ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2014 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Thursday, November 29, 2012

The half-life of the secular utopia

Post-Christianity is all secular fun and games until the vacuum is filled.  And we all know how nature fills about vacuums:
Muslim immigrants in a town near Copenhagen have forced the cancellation of traditional Christmas displays this year even while spending lavishly on the Islamic Eid celebration marking the end of Ramadan.

The controversy has escalated into an angry nationwide debate over the role of Islam in post-Christian Denmark, where a burgeoning Muslim population is becoming increasingly assertive in imposing its will on a wide range of social and civic issues.

A spokesman for the Danish Conservative Party, Tom Behnke, says he fears there are people who want to convert Denmark into a Muslim country. In an interview with DR News, Behnke said: "I think it is deeply alarming that our integration efforts are so ineffective that the moment there is a Muslim majority, we do away with good-old Danish traditions and introduce Muslim traditions instead. We are living in Denmark, and people have to adapt to the situation that applies here."

When asked whether housing associations with a Muslim minority should sponsor an Eid party, Behnke replied: "We have to remember that in the past, an Eid festival was the Muslims' victory celebration after they had slaughtered the Christians, so I don't know how much there is to celebrate in Denmark. Still, people should be allowed to celebrate whatever festivals they want to, but they also must respect the festivals in the country they have come to."

Behnke added: "There is no point in wanting to convert Denmark into a Muslim country because you yourself have a Muslim background. That must never happen. On the contrary, we must have mutual respect for one another. This is a lack of respect for Danish traditions and culture. We must not have a Denmark where Danish traditions disappear as soon as there is a Muslim majority."
Of course, the only way for Denmark to avoid losing its Danish traditions is to not have a Muslim majority.  As I have repeatedly attempted to spell out for the atheists and agnostics in our midst, there is not and there will never be a secular science-based utopia.  It is a fundamental category error to pretend it is even remotely possible.  What passes for secularism is merely the transitional state between one dominant religious form and its successor. Post-Christian culture is neither secular nor scientific, it is pagan and pre-Western civilization.

There are two choices on offer.  The secular enlightenment isn't one of them.  What passes for progress is actually a large-scale societal reversion of significant proportions, and neither technology nor ever-increasing quantities of debt, (which presently pass for wealth), are going to prevent that.

Based on what we're observing, the half-life of a secular society is about twenty years.

Labels: ,

193 Comments:

Anonymous Stilicho November 29, 2012 10:24 AM  

I used to love Copenhagen, but I have not been there since the early 90's. I do recall the Danes hating hard though: they were still extremely pissed at the Germans for the WWII occupation. Perhaps that will save them from their multi-culti folly in time.

Anonymous Salt November 29, 2012 10:33 AM  

Time to invest in prayer rugs.

Anonymous Tad November 29, 2012 10:45 AM  

I don't think Denmark is in any danger of become a Muslim majority country considering that between 3-5% of the population is Muslim. (Big Yawn)

And furthermore, atheists don't desire this so called "Secular, Science-based Utopia". This is a straw man constructed by folks with a desire to promote the notion that Atheists are somehow dangerous. Atheists merely seek a society in which religion is not the basis for social policy.

For example, this silly idea that Catholic institutions are having their religious rights trampled upon as a result of have to provide access to health insurance policies that in turn provide coverage for contraception. The claim of religious rights being trampled upon is absurd. The exemption they are demanding is the ultimate slippery slope.

Anonymous JartStar November 29, 2012 10:48 AM  

In secular Germany they are trying out outlaw bestiality again after legalizing it in 1969 as they found out that Germans have a penchant for the act to the number of 100,000 customers a year at the animal bordellos.

That would be the ultimate Star Trek episode: Instead of the captain with sexy green aliens, have him with a variety of alien, barnyard animals, and the Starfleet crew being very tolerant of his choice contrasted against the intolerant, likely religious, aliens who don't like negotiating with a person who just finished enjoying their version of a cow.

Blogger tz November 29, 2012 10:50 AM  

The "Danish Traditions" are now an empty pantomime devoid of any reason. Christendom often baptized the local traditions and even spread them as a celebration of some part of the liturgical calendar.

Why - when everyone is screaming about climate change - do we cut down conifers and put lights on them? Why in a period of austerity are we giving lavish gifts to each other? Why are all those meta-holiday cloying and insipid tunes - like white festivus, It's beginning to look a lot like festivus, Festivus without you, being sung?

It's not like there is any reason for this madness. Especially when it is cold. Why not move this nonsense to sometime late spring and summer, at least in the Northern Hemisphere?

Or forget it entirely.

Of course as a Roman Catholic, I celebrate the feasts of the Immaculate Conception, Our Lady of Guadeloupe, The Nativity, Mother of God, and Epiphany as well as a number of other minor feasts (presentation, holy innocents, St. Stephen). But that is just me.

Even the Puritans that came here originally banned any winter solstice celebration as was practiced where they came from.

When the spirit departs, the body decays.

Islam, although having many errors, is at least a culture of life. And life will triumph over death. You do not need to shed the blood or even threaten someone who is intent on suicide.

Anonymous Hoots November 29, 2012 10:51 AM  

Slippery slope to what Tad? People being able to use their own property according to their respective consciences? Freedom is at the TOP of the slope, not the bottom.

Vox - from what event(s) are you dating the birth of secularism to arrive at your 20 year number?

Anonymous JartStar November 29, 2012 10:51 AM  

Atheists merely seek a society in which religion is not the basis for social policy.

Tad never quits giving...

Tad, if not science or secular values what exactly would the basis of the secular society atheists are asking for be based upon?

Anonymous Loki of Asgard November 29, 2012 10:59 AM  

For example, this silly idea that Catholic institutions are having their religious rights trampled upon as a result of have to provide access to health insurance policies that in turn provide coverage for contraception. The claim of religious rights being trampled upon is absurd. The exemption they are demanding is the ultimate slippery slope.

You are absolutely right. No one should be granted exemption from any act or contribution which his beliefs--religious or otherwise--decree immoral. Otherwise, everyone will become exempt, and then there can be no progress toward the "better and more enlightened society" the humanists foresee.

Not at all utopian. Not at all.

Anonymous Tad November 29, 2012 11:00 AM  

@JarStar. I don't know any atheists that are demanding a "secular society". Yes, like within christianity, there are evangelists, but they are few and far between as within the growing atheist/agnostic community. The average atheists merely desires that religious convictions not be given heightened priority by the state and deference over non-religious convictions.

Again, the demand that Catholic institution be exempt from elements of the Healthcare law is a perfect example of this.

Anonymous The other skeptic November 29, 2012 11:01 AM  

Meanwhile French unemployment is up

At some point a more charismatic leader than that goofy one they have got will appeal to them and start them down the road to WWIII ...

Blogger tz November 29, 2012 11:01 AM  

Ted:

"For example, this silly idea that Catholic institutions are having their religious rights trampled upon as a result of have to provide access to health insurance policies that in turn provide coverage for contraception. The claim of religious rights being trampled upon is absurd. The exemption they are demanding is the ultimate slippery slope".

No, the slippery slope is the fascist crony corrupt demand that every citizen must buy from a cartel, whether it covers contraception or not. Including the working poor who can barely afford fuel or food.

Having watched the dismantling of the edifice of liberty - brick by brick - with their silence or even their approval - Catholics now find that someone is taking a jack-hammer to the foundation. They have forgotten that the foundation is there to support the building, and the building protects the foundation.

It is not that forcing to pay for an intrinsic evil is tyrannical, it is that the other dozens of usurpations and violations with the various wars on whatever including intrinsic evils such as torture or targeting non-combatants are far worse and they said nothing. Boenhoffer's "when they came for the gypsies I did not speak up for I was not a gypsy..." rings with accusatory truth.

The Catholics collectively are a sleeping giant, but they just want to hit the Snooze button on the HHS Mandate, not attack the tyranny at its roots and in all its forms.

I do point out to those practicing Neo-Catholicism of the Neo-Cons that they sound stupid, selfish, and greedy, when they demand not to be made to pay for contraception in the midst of a generation-old abortion holocaust, massacres at Sikh temples, and daily war crimes which have occurred for over a decade and silence on the billionaire bankster bailout bonuses.

Or in the words of Peter Kreeft: "remember Judas Iscariot was a Bishop - the first to accept a government grant - 30 pieces of silver if I recall...".

Anonymous Tad November 29, 2012 11:03 AM  

@Loki You are absolutely right. No one should be granted exemption from any act or contribution which his beliefs--religious or otherwise--decree immoral. Otherwise, everyone will become exempt, and then there can be no progress toward the "better and more enlightened society" the humanists foresee.

Your sarcastic response implies a desire for a state in which no laws may be passed and imposed on the citizens. Fair enough. It's just that such a position isn't worth discussing given its absurdity.

Anonymous JartStar November 29, 2012 11:04 AM  

The "Danish Traditions" are now an empty pantomime devoid of any reason.

This is the interesting thing in many of these Northern European countries, they nearly all get baptized in state run churches, want the ceremonies, but have little to no belief. They see the cultural value of a mostly unified religious practice, but don’t think it’s based upon truth. This obviously cannot last much longer.

Islam, although having many errors, is at least a culture of life.

And that 2+2=4 so long as it makes Johnny feel good cannot compete with 2+2=4 because Allah wills it.

Blogger Spacebunny November 29, 2012 11:04 AM  

I don't think

Hey look everyone, Tad actually got something right!

Blogger James Dixon November 29, 2012 11:05 AM  

> For example, this silly idea that Catholic institutions are having their religious rights trampled upon as a result of have to provide access to health insurance policies that in turn provide coverage for contraception.

I see Tad's reading comprehension wrt the Constitution is on par with everything else.

Anonymous JartStar November 29, 2012 11:07 AM  

Tad you dodged the question and didn't answer it so I'll ask it again:

If not science or secular values what exactly would the basis of the secular society atheists are asking for be based upon?

Anonymous zen0 November 29, 2012 11:08 AM  

For example, this silly idea that Catholic institutions are having their religious rights trampled upon as a result of have to provide access to health insurance policies that in turn provide coverage for contraception. The claim of religious rights being trampled upon is absurd. The exemption they are demanding is the ultimate slippery slope.

As usual, Tad the Tedious is a day late and a dollar short. Well, its probably worse than that but that is the expression.

A bill in the House of Representatives, with bipartisan support, would provide a religious exemption to the insurance mandate in Obamacare. This would allow those who object because of religious conscience to opt out of the mandate with an affidavit.

Rep. Judy Biggert (R-IL) authored H.R. 6597 and has garnered support from both sides of the aisle, including Reps. Barney Frank (D-MA), Todd Akin (R-MO), Ron Paul (R-TX) and Barbara Lee (D-CA).


Look Tad! The absurd is happening! Strap yourself into that sled, boy!



Blogger tz November 29, 2012 11:09 AM  

Ted:

I have no problem with vanishingly small government atheists and agnostics, but instead most, if not "evangelical" are socialist or fascist - wanting to have a big intrusive government to provide warfare and welfare (often of the crony corporate variety). Stalin and Mao had no trouble forcing their views on very large countries, and they were atheists. Even Thomas Jefferson had his "Embargo" out of fear of getting entangled in European wars, and he was merely a Deist.

If Government does no coercion concerning Health Care, then the Atheists can cover what they desire, and the Catholics can cover what they desire - each out of their own pockets.

You seem to want to impose and micromanage behavior - at the ATM - do you object to doing the same in the bedroom? Private businesses (e.g. smoking bans)?

I argue against any tyranny, whether imposed by atheists or religious. You argue that your tyranny is an exception and can be imposed on all.

(I can only make an argument on imposing a rule at any level based on Natural Law, but I doubt you accept that the Law should be defined by reason instead of whims based on emotions like fear and anger as much as pity).

Anonymous Tad November 29, 2012 11:11 AM  

@TZ

Whether the new Healthcare law is a usurping of liberty is an interesting question. However, the single issue of this contraception mandate and the demand for exemption by Catholics and other religious fanatics is a somewhat different issue that goes to the absurd demands and deference desired by "religious folks".

How does a Catholic making this demand not also support the demand among anyone to be exempt from any law that violates their conscience? They can't.

Why doesn't the catholic church support exemptions for Muslim women who say that uncovering their face when standing for a photograph for an ID card is a violation of their religious rights.

To a lot of folks it looks like the Catholic institutions balling like little girls and demanding exemptions from the healthcare law's contraception mandate are using "deeply held spiritual beliefs" for simple financial reasons. Oh my gosh...More duplicity from religious folks....who'd have thunk it.

Anonymous Loki of Asgard November 29, 2012 11:12 AM  

Your sarcastic response implies a desire for a state in which no laws may be passed and imposed on the citizens. Fair enough. It's just that such a position isn't worth discussing given its absurdity.

Quite the contrary. I believe all of my decrees should be imposed upon all men without exception. I am simply pleased--vaguely--to see that you would support my first law, which shall be that all men shall kneel and worship me as the god I am thrice daily.

After all, what matter religious objections to such a thing? We speak of a glorious purpose.

Anonymous Tad November 29, 2012 11:13 AM  

@jarstar Tad you dodged the question and didn't answer it so I'll ask it again:

If not science or secular values what exactly would the basis of the secular society atheists are asking for be based upon?


I'm in no better position than you to answer this question as I've never given any thought to what the basis of a "secular society atheists are asking for" would be based upon.

Blogger JDC November 29, 2012 11:15 AM  

Quote: A spokesman for the Danish Conservative Party, Tom Behnke, says he fears there are people who want to convert Denmark into a Muslim country.

Just now figuring this out? That's what they do, and they aren't even secretive about it. Move to a community, play nice until you become the majority or close to it, and then invoke Sharia. They warn us they will do it, and we smile and dream about a melting pot.

Anonymous zen0 November 29, 2012 11:17 AM  

And furthermore, atheists don't desire this so called "Secular, Science-based Utopia". This is a straw man constructed by folks with a desire to promote the notion that Atheists are somehow dangerous. Atheists merely seek a society in which religion is not the basis for social policy.

I think Tad just swallowed his own tail here. Tad, do you know what "Secular" means?

Anonymous Tad November 29, 2012 11:17 AM  

@JDC

Muslims in Denmark amount to 2-4% of the population. There is going to be no imposition of sharia law there or here. Statements to the contrary are silly rhetoric.

Anonymous zen0 November 29, 2012 11:19 AM  

And furthermore, atheists don't desire this so called "Secular, Science-based Utopia". This is a straw man constructed by folks with a desire to promote the notion that Atheists are somehow dangerous. Atheists merely seek a society in which religion is not the basis for social policy.

I think Tad just swallowed his own tail here, and will spin in ever decreasing circles until he disappears.

Do you know what "Secular" means, Tad?

Anonymous Loki of Asgard November 29, 2012 11:21 AM  

The latest dust-up involves the Egedalsvænget housing complex in Kokkedal, a town situated some 30 kilometers (20 miles) north of Copenhagen where Arab and Turkish immigrants now comprise more than half the total population.

But who needs to read, when one is sure of himself?

Blogger JDC November 29, 2012 11:22 AM  

@TAD - Silly rhetoric aside, you have proven my point. If they are making these demands with only 2-4% of the population, what will their demands be when (or if) that number increases? Will they become more tolerant of other religions (e.g. Christianity)?

Anonymous JartStar November 29, 2012 11:22 AM  

I am simply pleased--vaguely--to see that you would support my first law, which shall be that all men shall kneel and worship me as the god I am thrice daily.

Loki, I believe Tad would object because this is a religious decree since it involves worship. Instead you can decree all of society must help another part of society to to kill a certain population group. When they object on religious grounds you can ignore their rejection as "The State has spoken and the matter is settled".

It would be a tacit endorsement of religion to allow one religious group to be exempt when the killings.

Anonymous Tad November 29, 2012 11:23 AM  

@JamesDixon I see Tad's reading comprehension wrt the Constitution is on par with everything else.

Is it your contention that the "Free Exercise" clause means that an exemption to any law or regulation ought to be provided to anyone who claims the law or regulation violates their religious consciousness?

Anonymous Desiderius November 29, 2012 11:25 AM  

The contraception mandate is an abrogation of a liberty far more broad and fundamental than mere religion. But the R's took the bait and put it in religious terms, playing directly into the anti-religious bigotry of those who otherwise would have taken notice of what the government was actually doing, or at least making it impossible for liberals of good faith to protest without being tarred with the religious brush they so fear.

Religious = illiberal in the halls of power. Illiberal policy sneaks in by selling itself as anti-religious.

Anonymous Loki of Asgard November 29, 2012 11:29 AM  

I believe Tad would object because this is a religious decree since it involves worship.

Ah, but you see, he cannot object. I can provide photographic and DNA evidence of my existence. Forcing all to acknowledge me as a far superior being to themselves and that they owe me their unswerving obedience--as, after all, I shall also be the State embodied--is merely a ritualized recognition of provable fact. There should be no faith required.

Anonymous JartStar November 29, 2012 11:33 AM  

I'm in no better position than you to answer this question as I've never given any thought to what the basis of a "secular society atheists are asking for" would be based upon.

You aren’t even a good liar as in an earlier post in this very thread you’ve already given thought to it because as you've stated “The average atheists merely desires that religious convictions not be given heightened priority by the state and deference over non-religious convictions.” And you are defending this position so you can’t weasel out of it by claiming you aren’t an “average atheist”.

Certainly one of the bases of your secular society is the above. Remember you said “never given any thought” and obviously you have given it thought. Yes, this is a direct personal attack on your character which is warranted by the above evidence. You are a liar Tad, and so stupid you can’t even stop yourself from lying in a short period of posts.

Anonymous Stilicho November 29, 2012 11:35 AM  

Give it up Loki, Tad already worships the void. Scratch an atheist, find a nihilist.

Anonymous rycamor November 29, 2012 11:36 AM  

What passes for progress is actually a large-scale societal reversion of significant proportions, and neither technology nor ever-increasing quantities of debt, (which presently pass for wealth), are going to prevent that.

This has been on my mind much as of late. Progress along one axis--that of the technologies available to us--is really an extremely narrow view of life as a whole. In most other areas, there has been significant regress. And, at what point do the technologies themselves become less and less relevant to daily life, if the other areas start to fall apart?

My wife and I have been spending a fair amount of time lately learning the traditional survival arts of the human race: growing things, raising livestock, managing land. We have an old spinning wheel which was given to us as a sort of curiosity/decoration, but started taking a class on spinning yarn, realizing that this is another art that will be with us whether the lights stay on or no.

We are only one large (not unprecedented in human history) solar flare away from losing a significant part of the technology that powers modern life. For those who haven't forgotten that there is more than modern industrial living, life can go on. For others, the picture won't be so pretty. Then we might be able to turn to the Tads of the world and say "where is your science now?"

Anonymous zen0 November 29, 2012 11:38 AM  

Muslims in Denmark amount to 2-4% of the population. There is going to be no imposition of sharia law there or here. Statements to the contrary are silly rhetoric.

Here Tad misses the critical point of the article. The offending circumstances took place in a town near Copenhagen, that presumably has a Muslim majority. The demographics of the nation as a whole are irrelevant to the point.

He also knows nothing of the history of Islam.

Tad has no game, and the kung fu of a wet noodle.

Anonymous Tad November 29, 2012 11:39 AM  

@Jar
You aren’t even a good liar as in an earlier post in this very thread you’ve already given thought to it because as you've stated “The average atheists merely desires that religious convictions not be given heightened priority by the state and deference over non-religious convictions.” And you are defending this position so you can’t weasel out of it by claiming you aren’t an “average atheist”.

Jar, you wanted a description of this society from me even after reading this, so I assumed this was not to your point. This is not a description of a "secular society" in the sense that I think most people of faith accuse atheists of wanting to create. It is a description of how government policymaking ought to be approached. However, if you want to label this position as the definition of a "secular society", fine.

Anonymous righteous gobbler November 29, 2012 11:41 AM  

Muslims beginning to impose their own religiosity in what's currently a secularist Denmark?

Come on atheist Denmark, if you can possibly muster the willingness to fight for anything at all it should be your right to party. Thats all you've got.

Anonymous Josh November 29, 2012 11:43 AM  

I'm in no better position than you to answer this question as I've never given any thought to

Finally, Tad speaks the truth!

Hallelujah!

Anonymous Tad November 29, 2012 11:44 AM  

@Zeno
Here Tad misses the critical point of the article. The offending circumstances took place in a town near Copenhagen, that presumably has a Muslim majority. The demographics of the nation as a whole are irrelevant to the point.


In Vox Day's post her referred to DENMARK eventually losing it's danish majority. I take him at his work that when he wrote "Denmark" he meant it.

Anonymous Loki of Asgard November 29, 2012 11:45 AM  

Give it up Loki, Tad already worships the void. Scratch an atheist, find a nihilist.

Yes, but he is currently my favorite toy. I enjoy watching him spin and spin and spin until he gets so dizzy that he vomits up nonsense.

Anonymous Constitution November 29, 2012 11:55 AM  

@Tade - Is it your contention that the "Free Exercise" clause means that an exemption to any law or regulation ought to be provided to anyone who claims the law or regulation violates their religious consciousness?

Answer: "Congress shall make NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion, or PROHIBITING the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government ofr a redress of grievances."

The Constitution - Amendment I

Seems pretty clear.

Anonymous Stilicho November 29, 2012 12:02 PM  

This has been on my mind much as of late. Progress along one axis--that of the technologies available to us--is really an extremely narrow view of life as a whole. In most other areas, there has been significant regress. And, at what point do the technologies themselves become less and less relevant to daily life, if the other areas start to fall apart?

Technology only provides answers to the question "what can we do?" and not to the more important question "what should we do?". Societies lose sight of this at their peril.

Anonymous JI November 29, 2012 12:03 PM  

It makes me laugh with delight to see the Muslems conquering secular Europe. All those years of listening to the enlightened atheist Euros, and their admirers here in the States, and now I finally get the last laugh. I just hope the people who have created this situation actually live long enough to either be slaughtered by the Muslems, or at the least see themselves relegated to 3rd-class citizens in their own country. It would be shame if all those wretched liberals died off and their poor children suffer the consequences while the originators get off scott-free.

Anonymous Heh November 29, 2012 12:14 PM  

Denmark TFR: 1.74 children born/woman (2012 est.)

Well below replacement (and may even include immigrants for all I know).

Buh-bye!

Blogger James Dixon November 29, 2012 12:19 PM  

> Is it your contention that the "Free Exercise" clause means that an exemption to any law or regulation ought to be provided to anyone who claims the law or regulation violates their religious consciousness?

The correct term is "prohibits the free exercise of", but with certain notable exceptions, that's been the historical interpretation of it, yes.

Anonymous Tad November 29, 2012 12:29 PM  

@JamesDixon

The correct term is "prohibits the free exercise of", but with certain notable exceptions, that's been the historical interpretation of it, yes.


Actually, James, the second clause of the first amendment is always referred to as "The Free Exercise Clause".

Second, those exceptions you briefly reference are pretty important. Have your investigated the court's jurisprudence on this issue?

Blogger Crowhill November 29, 2012 12:31 PM  

> there is not and there will never be a secular science-based utopia ...

Not only that, there is not and there will never be a secular science-based society that doesn't quickly collapse under the weight of its own foolishness.

Human beings simply can't live that way.

Anonymous Tad November 29, 2012 12:32 PM  

@Constitution


Indeed, to someone with idea what they are talking about.

How about this: Can someone who claims that beating their wife and children severely, regularly and indescriminately is a key part of their religious tradition and therefor they ought to be exempted from laws that prohibit bodily assault? "Free Exercise" after all.

Anonymous Josh November 29, 2012 12:40 PM  

Vox,

What would you suggest is the critical mass required for a minority religion to become culturally dominant?

Blogger IM2L844 November 29, 2012 12:53 PM  

The correct term is "prohibits the free exercise of", but with certain notable exceptions, that's been the historical interpretation of it, yes.

I expect this to become a big deal in the near future with the SCOTUS probably ruling on conscientious objections to Obama care's mandate that forces non-profit employers to fund the presupposed right of women to kill babies for fun (for fun = recreational sex with minimal repercussions).

Anonymous Tad November 29, 2012 12:57 PM  

I expect this to become a big deal in the near future with the SCOTUS probably ruling on conscientious objections to Obama care's mandate

A case originating out of Liberty University may be on its way. However, it likely has no chance of winning its challenge to the contraception mandate as the law is neutral and the government can easily show a compelling government interest. In other words, the case will be correctly decided.

Blogger James Dixon November 29, 2012 12:59 PM  

> Have your investigated the court's jurisprudence on this issue?

IANAL. However, I have done a layman's study of the matter, yes.

So, tell me Tad, did the Catholic church stop using wine in their mass during prohibition? Are people under 18 allowed to receive wine with the Mass today?

Blogger James Dixon November 29, 2012 1:00 PM  

> Actually, James, the second clause of the first amendment is always referred to as "The Free Exercise Clause".

And I was quoting the exact language from a previous post Tad, which you obviously didn't bother to read.

Anonymous Jack Amok November 29, 2012 1:11 PM  

A reminder to folks, be careful arguing with an idiot, as people may not be able to tell the difference. I mean, sure, your points make a thousand percent more sense than Tad's, but the question remains, why are you wasting time with such a fool? He's incapable of or uninterested in (likely both) understanding anything beyond his cloud-cuckoolander script. You're not going to move the needle.

Now, you may be arguing for the benefit of the audience, who can see his obstinate idiocy contrasted with your patient wisdom, but, um, at some point it's no longer wisdom. At some point "stop wasting our time you obnoxious moron" is the most insightful comment left to make.

Anonymous JT November 29, 2012 1:11 PM  

I can trace my lineage back to Sigurd Ring, one of the legendary kings of Denmark...I wonder if I can somehow leverage that to usurp the throne and save Denmark...by executing their leadership.

Anonymous Van November 29, 2012 1:12 PM  

Tad:

Obviously, no, a person cannot claim a religious exception from laws prohibiting violence against his spouse or children. The reason for this is, of course, because there is a victim. You athiests are fond of using this as the line between legitimate restrictions on behavior and laws thar force "morality" on others.

So who is the victim if Catholic institutions do not provide their employees with insurance that covers birth control and abortions? Is it your claim that I have a right to these things, and my rights are violated, therefore I am a "victim," if they are not given to me?

Anonymous 11B November 29, 2012 1:12 PM  

Again, the demand that Catholic institution be exempt from elements of the Healthcare law is a perfect example of this.

Would you agree then that no group should receive any exemptions or waivers from the provisions of Obamacare?

Anonymous Tad November 29, 2012 1:13 PM  

@James


I'm not sure about the issue of 18 year olds. However a number of wineries were able to stay in business during prohibition by providing wine for religious purposes.

Anonymous Daniel November 29, 2012 1:15 PM  

I'm not sure how you distinguish Tad's toydom from the dripping venom of a serpent above your head, Loki, but to each his own.

Maybe you are giving him enough entrails to bind himself, I suppose.

Anonymous TheVillageIdiotRet November 29, 2012 1:17 PM  

As the Christian cultures abort themselves into extinction,
The Muslims are breeding themselves into Power.
y'all can start calling me by Muslim name now:

Hasn't bin Laid.

(I KILLLLLLLLL YOU!)

Anonymous Tad November 29, 2012 1:19 PM  

@Van

The reason beating someone based on religious convictions is not exempt from the law is not because there is a victim. The reason is because the law in question (assault) is neutral...it does not aim at a specific religion or religion itself. On top of that, the government can identify a compelling interest for the law as well as there being no less intrusive way to achieve the goal of punishing those that assault others.

So with regard to the desire to the contraception mandate, again we have a neutral law, not one aimed at religion or a particular religion's practices has had existed in the past with regard to Seventh Day Adventists and other fringe religions.

Anonymous Tad November 29, 2012 1:21 PM  

@11b Would you agree then that no group should receive any exemptions or waivers from the provisions of Obamacare?

Probably, but I'd want to hear which exemptions are suggested.

Anonymous 11B November 29, 2012 1:22 PM  

Muslims in Denmark amount to 2-4% of the population. There is going to be no imposition of sharia law there or here. Statements to the contrary are silly rhetoric.

Two to four percent does seem low. But remember that was about the same percentage hispanics were of the US population around the time of the 1986 amnesty. Presently they amount to 17% of the population. Clearly far from a majority. But would anyone deny that they have now reached a critical mass and have effectively changed this nation? Is Spanish not our a de facto second language? Is any restriction on further immigration, particularly from Latin America, now off the table?

The lesson we have learned in the US is that it does not take an absolute majority of aliens to permanently alter your nation. It would serve the Danes and other Europeans well to get proactive now with muslim populations in the two to four percent range. As we have seen with hispanics here, it doesn't even take 20% to permanently alter your nation.

Blogger Robert S. Oculus III November 29, 2012 1:24 PM  

Tad:

The difference between you and us Catholic traditionalists is that you believe that there can be no higher authority than man when it comes to deciding what the State can do, or, indeed, what is moral or immoral. Your position is that the law is the law, so long as it reflects the will of the majority and is enacted according to the legislative processes specified by the constitution of a given country. You position is that no such thing as absolutes of right or wrong exist, and that each man is free to determine his own morality based upon reason alone. This is tantamount to self-deification: you are become as God, knowing good from evil. I'll leave it to you to realize who the originator of this idea was.

We Catholic traditionalists believe that God has set forth a universal standard of right and wrong -- the natural law -- and that the State is instituted as the agent of God to uphold the right and obstruct the wrong. It follows that any law enforced by the State must conform to the natural law. Any law or other act of State that transgresses the natural law (e.g. a law requiring employers to pay for employees' abortion and contraception expenses) is therefore not a law at all.

And a law that is no law need not be obeyed.

Having read your posts, I'm pretty sure you're not an atheist. I think you're simply a miseducated young person whose pride prevents him from acknowledging the reality of an Authority Who has the right to tell him what to do. (I, too, walked that road.) If you were truly an atheist, this conversation would not be taking place. A true atheist -- that is, a person who believes with 100% certainty that the material world is all that exists -- would not bother to argue the point. One does not argue a certainty. To a true atheist, debating the existence of God would be an act of foolishness akin to debating with a five year old the existence of Lucky, the Lucky Charms leprechaun.

The fact that you are still banging on and on about God not being real is proof that you're not 100% sure about your faith in materialism, and are therefore salvageable. I will pray that the divine Savior salvage you as he did me.

Anonymous Porky? November 29, 2012 1:25 PM  

Tad: Muslims in Denmark amount to 2-4% of the population. There is going to be no imposition of sharia law there or here. Statements to the contrary are silly rhetoric.

Tad is right. Muslims have simply tapped into the collective hatred of Jesus.

Anonymous Tad November 29, 2012 1:32 PM  

@Robert
We Catholic traditionalists believe that God has set forth a universal standard of right and wrong -- the natural law -- and that the State is instituted as the agent of God to uphold the right and obstruct the wrong. It follows that any law enforced by the State must conform to the natural law. Any law or other act of State that transgresses the natural law (e.g. a law requiring employers to pay for employees' abortion and contraception expenses) is therefore not a law at all.

Just to clarify, do you believe this is how a state SHOULD operate or do you believe that this is the principle upon the United States Constitution was founded.

Anonymous TheVillageIdiotRet November 29, 2012 1:33 PM  

When it comes to dealings with the Apeist.
Us Muslims Rock.
WE WILL WE WILL ROCK YOU!

Hasn't bin Laid.

(I KILLLLLLLLL YOU!)

Anonymous Feh November 29, 2012 1:33 PM  

But remember that was about the same percentage hispanics were of the US population around the time of the 1986 amnesty. Presently they amount to 17% of the population.

Also remember that The Powers That Be kept murmuring "not enough to worry about... not enough to worry about..." until they suddenly shifted to "oh, so sorry, too many to offend, too many to offend!"

Funny how we were never in the sweet spot of "enough to be a problem, not too many to deal with" -- at least according to TPTB.

Anonymous JohnR November 29, 2012 1:34 PM  

Tad: Nice strawman.

There is no religion tradition that says to beat your wife and children.

Try sticking to real-world arguments.

Blogger Alexander November 29, 2012 1:34 PM  

I'm sure once upon a time, Iroquois comforted themselves with the knowledge that Europeans were a tiny minority in the new world, Greeks slept peacefully knowing the Turkish presence in Asia Minor was nothing to write home about, and the Ainu wasted no time concerning themselves about their southern neighbors.

Tad, human history is example after example of a foreign tribe replacing the existing one. Please explain why you think Denmark is an exception here.

After all, an extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence, am I right?

Blogger James Dixon November 29, 2012 1:35 PM  

> again we have a neutral law, not one aimed at religion or a particular religion's practices...

Neither (in theory) was prohibition. But an exemption was allowed. How is this different?

Anonymous Van November 29, 2012 1:37 PM  

Prohibition would seem to be a neutral law, yet an exception was carved out for religious ceremonies. During my high school years, the identification of a victim and conformance wtih our cultural values were the tests for free excercise of religion. The neutrality argument is a recent creation, and a lie. Christian beliefs conflict with secular values like the free excercise of sexuality, and the key belief that no authority shall be higher than government.

Anonymous cheddarman November 29, 2012 1:39 PM  

Cheddarman here, wondering when the Atzlans will start offering up human sacrifices in the former U.S. states of California, New Mexico, Arizona, and Texas.

Anonymous A Visitor November 29, 2012 1:41 PM  

That's a shame about Denmark. There are similar no go zones in France: http://sig.ville.gouv.fr/Atlas/ZUS/

I saw creeping Islamisation in Spain when I was there five years (this January) ago. It's sickening.

@Tad "For example, this silly idea that Catholic institutions are having their religious rights trampled upon as a result of have to provide access to health insurance policies that in turn provide coverage for contraception."

Well, we Catholics believe that the purpose of sexual intercourse is to bring married couples together AND procreation. When you separate one from the other, it is wrong, plain and simple. So yes, our religious rights are being trampled upon.

Anonymous Tad November 29, 2012 1:41 PM  

@James Neither (in theory) was prohibition. But an exemption was allowed. How is this different?

There are specific practical difference between a law that would prohibit a standard religious practice and a law that would require something that is not a specific practice (ie: serving communion wine). And I'm sure there are other small differences.

The other issue is politics. What political pressures led to exempting communion service during prohibition. I could look that up, but don't really think it's too important.

It's important to note also that the contraception mandate is not requiring religions to abandon any particular established practice, nor does it require an individual to use contraception.

Anonymous Kriston November 29, 2012 1:42 PM  

If I am forced to pay for another persons contraception shouldn't I get the right of access?

This law forces us to pay for someone else to have something we don't get. That alone makes it unfair.

We need to make it fair! Isn't that what we keep being told?

Anonymous Tad November 29, 2012 1:47 PM  

@Van:

What do you mean by "victim"? Do you mean someone who is simply impacted by the law? Or are you using "victim" in the sense that we discussed it early concerning something more physical, such as assault?

The Neutrality issue is not so recent, Van. It was first explained in 1879 in the famous Reynolds v. US Polygamy case...So, I'm not sure what you mean by it being a "lie".

As for the exemption for communion wine you mention, I address that briefly in a previous comment.

Anonymous The One November 29, 2012 1:48 PM  

Tad you have to understand that when something is morally reprehensible to a person, they will not do it. there are plenty of people up here in NH who no longer pay income taxes because they are against the wars. As the gov. continues to fund abortion, divorce and now contraception, less and less Christians will choose to pay into the system until it collapses from lack of revenue.

Anonymous welriweop November 29, 2012 1:48 PM  

The problem is that most Americans used to agree that Christianity should hold a privileged position. There was no debate because, like the Muslim majority in that small Danish town, Christians were able to promote and preserve Christianity in the public square and stifle false religions. Religious liberty is really incompatible with Christianity. No one really has a right to worship anyone but Jesus.

Anonymous Tad November 29, 2012 1:48 PM  

@A Visitor Well, we Catholics believe that the purpose of sexual intercourse is to bring married couples together AND procreation. When you separate one from the other, it is wrong, plain and simple. So yes, our religious rights are being trampled upon.

I have a solution. Don't use contraceptives.

Anonymous Tad November 29, 2012 1:51 PM  

@The One
Tad you have to understand that when something is morally reprehensible to a person, they will not do it. there are plenty of people up here in NH who no longer pay income taxes because they are against the wars. As the gov. continues to fund abortion, divorce and now contraception, less and less Christians will choose to pay into the system until it collapses from lack of revenue.

Knock yourself out.

Anonymous Tad November 29, 2012 1:52 PM  

No one really has a right to worship anyone but Jesus.

LOL...OK.

Blogger James Dixon November 29, 2012 2:03 PM  

> It's important to note also that the contraception mandate is not requiring religions to abandon any particular established practice...

Are you really trying to say that the Roman Catholic ban on abortion isn't an established practice?

If so, all anyone can do is laugh at you.

Anonymous Kriston November 29, 2012 2:04 PM  

Alright, I'm ashamed of you. All of you. You let a weasel-butt like Tad lead you around by the nose by allowing him to frame the debate in incorrect terms.

The Church is fighting the mandate because of the abortion requirement. Abortion is NOT contraception. It is murder of the pre-born, you know, the least among us.

And not one of you has yet called him on it!

I know, I know, he will say "just don't get an abortion", but you will still have to pay for it.

Now, get this back on track and go after the real heart of the matter!

Anonymous Kriston November 29, 2012 2:05 PM  

@James Dixon
OK, I'm not ashamed of you. You beat me to it. Thank you.

Anonymous The One November 29, 2012 2:06 PM  

Tad, would you have payed taxes into the Nazi regime (insert horrible gov. here)?

If your answer is NO, they all you are doing is debating details as the right to not support a government with monies based on morals has already been established.

Anonymous Porky? November 29, 2012 2:09 PM  

Tad: Atheists merely seek a society in which religion is not the basis for social policy.

Why?

Anonymous Azazel or Azazael or Azâzêl (Hebrew: עזאזל, Aramaic: רמשנאל, Arabic: عزازل Azazil) November 29, 2012 2:10 PM  

Hey tadpole (as in Wormwood), do you write love poems to Lucifer/Satan? Then better get cracking. Your mentor certainly did. Got some catchin up to do, don't ya?

Anonymous Tad November 29, 2012 2:12 PM  

@James
Are you really trying to say that the Roman Catholic ban on abortion isn't an established practice?

I'm saying it's a position, not a practice in the sense that communion or baptism is a practice.

Anonymous Tad November 29, 2012 2:15 PM  

@Kriston

The Church is fighting the mandate because of the abortion requirement. Abortion is NOT contraception

The Catholic Church along with Notre Dame and other Catholic insititutions have indeed sued the federal government over the healthcare law. And SPECIFICALLY, they sued the federal government over the CONTRACEPTION mandate.

Anonymous Van November 29, 2012 2:17 PM  

There's an essential issue here of negative rights vs positive rights. I believe being forced to provide something to another violates my rights. Tad believes not being provided with birth control violate Sandra Fluke's rights. The lie is in the premise of neutrality, and the typical claim for a desire to live and let live. All societies center themselves around sets of values, and force those values on others

--on smartphone at work; done today

Anonymous Tad November 29, 2012 2:19 PM  

@Porky
Tad: Atheists merely seek a society in which religion is not the basis for social policy.

Why?


It's a hedge against theocracy as well as a hedge against the kind of really dumb and discriminatory laws that religions like to foist on people.

Anonymous Tad November 29, 2012 2:23 PM  

@Van
There's an essential issue here of negative rights vs positive rights. I believe being forced to provide something to another violates my rights

Lots of things limit your rights, Van. For example, the desire to make roadways relatively safe means you are limited in how fast you can drive your car.

The overall healthcare mandate may seem unfair to you. I'm sorry you are distressed.

Anonymous The One November 29, 2012 2:25 PM  

Still waiting for my answer tad

Blogger Alexander November 29, 2012 2:25 PM  

Tad, once again: Could you please enlighten me as to why Denmark, despite its immigration policies, its declining native birthrate (contrasted with the birthrate of its immigrant population), living examples of Muslim encroachment in neighboring states such as Holland, Sweden, France, and the UK, and the full weight of human history... is somehow immune to the issue of the native population being displaced by a foreign one. You have made this extraordinary claim and I would appreciate some of your extraordinary evidence.

Anonymous Loki of Asgard November 29, 2012 2:28 PM  

I'm not sure how you distinguish Tad's toydom from the dripping venom of a serpent above your head, Loki, but to each his own.

If you cannot distinguish between fun and pain, I pity you.

Anonymous John Adams November 29, 2012 2:34 PM  

Tad November 29, 2012 11:23 AM
@JamesDixon I see Tad's reading comprehension wrt the Constitution is on par with everything else.

Is it your contention that the "Free Exercise" clause means that an exemption to any law or regulation ought to be provided to anyone who claims the law or regulation violates their religious consciousness?


Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

Anonymous Loki of Asgard November 29, 2012 2:35 PM  

For example, the desire to make roadways relatively safe means you are limited in how fast you can drive your car.

I love Germany, especially the autobahns. I order my lackeys to drive slowly and pass on the right just to annoy the other motorists.

Anonymous Kriston November 29, 2012 2:40 PM  

Tad November 29, 2012 2:15 PM

@Kriston

The Church is fighting the mandate because of the abortion requirement. Abortion is NOT contraception

The Catholic Church along with Notre Dame and other Catholic insititutions have indeed sued the federal government over the healthcare law. And SPECIFICALLY, they sued the federal government over the CONTRACEPTION mandate.


No, they specifically sued over the "contraceptives, sterilization and abortion-inducing drugs" mandate. You only see the first part because most major media only report that part.

Anonymous Tad November 29, 2012 2:42 PM  

@JohnAdams

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other

I don't see how this applies to the issue of the Free Exercise Clause. Those who oppose the contraceptive mandate and those that do not are both religious in some cases and moral.

Anonymous Tad November 29, 2012 2:46 PM  

@kristen

Ah...So, I await your correction to your statement that it is merely abortion that is being contested by the Catholic Church.

Anonymous Tad November 29, 2012 2:48 PM  

@The One I haven't thought about it deeply enough to provide an answer beyond--I'm not sure. So there you go.

Anonymous Kriston November 29, 2012 2:50 PM  

Tad November 29, 2012 2:46 PM

@kristen

Ah...So, I await your correction to your statement that it is merely abortion that is being contested by the Catholic Church.


I never said merely. I said that you were downplaying that part and leading the discussion where you wanted it to go by leaving out vital information.

Can you show me where I am wrong?

Anonymous Porky?? November 29, 2012 2:51 PM  

It's a hedge against theocracy as well as a hedge against the kind of really dumb and discriminatory laws that religions like to foist on people.

Lol! Well, it's a good thing that atheists foisting secular laws on people is never ever dumb or discriminatory!









Anonymous Tad November 29, 2012 2:56 PM  

@Alexander
Do you have figures for birthrates for Native Danish and for Danish Muslims?

At 2% of the population and given the migration rate of muslims to Denmark, I don't think we are looking at the danish population being displaced any time soon. Relex. The white man is all safe.

Anonymous The CronoLink November 29, 2012 2:57 PM  

"And furthermore, atheists don't desire this so called "Secular, Science-based Utopia" [...] Atheists merely seek a society in which religion is not the basis for social policy. [...] I don't know any atheists that are demanding a "secular society"."

How to get rid of religion by Dick to the Dawk

And what the hell is a religious conviction?

Anonymous The One November 29, 2012 2:58 PM  

@Tad

That's complete BS. It is a yes or no question. If the Nazi tax inspector showed up demanding taxes, would you give the money or would you not?

Now either establish you would have payed for those ovens or establish the principle a person has the right to not pay the government taxes based on a moral belief.

I'm invoking rule 2 here.

"If you are asked a direct question relevant to the topic, then you will be expected to answer it in a straightforward and NON-EVASIVE manner"

Vox take a look at this please.

Anonymous Tad November 29, 2012 2:58 PM  

@kristen

You said: "The Church is fighting the mandate because of the abortion requirement. Abortion is NOT contraception". You didn't say "Abortion, Contraception, etc."

Move along.

Anonymous Tad November 29, 2012 2:59 PM  

@Porky

Lol! Well, it's a good thing that atheists foisting secular laws on people is never ever dumb or discriminatory!

"Secular" laws are Christian's bread and butter. There is not a single avowed atheists in Congress. Blame the Christians.

Blogger James Dixon November 29, 2012 3:00 PM  

> I'm saying it's a position, not a practice in the sense that communion or baptism is a practice.

A position which they have a long history of practicing. But I think your position has been made clear enough. I'll stop playing for today. Maybe I'll make time for your foolishness again tomorrow. Or maybe not.

Anonymous Tad November 29, 2012 3:02 PM  

@The One

Being Jewish and gay and darker hued in my skin color, I'd probably not have paid and instead taken the "get the fuck out of Dodge" approach.

Anonymous Tad November 29, 2012 3:04 PM  

@James

One TAKES a position. One does not PRACTICE a position. But, you seem to get what I'm saying as well as the distinction I made.

Anonymous camelite November 29, 2012 3:10 PM  

Of course, the only way for Denmark to avoid losing its Danish traditions is to not have a Muslim majority... There are two choices on offer. The secular enlightenment isn't one of them.

Why not? If they decide to remain a culturally secular country by restricting immigration, they can also remain among the happiest, most prosperous, least corrupt, best educated and most socially mobile countries in the world. Not bad for a pagan, pre-Western civilization.

Anonymous The One November 29, 2012 3:17 PM  

@ Tad

Thank you. Now that the principle has been established everything else is simply details. Maybe you agree or disagree with wearing the Burqa in public, but the Muslims practicing civil disobedience in France are acting from the same principle. We can't judge them.

Anonymous Kriston November 29, 2012 3:22 PM  

Tad November 29, 2012 2:58 PM

@kristen

You said: "The Church is fighting the mandate because of the abortion requirement. Abortion is NOT contraception". You didn't say "Abortion, Contraception, etc."

Move along.


No actual answer to the question. And you seem to insist on using the feminine spelling of my name, so I must assume reading comprehension problems on your end.

Anonymous Porky? November 29, 2012 3:44 PM  

Tad: There is not a single avowed atheists in Congress.

Why in the world would anyone want to give power to atheists? They aren't known historically for being very nice or much fun. They do, however, seem to be rather adept in the "unmarked mass grave" industry. Lol!

Blame the Christians.

I do. The current unmarked mass grave contains about 53 million people. We are fast approaching Mao's record.

And it is all the fault of Christians.














Anonymous WaterBoy November 29, 2012 3:50 PM  

Tad: "The exemption they are demanding is the ultimate slippery slope."

It is no different than the religious exemptions allowed to elements in laws regarding the military draft, mandated immunizations, and taxation. That "slippery slope" has already been breached.

Tad: "There are specific practical difference between a law that would prohibit a standard religious practice and a law that would require something that is not a specific practice (ie: serving communion wine)."

The distinction between position and practice as it applies to religious institutions paying taxes clearly identifies it as a ideological position rather than a religious practice, so applying that reasoning to not paying for contraception, etc., is a no-go. If Congress can make an exemption for religious institutions to paying taxes, then they can also do so for paying for health insurance which covers contraception, etc.

Anonymous Ferd November 29, 2012 3:57 PM  

It is ashame to lose the Danish culture. I loved their pastries and little crackers.

Soon, it will be replaced with awful dry Musloid dates and bread cooked on rocks.

Sighs,

Anonymous Van November 29, 2012 3:58 PM  

The birth control madate doesnt limit my behavior, it forcrs me to perform an act that I disagree with

Anonymous Tad November 29, 2012 4:17 PM  

@Waterboy

Good points.

If Congress can make an exemption for religious institutions to paying taxes, then they can also do so for paying for health insurance which covers contraception, etc.

I would point out that when an individual institution is exempted from paying taxes or an individual is exempted from immunizations, we are talking about individual institutions and individual themselves. When we talk about exempting an institution from providing healthcare, it impacts more people than just the institution or a person. It impacts, in some cases, thousands of people who work for the institution.

Finally, where do the exemptions end. Is the exemption be asked for by catholic leaders apply only to healthcare laws? Or should it apply to any law at all that they find somehow offends them. Furthermore, why shouldn't anyone for any reason of conscience also be able to claim an exemption from following any law based on it violating their own sense of morals?

Where do you draw the line in all this?

Anonymous Tad November 29, 2012 4:19 PM  

@Van

Well then, should anyone be be exempt from any law that forces them to do something if they have a moral objection? What about the person who objects on moral grounds to having their suitcases scanned at an airport?

Anonymous Tad November 29, 2012 4:21 PM  

@Kristen And you seem to insist on using the feminine spelling of my name, so I must assume reading comprehension problems on your end.

It's not a reading comprehension issue. It's an issue of not really caring how your name is spelled. You appear to have understood I was addressing you....So, all's well but your feelings apparently.

Anonymous Kriston November 29, 2012 4:35 PM  

Tad November 29, 2012 4:21 PM

@Kristen And you seem to insist on using the feminine spelling of my name, so I must assume reading comprehension problems on your end.

It's not a reading comprehension issue. It's an issue of not really caring how your name is spelled. You appear to have understood I was addressing you....So, all's well but your feelings apparently.


My feelings have nothing to do with it. It was your IQ I was questioning.

Anonymous Ardee November 29, 2012 4:45 PM  

Tad: "I have a solution. Don't use contraceptives."

Cute. Of course, by that logic, the answer to atheists who demand the removal of the 10 Commandments from public buildings is "don't read them."

Anonymous Porky? November 29, 2012 4:46 PM  

Tad: Where do you draw the line in all this?

The same place it was drawn in 1776.

Anonymous realmatt November 29, 2012 5:03 PM  

Odin wept

Anonymous Loki of Asgard November 29, 2012 5:06 PM  

When we talk about exempting an institution from providing healthcare, it impacts more people than just the institution or a person. It impacts, in some cases, thousands of people who work for the institution.

All I need do, when I conquer the Earth, is simply quote a poem by John Donne, and it will fully justify anything I wish.

My second decree--after the establishment of my worship rituals, of course--will be to have certain specific groups exterminated. Sterilisation will not be sufficient; their continued existence impacts thousands.

I am not evil. I am simply thinking globally.

Anonymous Clay November 29, 2012 5:13 PM  

Tad November 29, 2012 4:19 PM What about the person who objects on moral grounds to having their suitcases scanned at an airport?

Is that your pet peeve Tad? Don't worry, I'm sure the TSA has seen many a butt plug in the luggage they scan.

Anonymous WaterBoy November 29, 2012 5:14 PM  

Tad: "When we talk about exempting an institution from providing healthcare, it impacts more people than just the institution or a person. It impacts, in some cases, thousands of people who work for the institution."

The exemptions from immunizations could also impact many, perhaps thousands, of people in terms of herd immunity, and the taxes which are not being collected from religious institutions could help millions of people, so the argument from consequences is also a no-go.

Tad: "Where do you draw the line in all this?"

An excellent question -- any line is going to be arbitrary no matter how you look at it.

Since the entire law is, in the eyes of many (including myself) unconstitutional to begin with, a compromise on the religious exemption would not be drawing the line too far, IMO. After all, there are people who also find paying income tax to be unconstitutional and there are exemptions for religious institutions to that, so I think the precedent is there for this exemption, as well.

If somebody who works for an exempt institution doesn't like it, I have a solution (paraphrasing you): Don't work there.

Blogger Lovekraft November 29, 2012 5:18 PM  

The debt situation is Europe is still playing out.

Big powers are observing from the sidelines.

The vacuum of bankrupt government administration will not necessarily lead to Muslim jihadists imposing their will.

Since they will not step up to fix this debt crisis, they will be seen in an even worse light should they grab power after a collapse.

Anonymous Heimdallr November 29, 2012 5:21 PM  

I have a solution: Don't live here. In fact, just don't live. Period.

-Pol Pot

Anonymous Tad November 29, 2012 5:49 PM  

@waterboy

It's true that most lines are arbitrary to one degree or another. In this case, however, I don't think religious institutions deserve any exemption primarily because the principle they are operating from is so broad and I can't find a rationalization for not applying the exemption to anyone if they can demonstrate a contraception mandate or any other mandate violates their conscience.

Further, I go back to direct impact on others besides the institution that such an exemption would have.

Depending on how the Obama administration chooses to handle this issue (the mandate on religious institutions could get traded away for something else) this issue I think WILL get the to Supreme Court. And I'd bet every dollar I've spent on lawyers that those challenging the mandate based on the Free Exercise clause will lose. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the Supreme Court didn't even take the case since I doubt a single Appeals Court will find in the Catholic Church's favor and you won't have a circuit split among the lower courts. Each and ever one will rule against the Catholic church.

Anonymous Loki of Asgard November 29, 2012 6:04 PM  

I'd bet every dollar I've spent on lawyers

Is it possible to be any more of a stereotype?

Anonymous 11B November 29, 2012 6:07 PM  

At 2% of the population and given the migration rate of muslims to Denmark, I don't think we are looking at the danish population being displaced any time soon. Relex. The white man is all safe.

I realize you are getting hit with a lot of responses. So I will repeat what I wrote earlier in response to your suggestion that 2 percent is nothing to worry about:

Two to four percent does seem low. But remember that was about the same percentage hispanics were of the US population around the time of the 1986 amnesty. Presently they amount to 17% of the population. Clearly far from a majority. But would anyone deny that they have now reached a critical mass and have effectively changed this nation? Is Spanish not our de facto second language? Is any restriction on further immigration, particularly from Latin America, now off the table?

The lesson we have learned in the US is that it does not take an absolute majority of aliens to permanently alter your nation. It would serve the Danes and other Europeans well to get proactive now with muslim populations in the two to four percent range. As we have seen with hispanics here, it doesn't even take 20% to permanently alter your nation.

Anonymous Tad November 29, 2012 6:12 PM  

Is it possible to be any more of a stereotype?

Of what?

Anonymous Tad November 29, 2012 6:14 PM  

@11b

1. What's the immigration rate of hispanics to the U.S. and of Muslims to Denmark

2. What is the birth rate of Hispanics v. Whites in the U.S. and the birthrate of Muslims and native Danish in Denmark?

Anonymous Kickass November 29, 2012 6:16 PM  

Tad, while your zeal for your religion is touching it is just boring. We don't seek to be converted to it. Either play nice or get to boot skooting.

Anonymous Loki of Asgard November 29, 2012 6:20 PM  

Is it possible to be any more of a stereotype?

Of what?


Of course, you would not know. Fish and water and all that. But you are aware that being heavily invested in legal actions is a standard stereotype of the militant atheist, yes?

Anonymous Loki of Asgard November 29, 2012 6:22 PM  

And now I must be off. I have a flight to Denmark to catch. When they realize that "majority rule" necessarily leads to this sort of destruction, I should like to be there to fill the gaping void.

"Loki of Denmark." I like the sound of it.

Anonymous 11B November 29, 2012 6:33 PM  

@11b

1. What's the immigration rate of hispanics to the U.S. and of Muslims to Denmark

2. What is the birth rate of Hispanics v. Whites in the U.S. and the birthrate of Muslims and native Danish in Denmark?


I don't know. But if I were a Dane, my alarm bells would go off if they are already at 4%. Where you did not have a culturally, unrelated minority before, you have one now.

Europe spent the better part of the 20th century and a couple of world wars fighting amongst themselves to establish nations with common ethnic, cultural and religious components. Now they are forgetting all that and bringing in groups who are even more unrelated than their fellow Europeans against whom they fought so hard. This doesn't seem like it is going to end well.

Hispanics became a permanent pain in the ass before they even hit 10%. A comment above by user Feh, in regards to hispanics in the US, really sums up the foolishness of debating whether 4% is a threat or not:

Also remember that The Powers That Be kept murmuring "not enough to worry about... not enough to worry about..." until they suddenly shifted to "oh, so sorry, too many to offend, too many to offend!"

Anonymous WaterBoy November 29, 2012 6:44 PM  

Tad: "I can't find a rationalization for not applying the exemption to anyone if they can demonstrate a contraception mandate or any other mandate violates their conscience."

Then I can only assume that you are equally opposed to religious exemptions from paying income taxes, since the same rationalization which created that exemption would also apply here.

Tad: "Further, I go back to direct impact on others besides the institution that such an exemption would have."

Again, the argument from consequences does not apply. Since the SCOTUS ruling in Kelo v. New Boston, it is the law of the land that increased tax revenue is of greater benefit to society-at-large than lower tax revenue. This same rationalization, then, would preclude the exemption from income taxes that 501(c)(3) religious institutions currently enjoy; as such, they should be done away with. If you can agree to this exemption but fail to see how it can apply to the healthcare exemption, then you are being inconsistent in your reasoning.

Anonymous Tad November 29, 2012 6:49 PM  

@Loki

But you are aware that being heavily invested in legal actions is a standard stereotype of the militant atheist, yes?

You don't know what you are talking about. I'll leave it at that. Move along.

Anonymous WaterBoy November 29, 2012 6:58 PM  

BTW, Denmark place #5 on the Top ten best places to be born in 2013 list. The US placed 16th.

Anonymous Tad November 29, 2012 7:08 PM  

@Waterboy

Kelo does NOT put in place a constitutional principle that "increased tax revenue is of greater benefit to society than lower tax revenue". And I think you know this. Kelo deals with the issue of "Public Use" and the "Takings" clause of the Constitution, not the relative benefits of revenue levels.

Also, the tax exemptions that churches and religious organizations enjoy do not exist simply because they are religious, but rather because policymakers have decided that non-profit organizations that provide services to the community ought to be encouraged, and therefore they are given tax exemptions based on these services and under specific conditions of how they operate. Churches included.

This is different that giving a Catholic Hospital an exemption from following a law simply because they are a church or religious institution also.

Anonymous WaterBoy November 29, 2012 7:22 PM  

Tad: "Kelo deals with the issue of "Public Use" and the "Takings" clause of the Constitution, not the relative benefits of revenue levels."

That "Public Use" involved taking private land from a group of owners, who paid property taxes, and giving it to another group of private owners, who would pay higher amounts of property taxes based on the future development of said property. What else do you call that, if not "relative benefit of revenue level"?

Tad: "because policymakers have decided that non-profit organizations that provide services to the community ought to be encouraged, and therefore they are given tax exemptions based on these services and under specific conditions of how they operate. Churches included."

Exactly. Now, why shouldn't that same principle apply to the money they have to spend on this healthcare provision to the benefit of a few, rather than using it for the overall benefit of the community, instead? This is the relativity I was addressing with the Kelo comparison -- on one hand, you have SCOTUS dictating that you have to help the many to the detriment of the few, and on the other, you have them dictating that you have to help the few to the detriment of the many.

See the inconsistency, there?

Anonymous Tad November 29, 2012 7:54 PM  

@Waterboy

Exactly. Now, why shouldn't that same principle apply to the money they have to spend on this healthcare provision to the benefit of a few, rather than using it for the overall benefit of the community, instead.

You seem now to be suggesting that the religious objection shouldn't be the trigger for a church exemption to the contraceptive mandate. Rather, you seem to be suggesting that whatever money would be saved by the church by not including contraceptive coverage in a healthcare plan can better serve the community than the what is gained by spending on the additional costs of including contraception in healthcare coverage.

As in the case of Kelo, there was a very specific Development Plan approved by the community that was the goal and ultimately the reason for the land siezure. In this case, it is more affordable healthcare and expanded access to good healthcare that is the goal. Allowing an exception to the contraceptive mandate to the church (or presumably any Non-profit) because they can better carry out their specific community service goals doesn't address the overall healthcare goals.

Politically, the Church will not fight this battle on the field of taxation. They will stick to the Free Exercise battleground, and even there they are doomed due to the entirely neutral nature of this law.

Anonymous WaterBoy November 29, 2012 8:21 PM  

Tad: "You seem now to be suggesting that the religious objection shouldn't be the trigger for a church exemption to the contraceptive mandate. Rather, you seem to be suggesting that whatever money would be saved by the church by not including contraceptive coverage in a healthcare plan can better serve the community than the what is gained by spending on the additional costs of including contraception in healthcare coverage."

No, I am not suggesting that the religious objection should not still apply...but since you admitted that you could not see the rationalization for giving in to the moral objection, I decided to try the economic angle, instead. Admittedly, this is not the Church's stated objection, but I had hoped that you would still see the applicability of the general principle nonetheless.

What is the purpose of the income tax? Ostensibly, to raise revenue to pay for government services. Why give religious institutions an exemption from this, if it means fewer people receive those services? Because they use the money to provide other important services to their communities, instead.

What is the purpose of the health care law? Ostensibly, to provide affordable health care services (including the aforementioned reproductive services). Why give religious institutions an exemption from this, if it means fewer people have affordable healthcare (including reproductive services)? Because they use the money to provide other important services to their communities, instead.

If you can see the rationalization in the first, then why not in the second?

Anonymous Mason_Arrow November 29, 2012 8:51 PM  

"...even there they are doomed due to the entirely neutral nature of this law."

Oh noes!! Looks like the local bathhouse is short of Con Law textbooks. For non-addled minds, consider:

" A regulation neutral on its face may, in its application, nonetheless offend the constitutional requirement for governmental neutrality if it unduly burdens the free exercise of religion ... The Court must not ignore the danger that an exception from a general obligation of citizenship on religious grounds may run afoul of the Establishment Clause, but that danger cannot be allowed to prevent any exception no matter how vital it may be to the protection of values promoted by the right of free exercise."

Should I attribute the above to Dick Dawk or Mohammed? I can't tell which one your average Muslim apologist, faux-secularist venerates more.

Blogger By The Sword November 29, 2012 9:05 PM  

This shit would never fly with Odinism.

Anonymous scoobius dubious November 29, 2012 9:54 PM  

Well you know what the Bible says: If he asks for your cloak, give him your homeland as well.

Anonymous Tad November 29, 2012 11:26 PM  

@Mason_Arrow

Employment Division v. Smith

Also..(obviously) U.S. v Lee

Move along....

Anonymous Anonymous November 29, 2012 11:32 PM  

How about this: Can someone who claims that beating their wife and children severely, regularly and indescriminately is a key part of their religious tradition and therefor they ought to be exempted from laws that prohibit bodily assault? "Free Exercise" after all.

How about this? Can someone claim that causing severe, permanent damage to the genitals of their daughter is a key part of their religious tradition and therefore ought to be exempted from the laws prohibiting bodily assault?

The answer is, "yes", if the mutilators are Moslem. No, it's not de jure legal, but it's being done, and no one is going to jail. Therefore it is de facto legal.

Borderline Anonymous

Anonymous Tad November 29, 2012 11:35 PM  

@waterboy



I understand the rationale. But if an exemption is given to a religious institution in order to further the institution's good community works that may be reduced if they are forced to pay for contraceptive coverage, should not all non-profit institutions be exempt? Why not commercial institutions that can claim to do more good by not paying for the contraceptive mandate. It doesn't end. Further more, one exemption after exemption is delivered to more and more institutions, suddenly the government interest in providing affordable access to healthcare is undermined.

Anonymous Tad November 29, 2012 11:38 PM  

@anonymous

The answer is, "yes", if the mutilators are Moslem. No, it's not de jure legal, but it's being done, and no one is going to jail. Therefore it is de facto legal.

I don't think you understand the legal system.

Anonymous 11B November 30, 2012 12:26 AM  

It doesn't end. Further more, one exemption after exemption is delivered to more and more institutions, suddenly the government interest in providing affordable access to healthcare is undermined.

Google obama care waiver sometime. It has already begun. If thousands of other companies and institutions get waivers, why can't the Catholic Church?

Anonymous Enoch Powell November 30, 2012 12:44 AM  

"I think it is deeply alarming that our integration efforts are so ineffective that the moment there is a Muslim majority, we do away with good-old Danish traditions and introduce Muslim traditions instead. We are living in Denmark, and people have to adapt to the situation that applies here."

The problem is that they have any "integration efforts" at all. That's one of those euphemisms that is more honestly read as "cowardly surrender to third-world savages."

It's time that our "efforts" were spent firmly and comprehensively expelling nonWhites from our countries.

Anonymous A Visitor November 30, 2012 12:52 AM  

@Tad "I'm saying it's a position, not a practice in the sense that communion or baptism is a practice."

Protection of life is of paramount importance to the Church. Use of contraceptives prevents life from being formed. Abortion ends life in the womb.

Forcing me by mandate or law to provide for either violates my religious rights; it goes against my religious beliefs.

I don't use contraceptives, do not condone their use, nor do I partake in abortion, nor condone its use. The government should not force me (or my Church) to support such reprehensible, immoral policies.

Anonymous Tad November 30, 2012 1:50 AM  

@11b

Google obama care waiver sometime. It has already begun. If thousands of other companies and institutions get waivers, why can't the Catholic Church?

They already got one. But they aren't satisfied. They want to set a precedent for further, institutionalized deference for religion that isn't justified or necessary.

Anonymous Tad November 30, 2012 1:58 AM  

@A Visitor

Should all religious organizations be exempt from any law that violates their morals? For that matter, should anyone, religious or not, be given an exemption from laws that violate their deeply held beliefs?

Where's the line?

Anonymous Tad November 30, 2012 2:00 AM  

@Enoch

It's time that our "efforts" were spent firmly and comprehensively expelling nonWhites from our countries.

Do us all a favor and hold our breath until a majority of us agree with your bigotry.

Anonymous VryeDenker November 30, 2012 3:20 AM  

Anybody here read 2083?

Anonymous VryeDenker November 30, 2012 5:58 AM  

Is any law just that goes beyond protecting Life, Liberty and Property?

Anonymous scoobius dubious November 30, 2012 6:10 AM  

"until a majority of us agree with your bigotry."

Welcome back to our show, folks, it's time once again to play "Spot the Problem Here!" Our first contestant is a rather verbose but superficial fellow who... eh, screw it, I can't.

Tad, I'm done talking with you until you can learn to handle pointy sharp-edged words like "bigotry" without cutting yourself, or accidentally harming squirrels. Or also, intentionally harming squirrels, which is a crime in several states.

This place is starting to turn into the 24-Hour Tad Show, and it's really making things rather dull. What was that thing that Wilde once said of a certain fellow, something like "He is not only dull, but a cause of dullness in others." Or maybe it was Johnson, or Whistler, I can never remember.

Oh, will you look at that, I'm late for my root canal appointment. I better hurry -- after all, compared to the Tad Show, a root canal is something I wouldn't want to miss!

Anonymous ericcs November 30, 2012 6:28 AM  

I would argue that the probabilities are good that ol' Tad has been given an assignment as troll to the Vox Popoli blog by some Soros-backed tax-exempt organization.

Leftist trolls' positions always reduce to moral equivalence, accusations of hypocrisy, infantile expressions of "he did it first", and purposeful illogical equating of [the absence of A] with [the negation of A]. If you attempt to argue from the specific, they will revert to the general; if you attempt to argue from a general sense, they will revert to the specific. And always, always, they will be subtly changing definitions on you while you're not looking.

Don't you Ilk get it yet? Tad and people like him are the enemy. You don't argue with the enemy; you don't attempt to change his opinions or best his intellectual positions with sweet reason. What do you do with the enemy? Here's a brief reminder from the last time the forces of righteousness won a war (WWII): You destroy the enemy with every weapon at your disposal. And if you are successful, you demand unconditional surrender, or have them suffer the existential consequences.

Anonymous FrankNorman November 30, 2012 7:23 AM  

How about Tad moves to Denmark?

Blogger James Dixon November 30, 2012 9:14 AM  

> You don't know what you are talking about.

You seem to feel that way about most of us, Tad.

> Should all religious organizations be exempt from any law that violates their morals?

The text of the first amendment is quoted above, Tad. I know your reading comprehension differs from most of us, but it's in very plain English. You should be able to manage it.

Anonymous Loki of Asgard (in Denmark) November 30, 2012 10:15 AM  

How about Tad moves to Denmark?

Yes, by all means. I require a victim of whom to make an example.

For the greater good, of course.

Anonymous Tad November 30, 2012 11:10 AM  

@James
The text of the first amendment is quoted above, Tad. I know your reading comprehension differs from most of us, but it's in very plain English. You should be able to manage it.

You don't mean to suggest that the text of the 1st Amendment alone is absolutely pristine in its meaning and consequences for all questions and issues, James. You are far smarter than that.

Anonymous Tad November 30, 2012 11:13 AM  

@ericcs

Quick reminder: you are typing on a blog. WWII was real. There you go. Let me know if you need any further explanation.

Blogger James Dixon November 30, 2012 11:17 AM  

> You don't mean to suggest that the text of the 1st Amendment alone is absolutely pristine in its meaning and consequences for all questions and issues, James.

Sometimes the answers actually are quite simple, Tad. Only idiots continually make things more complicated than they have to be.

Anonymous Tad November 30, 2012 12:05 PM  

@James

Yes, sometimes. So I'm wondering if you think the 1st Amendment is one of those times.

Anonymous Rantor November 30, 2012 12:53 PM  

@Josh

Islamic minorities in Europe are showing they can get into elected office with about 10%. Multi-Culti liberals often support them. In Belgium there are city governments with strong Muslim influence with less than 20% of the local population. Motivated block voting and proportional representation voting systems help too.

Anonymous Rantor November 30, 2012 1:20 PM  

Many cities in Belgium have thriving Muslim populations. A 2008 study showed Muslims make up 25.5-percent of the population of Brussels, 3.9-percent of Flanders, and 4.0-percent of Wallonia.

Two Muslims elected to the Brussels city council last month have vowed to turn Belgium into a Muslim state based on Sharia law, as previously reported.

(They also will have a Winter Tree and no Christmas Tree at town hall this year.)

Look at this list of the Brussels City Council... Capital of Europe and all that:

Fatima Abid, City councillor (PS)
Els Ampe, City councillor (Open VLD)
Mustafa Amrani, City councillor (PS)
Samira Attalbi, City councillor (PS)
Michel Barnstijn, City councillor (PS)
Mohammed Boukantar, City councillor (PS)
Christian Ceux, Alderman (CDH)
Philippe Close, Alderman (PS)
Geoffroy Coomans de Brachène, City councillor (MR)
Jean Baptist De Crée, City councillor (socialist Movement)
Ahmed El Ktibi, Alderman (PS)
Frédéric Erens, City councillor ( VB)
Jean de Hertog, Alderman (CD&V)
Francis Heirbaut, City councillor (FDF)
Zoubida Jellab, City councillor (Ecolo)
Bruno De Lille, City councillor (Groen!)
Saîd El Hammoudi, City councillor (CDH)
Hamza Fassi-Fihri, Alderman (CDH)
Julie Fiszman, City councillor (PS)
Faouzia Hariche, Alderwoman (PS)
Nestorine Kimbondja Kalengi, City councillor (CDH)
Frans Knockaert, City councillor (VB)
Karine Lalieux, Alderwoman (PS)
Catherine Lemaitre, City councillor (Ecolo)
Marion Lemesre, City councillor (MR)
Fabian Maingain, City councillor (FDF)
Bertin Mampaka, Alderman (CDH)
Marie-Paule Mathias, City councillor (PS)
Yvan Mayeur, City councillor (PS)
Mounia Mejbar, City councillor (PS)
Joëlle Milquet, City councillor (CDH)
Lydia Mutyebele, City councillor (CDH)
Alain Nimegeers, City councillor (FDF)
Chantal Noël, Alderwoman (CDH)
Jacques Oberwoits, City councillor (MR)
Geneviève Oldenhove de Guertechin, City councillor (CDH)
Mohamed Ouriaghli, Alderman (PS)
Marie Nagy Patino, City councillor (Ecolo)
Jean-Louis Péters, City councillor (FDF)
Souad Razzouk, City councillor (CDH)
Frédérique Ries, City councillor (MR)
Mahfoudh Romdhani, City councillor (PS)
Pascal Smet, City councillor (s.pa )
Sevket Temiz, City councillor (PS)
Freddy Thielemans, Mayor (PS)
Steven Vanackere, City councillor ( CD&V)
Christian Van Der Linden, City councillor (PS)

Anonymous WaterBoy November 30, 2012 1:52 PM  

Rantor: "Two Muslims elected to the Brussels city council last month have vowed to turn Belgium into a Muslim state based on Sharia law, as previously reported."

I think it's more likely that Brussels will break off into its own city-state -- which would be more susceptible to the Muslim influence -- than it would be for them to take over the whole country.

There was a motto used by one of the major political parties, "Vlaanders voor vlaanderen" (Flanders for the Flemish), or something like that, to outline their opposition to immigration. It was a popular sentiment in the area where I lived some time ago, but I don't know if it has changed any since then.

Blogger James Dixon November 30, 2012 3:13 PM  

> So I'm wondering if you think the 1st Amendment is one of those times.

There's a reason all of the 10 original amendments were written in such simple language, Tad. It wasn't meant to be complicated. If you're making it complicated, the problem is with you, not the amendment.

Anonymous scoobius dubious November 30, 2012 5:24 PM  

James Dixon -- "If you're making it complicated, the problem is with you, not the amendment."

You misunderstand the liberal project. The idea for liberals, when they suggest that everything is complex and multilayered and requires "nuance," is simply to keep arguing until the liberal wins. Once the liberal wins, of course, everything then suddenly goes back to being very simple and clear, and the new precedent is of course considered irreversible. It's the same thing as, "Keep voting until you get the right answer," or, "The court will keep hearing appeals from the immigrant until the immigrant wins, at which point suddenly there will be no further appeals."

You don't understand that for the liberal, the goal is not justice, nor is it trying to find a rational modus vivendi; they simply want what they want (see Woody Allen), and they'll use whatever they can use to get what they want, and once they have it, the argument will be permanently settled. They are Nature's true tyrants. They don't know what liberty and justice mean, and they don't care. For them, liberty and justice, as well as everything else, consist merely of What The Liberal Wants.

btw, the Bill of Rights simply refers to the powers of Congress, and so the phrase "Congress shall make no Law" concerning x or y, refers simply to what Congress may do. Many liberal arguments wither and die when you consider that the several States have powers and rights reserved to themselves, and simply because "Congress shall make no Law", it doesn't mean that a law can't be made. Decentralized power, accountability to the locals, and so forth. Liberals don't like that, because then they'd have to make fifty separate arguments, instead of goosing the argument once for all time and then slamming the door shut and throwing away the key. What's the old saw about elected dictators? "One man, one vote -- one time only."



Anonymous scoobius dubious November 30, 2012 5:39 PM  

Consider the interesting difference in language between the First Amendment and the Second. The First Amendment puts its restrictions in the active voice, and in the specific injunction: "Congress shall make no Law". The Second Amendment finds its locus in the passive voice, and is universal: "The right of the People... shall not be infringed." Furthermore, since at the time of its ratification, the word "state" (as in "necessary to the security of a free State") meant one of the several States, and not the Union (which was a federation of states with a common set of by-laws for their general interaction, and not a state in itself), this wording would seem to be far more absolute in its meaning than the wording of the First Amendment, which is to say that there seems to be far less room for the several State legislatures to abridge this absolute right (which "shall not be infringed" -- the language is rather cosmic), than there would be for the States to abridge, restrict, or otherwise qualify the rights established in the First (viz., Congress shall make no law, but the several state legislatures might consider it -- see "laboratories of democracy" etc.) It's funny that the liberals are so eager to restrict the absolute right conferred in the Second, and are staunch defenders of their (rather twisted) reading of the First, which on the face of it is far less absolute. But like I say, liberals don't care about principle, they just want what they want.

Historically of course this is all moot, as the Constitution was effectively dissolved in 1861, and we've been living under the law of a mysterious priesthood ever since.

Blogger James Dixon November 30, 2012 6:20 PM  

> You misunderstand the liberal project.

You underestimate me Scoobius. :) My points aren't for Tad's benefit. I know that's a lost cause.

Anonymous Tad November 30, 2012 6:37 PM  

The idea for liberals, when they suggest that everything is complex and multilayered and requires "nuance," is simply to keep arguing until the liberal wins.

The other interpretation comes when watching someone not answer a question, divert, so that they don't have to admit they are wrong, which is exactly what happened above. And it's a simple question:

"Is the text of the 1st Amendment absolutely pristine in its meaning and consequences for all questions and issues?"

For some reason folks here don't want to admit that the obvious answer is "no". I can't imagine why they don't want to admit that other than they would find themselves in an intellectual corner based on their previous statements.

There is phrase that describes this condition: Intellectual Cowardliness.

Blogger James Dixon November 30, 2012 7:10 PM  

> "Is the text of the 1st Amendment absolutely pristine in its meaning and consequences for all questions and issues?"

I made my position abundantly clear in my post on November 29, 2012 12:19 PM.

For some reason folks here don't want to admit that the obvious answer is "no".

The obvious answer is not no. It is as clear and pristine as it's humanly possible to make a statement. The fact that some people will insist that it isn't is a reflection of them, not the statement. And since some of those people are intelligent enough to use a computer and post here, it's obviously not their capability to understand English that's the problem.

Anonymous scoobius dubious November 30, 2012 7:30 PM  

Sorry, Tad, but piss off, I don't talk to bigots.

Processes are mysterious things, ain't they.



Anonymous scoobius dubious November 30, 2012 7:40 PM  

"to restrict the absolute right conferred in the Second,"

Sorry, that was a mistake on my part. As we know, rights are pre-existent and precede the Constitution, they are not conferred thereby. But 'conferred' is just short-hand for the rather clumsy construction of "rights which the Second acknowledges and binds itself not to interfere with" or something equally awkward of that nature.

Anonymous Tad November 30, 2012 8:02 PM  

James, if the 1st amendment is as clear as possible, then there should really never be any issues concerning what the constitutional limits are of say, speech and religion. But there clearly are issues in not only these area, but in many other areas of the bill of rights as well as the rest of the constitution. In fact, the constitution in some parts pits one clause against another.

The most obvious example is this: Are there limits to "free speach" that are not implied by the text of the first amendment. Well of course there are. So, the constitution isn't entirely clear. But there are many many issue of meaning beyond this.

The primary reason for this is that the founders were incapable of imagining all the various issues that could arise in a federal republic, let alone with issue deriving from future evens and technological developments.

Blogger James Dixon November 30, 2012 8:35 PM  

> James, if the 1st amendment is as clear as possible, then there should really never be any issues concerning what the constitutional limits are of say, speech and religion.

As clear as possible doesn't mean people won't try to take advantage of the language, Tad. But you seem to be an expert on that, don't you?

> So, the constitution isn't entirely clear.

It's perfect clear. But people will keep insisting it's not to further their own ends. Sometimes they'll even win in court. Eventually you wind up with a mess like we've got now, and somewhat farther on you have to tear the whole thing down and start over.

Anonymous Anonymous November 30, 2012 8:54 PM  

Tad, the only speech that is free is that speech of which Allah approves. Of course, you will end your days in a burning pit, as is the fit home of all sodomites.

Your friend,
Mohammed

Anonymous Tad November 30, 2012 8:58 PM  

@James

Does the Constitution put any limits what qualifies as "speech? If not, are there any limits?

Anonymous Tad November 30, 2012 8:59 PM  

@anonymous

You may be right. But that will only happen if I accidentally trip at the campfire.

Anonymous Anonymous November 30, 2012 10:47 PM  

Or if you receive the punishment my followers in Kabul, Tehran and other Allah-fearing parts of the Dar al Islaam properly mete out to your kind. The Koran is very clear on the topic of sodomites. Ask Bruce Bauer if you do not believe.

Mohammed

Blogger James Dixon December 01, 2012 10:08 AM  

> Does the Constitution put any limits what qualifies as "speech? If not, are there any limits?

And there you have the prefect example. Speech is a well defined term, Tad. It had a specific meaning at the time. You're capable of figuring it out.

Anonymous Columnist December 02, 2012 4:07 AM  

My religion will fill the void. Hell is eternal. Both Christianity and Islam destroy themselves.

Anonymous The Lightworker December 02, 2012 6:23 AM  

"Post-Christian culture is neither secular nor scientific, it is pagan and pre-Western civilization."

Cliche Came Out of its Cage

Anonymous The Lightworker December 02, 2012 6:55 AM  

Also:

"Post-Christian culture is neither secular nor scientific, it is pagan and pre-Western civilization."
"Based on what we're observing, the half-life of a secular society is about twenty years."

The half-life of pre-Christian civilization in Europe was more than twenty years.

If the half-life of a "secular" society like "mainstream modern Europe" is about twenty years, and I agree that it seems to be so, then it must be different from White pre-Christian paganism.

Anonymous Anonymous December 03, 2012 12:04 AM  


Mutilation of little girls genitals legal in the US?

The answer is, "yes", if the mutilators are Moslem. No, it's not de jure legal, but it's being done, and no one is going to jail. Therefore it is de facto legal.

Tad

I don't think you understand the legal system.

Tad, I understand a great deal about the legal system, and how it really works. It was illegal to sell alcohol for drinking in the 1920's. The legal system said so...

And you understand nothing of Islam.

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts