish we'd punished homosexuality more severely instead of accepting it.

Posted by: oj at November 2, 2005 3:07 PM

When have I ever insisted that there is no such thing as moral law?

Well that makes you one of the damned now doesn't it?

The difference between you killing Gays and AIDS killing Gays is what exactly?

Posted by: Anon at November 2, 2005 3:23 PM

You deny it every time you pretend we can't know right from wrong.

I'm undoubtedly damned.

Not punishing homosexuality increased it and led to those deaths.

Posted by: oj at November 2, 2005 3:32 PM

Anon - No, oj is not intrinsically evil. Acts can be intrinsically evil and murder is; but people cannot be.

This is basic Christianity.

Posted by: pj at November 2, 2005 3:39 PM

PJ, you need to reread your Gospel:

Matthew
5-21 "You have heard that it was said to the men of old, 'You shall not kill; and whoever kills shall be liable to judgment.'
5-22 But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council and whoever says, 'You fool!' shall be liable to the hell of fire.

And,

Matthew
5-27 "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.'
5-28 But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Evil is not in the act, but in the heart. Evil intention is sufficient to commit grave sin, no physical act is necessary. That is basic Christianity, and Catholic moral doctrine.

Posted by: Anon at November 2, 2005 4:08 PM

OJ,

When have I ever said that we can't tell right from wrong?

Are you damned because you want to kill people or because you haven't killed people?

So you're saying that if it weren't for AIDS massive numbers of people would be flocking to homosexuality? If it weren't for AIDS more people would find it attractive?

Posted by: Anon at November 2, 2005 4:11 PM

Anon:

OJ would rather actively kill homosexuals than allow AIDS to do the job.

Posted by: Jeff Guinn at November 2, 2005 4:41 PM

Anon - Nothing you quoted contradicts what I said. Yes, spirits, thoughts, and emotions can be evil, but that does not make the people who possess them evil.

Posted by: pj at November 2, 2005 5:04 PM

Jeff:

You're close. The point is that be not actively pounishing homosexuality we made possible and more deadly the Aids pandemic. Nor did we stop punishing gatys out of consideration for them, but out of queasiness for us. Putting ourselves ahead of them helped kill more of them, just as morality would have predicted.

Posted by: oj at November 2, 2005 5:33 PM

Anon:

Above.

Both.

No, I'm saying because we stopped punishing homosexuality people engaged in it at higher levels than they would have and exacerbated the AIDs problem.

Posted by: oj at November 2, 2005 5:48 PM

OJ,

Where exactly "above" did I say we can't tell right from wrong?

Gee, talk about your "damned if you do, damned if you don't situations. Well how can wanting to kill large numbers of people (provided it's in accordance with God's commands of course) get you damned? And how can two mutually contradictory things both be evil?

So punishing homosexuality reduces the frequency of such activity and doesn't just drive it underground? How many Gays do you figure you'll have to kill to make the rest of them straight?

Smoking was responsible for almost 5 million deaths worldwide in 2000, or about 12 percent of all deaths. In 2000, AIDS killed 3 million people. Shouldn't we be killing smokers to make the others quit?

Not wanting to kill Gays is a result of "quesiness"? And here I was thinking not wanting to kill was caused by a sense of decncy.

Posted by: Anon at November 2, 2005 7:00 PM

Jeff,

OJ's whole " happily kill Gays" schtick has nothing to do with morality. That is just a rationalization. In reality it's just a revenge fantasy for what happened to him in his frat house.

Posted by: Anon at November 2, 2005 7:01 PM

PJ,

There is a reason why we ask for forgiveness for sins of "thought, word and deed". There is a word for people who commit evil deeds, speak evil words, and indulge in evil thoughts.

They're called "evil".

Posted by: Anon at November 2, 2005 7:03 PM

Anon:

And it's evil to turn a blind eye to their deeds.

Posted by: oj at November 2, 2005 7:09 PM

Daniel Duffy sez: "There is a word for people who commit evil deeds, speak evil words, and indulge in evil thoughts."

They're called people, Daniel.

You are truly a remarkable man, Mr. Duffy. I never realized we were in the presence of someone free from sin!

Posted by: b at November 2, 2005 7:10 PM

Anon:

No, that's why I love shishkebab.

Posted by: oj at November 2, 2005 7:10 PM

Anon:

I thought the word was 'fallen'. Do you bewail your manifold sins and wickedness?

Posted by: jim hamlen at November 2, 2005 7:11 PM

Anon:

The problem is wanting to kill people who God hasn't commanded us to and not killing people he did command us to.

The interesting thing is that we're treating smoking the way we once did homosexuality, but leaving gays to kill themselves. For all the good we're doing smokers we're doing evil to gays. Of course, smoking affects us all and sodomy only the few at the despised margins, so it's easy not to care.

No, it's indecent to let gays degrade and disease themselves just so you don't feel judgmental.

Posted by: oj at November 2, 2005 7:14 PM

OJ,

Not wanting to kill them != turning a blind eye.

No, it's indecent to let gays degrade and disease themselves just so you don't feel judgmental.

"Judge not lest you be judged." You're right, you're not much of a Christian. Which begs the question as to why you claim to be favoring Christian values.

And let me repeat: Where exactly "above" did I say we can't tell right from wrong?

The problem is wanting to kill people who God hasn't commanded us to and not killing people he did command us to.

As I recalled He commanded us to kill people who pick up sticks on Saturday. Do you have a burning desire to kill golfers?

He also commanded us to kill children that argued with their parents. Did you kill yours the last time they sassed you?

Equivalent punishment implies similar levels of crime or sin. For example we don't give out the death penalty for parking violations, that's reserved for more heinous crimes like what you want to do. So if the penalty is the same for homosexuality, arguing with your parents and picking up sticks on Saturday, these infractions must all be equally sinful or evil. Therefore, if homosexuality is a sin, its as sinful as picking up sticks on Saturday or backtalking your parents.

BTW, it is virtually imposible for lesbians to ever get AIDS. Does that make them God's chosen?

b,

There's free from sin and then there is not wanting to kill large numbers of people. You understand that there is a difference?

Posted by: Anon at November 2, 2005 7:52 PM

b,

A follow up question: So Hitler, Genghiz Khan, Charlie Manson, Jeffry Dahlmer, Idi Amin, Vlad Tepes, Mao, and Al Capone, weren't evil? They were just people?

Posted by: Anon at November 2, 2005 7:55 PM

Anon / Daniel: We were created good - indeed, in the image of God; we live in this world such that the "line between good and evil cuts through every human heart"; and when Resurrected on Judgement Day, we make our final choice, to accept the grace that lets us love completely or to reject it and perish in hell.

Nothing in this progression justifies characterizing people as flatly "evil." They may be inclined toward evil to a greater or less degree, but do not become outright evil while the hope of grace remains.

As well as bad theology, it's bad manners to call people evil.

Posted by: pj at November 2, 2005 8:19 PM

But it's not bad manners to propose that certain types of people should be killed? Or even evil to do so?

Mortal sin causes us to reject God long before Judgement Day. What Catholic school did you go to?

Posted by: Anon at November 2, 2005 8:32 PM

It's not for us to judge God's manners, just to obey.

Posted by: oj at November 2, 2005 9:02 PM

Anon:

Yes, lesbianism is relatively unimportant.

We should enforce the Sabbath.

Posted by: oj at November 2, 2005 9:04 PM

Daniel: I sincerely hope that all the people you mentioned repented of all their sins before they died (I know that Dahmer did). And I have to trust that if they did so that God will accept them, since there is no limit to His mercy. If there is, there is no hope for any of us.

Posted by: b at November 2, 2005 11:43 PM

There are people that we actually persecute in our society. Sex Offenders come to mind.

We even have government keep track of them and publish where they live so we, as a society, can more effciently persecute them.

They are a threat to our society and are treated as such, is it a sin, is it wrong, is it evil?

Posted by: Vea Vicits at November 3, 2005 2:46 AM

Vea:

Multiculti types like Anon are even now arguing that it is and trying to mainstream paedophilia:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/333rtjrn.asp


That's the inevitable result of the pretense that no one should judge another's morality nor punish choices anithetical to a decent society.

Posted by: oj at November 3, 2005 7:09 AM

OJ:

You are inchoherent. According to you, by not punishing gays, we made the AIDS epidemic possible.

Ignoring for the moment the wall-wall nonsense in that statement, what would have been the excuse until (roughly) 1984?

This goes to the whole cancer of religionism. Claims to possess absolute truth about just which people God wants killed has led to unspeakable savagery, inflicting far more suffering than AIDS ever will.

By your standard, then, we should punish religionism.

It is not for us to judge God's manners, just to obey.

As succinct a statement of the Good German defense you will ever find.

Congratulations.

Posted by: Jeff Guinn at November 3, 2005 7:14 AM

Jeff:

Not possible, worse. An activity as disordered as anal sex produces innumerable health problems and AIDs is just one of them.

The Germans disobeyed God. They followed a Darwinian rationalist.

The belief that men can derive their own moralities is always mass murderous.

Posted by: oj at November 3, 2005 7:26 AM

It's not for us to judge God's manners

It wasn't God's manners we were judging but yours. For some reason PJ thinks it's worse ofense to be rude than to call for mass murder.

just to obey.

He commands us to kill our children if they argue with their parents. Have you killed yours yet? If not, why are you not obeying God?

Yes, lesbianism is relatively unimportant.

St. Paul would disagree with you. So why the double standard. If same gender sex is an evil worthy of death, it is worthy of death for both genders.

We should enforce the Sabbath.

So you would kill people who picked up sticks on Saturday? Please state so explicitly.

Sex Offenders come to mind.

Via, how is sex a legal offense when there is mutual consent? For example, an animal cannot give consent. OJ has stated that he has had sex with a sheep. OJ by your definition Via is a sex offender. So Via, how would you like to punish OJ? The OT says he should be killed. What do you think?

Multiculti types like Anon are even now arguing that it is and trying to mainstream paedophilia

That is a despicable lie and a vile slander OJ. I have never said or implied any such thing. I demand an apology, assuming you are man enough. But if you don't, I'll know I've won since you arguments are reduced to lies and slurs since they are empty of logic, morality, and facts. And I'll know the pathetic limits of your decency and manhood. A double win.

The Germans disobeyed God. They followed a Darwinian rationalist.

So what about the Germans under Martin Luther, a rabid anti-Semite, would killed Jews in pogroms. Were they OBEYING God?

Jeff, this is all moot. OJ will just alter the archives to delete this conversation, making him both a liar and a coward.

Posted by: Anon at November 3, 2005 8:53 AM

PJ - aren't you ashamed of your brother?

Posted by: Anon at November 3, 2005 8:54 AM

Multiculti types like Anon are even now arguing that it is and trying to mainstream paedophilia

OJ,

On April 7, 2005 the following was written in the "RELATIVATING NOT ABSOLUTATINg" thread:

The issue is JPII's participation in the cover up of these acts and his protection of the perps (and his rewarding of Cardinal Law for doing the same).

To which you responded:

It should be covered up rather than let it damage the institution.

One of us is promoting peadophilia. It ain't me.

Posted by: Anon at November 3, 2005 9:17 AM

Anon:

You promote the demoralized culture that allows it to thrive.

As I suggested, it's most important to preserve the Church's moral authority on such questions. Punish the offenders, but do so without fuss.

Posted by: oj at November 3, 2005 9:23 AM

Still waiting for that apology OJ.

Still waiting for a response to my other points.

You promote the demoralized culture that allows it to thrive.

How exactly do I do that? Not wanting to kill != promoting. You do understand the difference don't you?

As I suggested, it's most important to preserve the Church's moral authority on such questions. Punish the offenders, but do so without fuss.

So child rapists should be immune from criminal prosecution and open trial?

The Wife - aren't you ashamed by your husband?


Posted by: Anon at November 3, 2005 9:31 AM

No, child rapists should be tried and executed.

Here again you demonstrate that you're more interested in destroying the capacity of the Church to teach morality than in punishing evil.

Are you one of those fathers who thinks he has to be honest with the kids so says, sure, I use drugs but you shouldn't?

Posted by: oj at November 3, 2005 9:49 AM

Because there are different moral standards for men and women.

Our kids are obedient.

Yes, Sabbath breakers should be punished.

You can't both defend homosexuality and object to pedophilia. In insisting on amorality you end with it.

Posted by: oj at November 3, 2005 9:54 AM

Still waiting for that apology OJ.


Posted by: Anon at November 3, 2005 10:27 AM

Apology for what?

Posted by: oj at November 3, 2005 10:31 AM

Apology for what?

Let me repeat: That is a despicable lie and a vile slander OJ. I have never said or implied any such thing. I demand an apology, assuming you are man enough. But if you don't, I'll know I've won since you arguments are reduced to lies and slurs since they are empty of logic, morality, and facts. And I'll know the pathetic limits of your decency and manhood. A double win.

Go ahead and delete and dodge. I'll know I've won and that's all that matters.

Posted by: Anon at November 3, 2005 10:38 AM

daniel:

Here's a fairly easy exercise that will show why no apology is required; explain why you on the one hand say that we can not judge nor punish anyone for transgressing a moral law (no homosexuality) which you disapprove of yet we should judge and punish those who transgress moral law (no pedophilia) which you do approve of?

I'll leave up any responsive answers you make.

Posted by: oj at November 3, 2005 10:45 AM

Mr. Judd;

I don't want to defend daniel, but there is an easy, morality based distinction between homosexuality and pedophilia and that is "consent". One of those has it, the other doesn't. As a bonus, "consent" is something of significance to Judeo-Christian morality.

Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at November 3, 2005 11:16 AM

The first LEGAL issue is consent. Children (and sheep) are incapable of giving consent. Therefore pedophilia is illegal and punished (though your would want these crimes covered up) but not homosexuality.

The second LEGAL issue is the fact that we live in a democracy, not a theocracy. Leviticus is not the law of the land, the constitution is. Your OT "moral law" does not directly apply, which is why we don't kill children who sass their parents, witches, Sabbath breakers, and those who engage in bestiality (people like you).

Posted by: Anon at November 3, 2005 11:21 AM

AOG:

Consent is not a moral standard, but an arbitrary rational one. You wish consent to be be your standard but nothing binds anyone else to choose it too. Even worse, it would require is to stand by as peopple destroy themselves, which is a denial of the love that God requires we show our fellow men.

Posted by: oj at November 3, 2005 11:41 AM

daniel:

are you adopting consent as your personal moral standard? Do you argue that violations of consent are evil and should be punished?

Posted by: oj at November 3, 2005 11:46 AM

So you wish to dispense with rationality (big surprise) and express the love God requires us to show our fellow men .... by killing them.

If God gives these men the free will to destroy themselves it would be blasphemous to presume we know better than God and take that free will away.

Are you sure you worship Jesus?

Posted by: Anon at November 3, 2005 11:47 AM

Right, so when a pedophile exercises his God-given free will you have no right to intervene and God wouldn't want you to?

Posted by: oj at November 3, 2005 11:52 AM

OJ:

There were never any witches, except in the fevered imagination of misogynistic Christianity.

J

Posted by: Jeff Guinn at November 3, 2005 12:03 PM

Jeff: It's really not all that convincing for someone who denies that God exists to claim that man cannot know God's will...

Posted by: b at November 3, 2005 12:22 PM

Jeff:

Just as Darwinists, Marxists, and Freudians exist despite Darwinism, Marxism, and Freudianism being nonsense, so too witches exist despite magic being nonsense:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0195213602/juddsbookreviews

Posted by: oj at November 3, 2005 12:22 PM

uhm, the historical record is pretty uniform that widespread acceptance of homosexuality inevitably leads to sexual predation of male youths. nambla is all about consent -- they want the age of consent lowered to 4. societies that tolerate homosexuality wither and die, just ask the helenic greeks or the imperial romans.

Posted by: plato at November 3, 2005 12:28 PM

are you adopting consent as your personal moral standard?

No, it's the law of the land and the basis for determining if a crime has been committed. For example if my neighbor wants my snow shovel and I consent to him taking it, no theft has occured.

BTW, in democracies we punish crimes, not sins. We live in a democracy , not the theocracy of your fantasies. Deal with it.

Do you argue that violations of consent are evil and should be punished?

Of course. Rape, pedophilia and bestiality being obvious examples.

Right, so when a pedophile exercises his God-given free will you have no right to intervene and God wouldn't want you to?

Free will does not exist in this case as there is no consent on the child's part. Why do you have trouble understanding the obvious?

Plato (*), not wanting to kill Gays != widespread acceptance.

(* The real Plato was gay BTW. Odd choice for a pseudonym)

OJ, restore my 10:27 post. But if you don't it really doesn't matter. You, I and God will know what a coward you are. That's enough for this country boy.

Posted by: Anon at November 3, 2005 1:02 PM

daniel:

excellent! Now we're getting somewhere.

So you do dismiss the idea of morality and really solely on legality. By that standard, of course, right and wrong are soimply political questions, so, for instance, chattel slavery was right when it was legal and abortion is wrong when illegal but right when legal. Likewise, rape, pedophilia, etc., aren't wrong in themselves, only because they're illegal--at the moment

You're not even discussing Judeo-Christianity.

However, once you've decided on your own standard you have no compunction about judging people and punishing them accordingly. Your quarrel is that God's moral standards differ from your secular ones.

And so we see that your argument against morality, in order to vindicate sodomy, applies just as well to pedophilia, makling you the ideological ally of th latter as well as the former.

Posted by: oj at November 3, 2005 1:10 PM

So you do dismiss the idea of morality and really solely on legality.

No, not at all. Law has to have a root source. The Golden Rule being the obvious foundation. Consent is part of that foundation. If I consent to my neighbor taking my snow shovel, no theft has occured.

By that standard, of course, right and wrong are soimply political questions, so, for instance, chattel slavery was right when it was legal and abortion is wrong when illegal but right when legal.

Odd coming from a man who sees nothing morally wrong with slavery. To quote Lincoln, if slavery isn't wrong, nothing is wrong. I am not a moral relativist (the concept is self refuting). I am pro-life (though it does beg the question: if abortion is murder, is miscarriage manslaughter?). There is an inherent human dignity which can never be violated or even explained away by relativism.

It's because I believe in an inherent human dignity I am against killing Gays.

Likewise, rape, pedophilia, etc., aren't wrong in themselves, only because they're illegal--at the moment

I never said that, I said quite the opposite. The reason rape and pedophilia are inherently wrong is that consent is absent. The very nature of the acts are non-consensual. Consent is my litmus test for determining what is inherently immoral.

Posted by: Anon at November 3, 2005 1:33 PM

No, it doesn't, law just has to be enacted. Try going to court and telling the judge that the law violates the Golden Rule. You've already forsaken morality when you resorted to mere legality.

But slavery was legal, so by your own standard it had to be accepted, just as homosexuality is now.

You of course deny human dignity when you endorse homosexuality and other arguably consensual sins.

You can just chuck the human dignity of rapist and pedophiles because you think their actions wrong?

Where are you getting consent here other than your opinion? It's not a Biblical standard. It's just the duffy standard? So you're prepared to kill rapists on your relativisatic opinion?


Posted by: oj at November 3, 2005 1:43 PM
« DOES HE HAVE TO PUT "JR." ON THE BALLOT?: | Main | OCTOBER'S OVER, HUH? (via Kevin Whited): »