ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2020 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Monday, October 13, 2014

Sam Harris: genocidal maniac or suicidal logician?


Sam Harris is whining about the fact that people are still actively holding him accountable for the clear and obvious meaning of his written words, and he is still attempting to shade the truth while doing so.

"I know one thing to a moral certainty, however: Both Greenwald and Aslan know that those words do not mean what they appear to mean. Given the amount of correspondence we’ve had on these topics, and given that I have repeatedly bored audiences by clarifying that statement (in response to this kind of treatment), the chance that either writer thinks he is exposing the truth about my views—or that I’m really a “genocidal fascist maniac”—is zero. Aslan and Greenwald—a famous “scholar” and a famous “journalist”—are engaged in a campaign of pure defamation. They are consciously misleading their readers and increasing my security concerns in the process."

What a load of utter codswollop. Sam Harris clearly and openly and unmistakably wrote that it MAY be ethical to kill people for believing dangerous beliefs. Not for doing anything, not for harming anyone, but for simply BELIEVING CERTAIN BELIEFS. His repeated "clarifications" and obfuscations don't change that established fact and he has never recanted his statement. Nor, I note, has he ever come right out and declared specifically WHAT beliefs are so dangerous that it is ethical to kill people for nothing more than holding them.

There is absolutely no reference to ACTION, only to BELIEF, in his statement. Don't forget, his entire thesis in THE END OF FAITH is the intrinsic danger that  stems from the mere possession of faith.  Harris can't complain about "selective quoting", as the entire context actually makes it worse. He wrote: "Certain beliefs place their adherents beyond the reach of every peaceful means of persuasion, while inspiring them to commit acts of extraordinary violence against others. There is, in fact, no talking to some people. If they cannot be captured, and they often cannot, otherwise tolerant people may be justified in killing them in self-defense."

And then he compounds his justification of genocide with more deceit about his own behavior: "I have never knowingly distorted the positions I criticize, whether they are the doctrines of a religion or the personal beliefs of Francis Collins, Eben Alexander, Deepak Chopra, Reza Aslan, Glenn Greenwald, or any other writer or public figure with whom I’ve collided."

In other words, he's pleading ignorance in the vast panoply of untruths he has told about Christianity, history, and other matters. In TIA, I showed what a sloppy and careless thinker Harris is; it is no surprise that his carelessness with words is still coming back to haunt him. I mean, look at his idiotic trainwreck of a defense here:

"Aslan and Greenwald know that nowhere in my work do I suggest that we kill harmless people for thought crimes."

No, Sam, you expressly justify killing DANGEROUS people for thought crimes. And just who will decide who is dangerous and who is harmless? You? Roger Goodell? The Learned Elders of Zion? The Pope? Ironically enough, it is Harris's own logic that would clearly justify killing Sam Harris. Look, I think Sam Harris is actually a likeable, well-meaning individual who isn't quite a smart as his fans believe him to be. But Harris desperately needs to stop trying to defend the indefensible, admit that he fucked up on this as he did with both the "religion causes war" and "Red State" arguments, own up to his mistakes, and recant his lunatic justification for thought-based genocide.

He should simply say: "I was wrong. It is not ethical to kill people for their beliefs, no matter how dangerous those beliefs may be." Or, if he can't honestly do that, he should be forthright and say: "It is ethical to kill people for excessively dangerous beliefs, and those beliefs are: X, Y, and Z." If he won't do either, he will fully merit the criticism and contempt that will continue to flow his way.

Labels: ,

290 Comments:

1 – 200 of 290 Newer› Newest»
Blogger FALPhil October 13, 2014 6:48 AM  

Aslan and Greenwald—a famous “scholar” and a famous “journalist”—are engaged in a campaign of pure defamation.

If it is truly "defamation", why is he not taking them to court? I think we can guess why...

Blogger Unknown October 13, 2014 6:57 AM  

and increasing my security concerns in the process

Some people must practice what he preaches. The irony is likely lost on him when he talks about needing security.

Blogger Manach October 13, 2014 7:09 AM  

Being the truth is a defence against defamation, it would be interesting to see how far Mr. Harris would wish to peruse that tack.

Anonymous bw October 13, 2014 7:11 AM  

that people are holding him accountable for the clear and obvious meaning of his words, and he is still shading the truth while doing so.

Always remember that authoritarianism and totalitarianism is feminine at its psychological and spiritual core.''

who is this Sam Harris guy?

High Priest for secular humanist, pagan Statists.

Anonymous paradox October 13, 2014 7:30 AM  

Harris now makes the Kratman solution look like self-defense.

Anonymous daddynichol October 13, 2014 7:37 AM  

"...and increasing my security concerns in the process."

Sounds so much like the GamerGate creepy chicks. Next he'll claim he's been verbally raped.

Blogger pyrrhus October 13, 2014 7:39 AM  

The funny part is that the Sam Harris's of the world are always feminized whiners, who wouldn't list ten seconds in a fight.
Hence they are threatened by everything and everybody.

Anonymous TheExpat October 13, 2014 7:43 AM  

I bet he also gets a lot of "death threats" that he can't go to the police about, too.

Anonymous TroperA October 13, 2014 7:43 AM  

This just popped up on Fark:

Irrational Atheism: Not believing in God isn't always based on reasoned arguments—and that's okay.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/10/a-leap-of-atheist-faith/381353/?single_page=true

So the guy is basically saying that irrationality is okay ONLY if you're an atheist. Did I go through the Looking Glass and end up in Backwards World? (Next thing you know, the Pope will be saying that all religions are equally valid in the eyes of God or some crap like that...)

Anonymous Michael October 13, 2014 7:46 AM  

So a Marxist accidentally let slip his true beliefs and is now backpedaling. Not surprised. There's no doubt in my mind that these people would commit mass genocide given the first opportunity. No doubt when he says "dangerous beliefs," it is a euphemism for Christianity.

To better illustrate the Marxist mindset, the Weather Underground movement, founded in 1969, wanted to start a revolution to overthrow the US government, just as they had done in Russia, and import socialism-communism to our shores. One of their plans was to open "re-education centers" (read: gulags) in the south-west where they planned to eliminate some 25 million Americans. Since then, they've been successful in infiltrating the government, media and academia, incrementally institutionalizing their socialist agenda. It is a Judaic/atheist movement through and through. Muslim extremist groups are funded and trained by them to go start proxy uprisings and false-flag attacks, for the political utility of expanding government power and goading gullible Christians to go get themselves killed in war. The engineers laugh and rake in the profits.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus October 13, 2014 7:51 AM  

Sam Harris doesn't need to own up to a mistake, because he hasn't made a mistake.

It is logical for him not to specify punishable beliefs if, as I suspect, his real opinion is that they are "any beliefs people like me may from time to time secretly deem punishable, bearing in mind our collective security, and in time also our ambitions."

That is how political correctness works. People like Brendan Eich find from time to time that they have transgressed boundaries that they may not have known of and that may not have existed at the time. They are held accountable for their transgressions anyway.

Since nobody outside the inner circle - to which Sam Harris belongs - knows for sure what thoughts, words, acts or genetic characteristics they may be punished for, and how much, the pressure on the non-elite to actively serve is intense, room for the ruled to game the system is minimized, and accountability for the elite (which it will likely be punishable even to think about as anything but helpless, innocent victims) is minimized.

This cannot fairly be called fascism. Fascism isn't so radically counter-majoritarian and doesn't make such extreme demands.

Rather, this is a collective biological relationship of domination, exerted collectively through deceitful and truth-obscuring practices, a relationship in which words become weapons not windows, and in which "beliefs" are means by which the suckers are enslaved. (Effective means, since the "power that belief has over our emotional lives appears to be total.")

In a system like this, the elite can do without commitment to "beliefs". (Which would bind them, and thus potentially partly limit their power of seeking their connective security and advantage in any possible way.) A collective sense of self and a sense of collective security and advantage (of an endangered and deserving "us" inwardly distinguished from an inferior and potentially threatening "them"), combined with aggressiveness and high verbal intelligence, suffice.

Whatever beliefs are permitted in a relationship like this, one can confidently predict they will not include any class of beliefs believed by the elite to make the non-elite less manipulable by the elite. When people show themselves resistant to persuasion they condemn in the eyes of the elite the beliefs that led to them being so stiff-necked. Thus it is impossible to say what beliefs will have to be prohibited - even on pain of death - until one is in a position to say with certainty that rebellions and recalcitrance are done with, and history is at an end.

Anonymous The Great Martini October 13, 2014 7:54 AM  

Unfortunately, considering the present state of the world, I have to agree with Harris. So here's why. If you know people will kill you for being who you are, and you are in no position to reason with them (as Harris mentions), OR even if you ARE in a position to reason with them but the ultimate decision to kill you is their decision by fiat, then I would say you have the right to kill a person by reason of knowing what they believe. In other words, if the first demonstrable action they might make is to kill you, then you have the right to kill them without provocation.

Just for reason of illustration, readers might view this horrific truck stop in Iraq where ISIS militants kill innocent truck drivers after toying with them. Beware, this show three men being killed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zF35a5E0uss

Now, I submit that it is moral and permissible to kill those militants without provocation, solely based on knowledge of what they believe. What do you say?

Anonymous Salt October 13, 2014 7:55 AM  

Most atheists I have encountered would agree with Harris. They'd like no more than to eradicate religious belief from the face of the Earth and have everyone kneel at the Alter of Science.

Anonymous Stilicho October 13, 2014 7:55 AM  

Just because it tastes like crap, that doesn't mean it's kosher cooking.

Anonymous Stingray October 13, 2014 7:57 AM  

Not entirely off topic, Feminist are upset that Sam Harris and other Atheist leaders have a problem with women. More splitting within SJW's. My favorite part: "Sam Harris, a prominent atheist author who has previously been criticized for his knee-jerk Islamophobic tendencies, recently came under fire when he added women to the category of people he makes thoughtless generalizations about."

Anonymous Stilicho October 13, 2014 7:59 AM  

If you know people will kill you for being who you are, and you are in no position to reason with them (as Harris mentions), OR even if you ARE in a position to reason with them but the ultimate decision to kill you is their decision by fiat, then I would say you have the right to kill a person by reason of knowing what they believe.

And that is all the justification you'll ever need to shoot leftists and other statists on sight...however you read it...

Anonymous Michael October 13, 2014 8:02 AM  

The Great Martini, the problem with your assertion is that it entails murdering people without just provocation, thus you become just as evil as the ones whom you purport to hold "dangerous beliefs," granting them the victimhood status they seek to ignite their cause. As for ISIS, i.e. the Marxist-funded proxy terrorists, their actions constitute that necessary defensive measures be put in place. Their hostile aggression aims to rid the middle east of Christianity and remove Assad from power.

Anonymous trev006 October 13, 2014 8:06 AM  

You know, punishing thoughtcrime with death is very 1984 of Harris. The context is definitely focused even on Islam, although even a radical extremist like myself thinks killing foreigners for simply believing in Islam is a bit much. But if he's going to back down in the face of a Twitter campaign, will he be regarded as any less impressionable when it comes to being under a fatwa, even one that he arguably deserves?

Blogger Unknown October 13, 2014 8:07 AM  

"Sam Harris clearly and openly and unmistakably wrote that it MAY be ethical to kill people for believing dangerous beliefs. Not for doing anything, not for harming anyone, but for simply BELIEVING CERTAIN BELIEFS."

What makes him any different than any Islamic terrorist? Nothing at all. And he wants to talk about how evil religion is? Really? Left-wing atheist are complete nut cases.

Anonymous Hunsdon October 13, 2014 8:16 AM  

@ The Great Martini:

Dude, once you've gone beyond just thinking "Maybe it would be good for these guys to be dead" and started actually killing people, you've moved past the belief sphere into the action sphere.

Anonymous zen0 October 13, 2014 8:20 AM  

@ Great Martini

Now, I submit that it is moral and permissible to kill those militants without provocation, solely based on knowledge of what they believe. What do you say?

I believe that people who think people should be killed for their beliefs should be killed.

Anonymous The Great Martini October 13, 2014 8:23 AM  

::applaud::
And I think that people who think that people who think...

Oh, nevermind.

Anonymous The Great Martini October 13, 2014 8:28 AM  

Jesus, what a bunch of peacenik pansies. I thought you righties shot first and asked questions later.

Anonymous farmer Tom October 13, 2014 8:31 AM  

quote<"Certain beliefs place their adherents beyond the reach of every peaceful means of persuasion, while inspiring them to commit acts of extraordinary violence against others. There is, in fact, no talking to some people. If they cannot be captured, and they often cannot, otherwise tolerant people may be justified in killing them in self-defense.">end quote

So, if I understand Mr. Harris correctly, we can change the first to words of his quote, and he still stands by it completely?

new quote<".... Atheists...... place their adherents beyond the reach of every peaceful means of persuasion, while inspiring them to commit acts of extraordinary violence against others. There is, in fact, no talking to some people. If they cannot be captured, and they often cannot, otherwise tolerant people may be justified in killing them in self-defense.">end new quote

It doesn't mean what it says, because it's not what he meant?

Anonymous zen0 October 13, 2014 8:33 AM  

> what a bunch of peacenik pansies.

The trouble with your example is that you included actions as part of the observable evidence.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus October 13, 2014 8:34 AM  

The Great Martini: "I thought you righties shot first and asked questions later."

We did. This is the later.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan October 13, 2014 8:36 AM  

Atheist pussy no doubt, the first whiff of Muslim indignation and he will crumble, let them fight.

Anonymous PhillipGeorge(c)2014 October 13, 2014 8:37 AM  

All he had to do was admit to absolute right and wrong, justify his bias/ explain his prejudice and state his belief in precrime.

There; problem solved Mr Harris!

Ps. The self destroying white westerners only really have a problem with one darned detail: absolute truth. It's the cognitive dissonance of relativism that fucks their thinking [acerbic metaphorization] every time.

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler October 13, 2014 8:38 AM  

What's the problem? I don't see one.

Karl Marx and Engels called for the genociding and the Holocausting of people who are reactionary.

Karl Marx is lauded as a philosopher. He is taught in every college and university. His Communist Manifesto is required reading for Western Civilization classes. He is now being taught in a Philosophy course at Notre Dame, a prestigious Catholic University.

There is nothing wrong. If Karl Marx can make it---anybody can! All sorts of people belong to this death cult. Almost every college professor is a either a doctrinaire Marxist or a cultural Marxist.

It is so not there. Why the umbrage? Reactionary people can be killed outright, on sight. Who cares? Nobody. Sam Harris is no different. Kudo's to him. If Karl Marx can do it, so can everybody else. Open season on reactionaries--OOH-Ya!

Anonymous karsten October 13, 2014 8:44 AM  

We see here why it was so easy for the Cultural Marxists to attribute all kinds of fictions to the Germans in WWII:

Projection.

Everything that they pretended that the national socialists did is what they themselves, the Cultural Marxists, actually wished to do - and continue to wish to do - except to a different group of people.

Anonymous tz October 13, 2014 8:45 AM  

I posted a comment since one GamerGate site seemed to have a pro-Harris view.\

The only thing I would add here is to ask if he believes unborn babies, people in severe but treatable pain, and the mentally retarded are "human persons", and if so, then THAT opposite belief should be one case where the simple belief should be sufficient to preemptively kill people who will and are killing other human beings - not because they hate their fellow humans, but because they don't think they are human. And if you look at genocides and other evils in the past against groups, the first thing is to dehumanize them. In the case of Vietnam, they were "gooks", not humans. In the case of Iraq, they were "towelheads", not humans. They are fetuses, breathing corpses, brain-dead, ... not humans.

Or perhaps he doesn't believe it is ethical to kill people for their beliefs, but only because their are "inconvenient", like many unborn girls in China and India.


Anonymous Michael October 13, 2014 8:46 AM  

TGM, I'm neither left nor right; both parties have been thoroughly bought out and controlled by the Marxists. I am a Christian first and foremost and a libertarian who:

-wants our constitutional republic restored
-infanticide (abortion) and euthanasia outlawed
-our borders secured and strict immigration policy enacted
-an end to the usury and speculation of the banking cartels and Wall Street, as well as jobs brought back home where they belong
-the demilitarization of the police
-an end to dual-citizens being allowed to attain positions of power (*hint hint*)
-fiscal responsibility and accountability
-a prohibition on LGBT propaganda in public schools
Etc.

Neither the republicans nor the democrats share, save perhaps a small hand-few republicans against "a woman's right to choose" to murder her unborn.

Anonymous Michael October 13, 2014 8:49 AM  

karsten, the Marxists didn't need to wish to do anything; they were doing it since well before WWII even began. In fact, by that time, the Jewish and atheist Marxists had already murdered millions of Russians, while the west remained silent. In fact, in The American Hebrew, they lauded the communist model as a resounding success!

"The Bolshevist revolution in Russia was the work of Jewish brains, of Jewish dissatisfaction, of Jewish planning, whose goal is to create a new order in the world. What was performed in so excellent a way in Russia, thanks to Jewish brains, and because of Jewish dissatisfaction, and by Jewish planning, shall also, through the same Jewish mental and physical forces, become a reality all over the world." - The American Hebrew September 10, 1920

Anonymous Joel P. October 13, 2014 8:52 AM  

Michael, given your list of beliefs, you most certainly fall in the rightist camp. Don't mistake right/left with Republican/Democrat as they're not the same thing.

Anonymous Joe Stalin October 13, 2014 8:56 AM  

The great thing about atheists is we murder MILLIONS of other atheists.

A thank you maybe?

Anonymous Michael October 13, 2014 8:56 AM  

Joel P., that may have been true decades ago but no longer, even if some on that political aisle still believe in such. They've been successfully infiltrated by the Marxist crowd, because they acquiesce to all the left's political buzzwords, such as "progress" and "change," for fear of being portrayed as backwards.

Anonymous tz October 13, 2014 8:57 AM  

@TGM

"Now, I submit that it is moral and permissible to kill those militants without provocation, solely based on knowledge of what they believe. What do you say?"

"those militants" did an overt criminal act since you seem to be referring to the YouTube video, not the original line of argument based purely on belief.

As to the video, I have no idea what they believe. They may be atheist highwaymen or simply like to be cruel but wearing different clothes. Or totally apolitical robbers. Supposedly the Northern Alliance Narco Terrorists that became our friends after 9/11 had the same beliefs.

Unlike you, I cannot read their minds.

Back a decade, Ann Coulter said we should kill all the militants. My response was, "Ann, please go over there with your laser pointer, and point out who is and who is not a militant, better yet, we can get rid of the TSA and find a few more mind-readers like you and we can just shoot the terrorists attempting to get on the plane".

" If you know people will kill you for being who you are,...". Who are they? Specific persons. Names or other things specifically giving identification. Or maybe we should give you the laser pointer so you can go over there and pick the specific INDIVIDUAL PERSONS out, as you seem to claim to be able to read minds.

Also be careful. If "Who you are" is someone who killed their family in a drone strike because they hit the wrong house, and you support civilian slaughter, you are as evil as they are. Somehow I can't see the injustice in reciprocating wanton slaughter.

Anonymous Rothbardian4Ever October 13, 2014 8:58 AM  

The Great Martini = neocon!!!

Blogger Desdichado October 13, 2014 9:00 AM  

Harris makes a category error in his claim in the link above. Sure, we don't go kill members of ISIS or other Islamic peoples for revenge. Nor do we do it because of their beliefs. We do it because of their STATED INTENTIONS to cause our society, our religion, and our way of life harm. Because of the CREDIBLE THREAT that they have already made, and which they are carrying out as we speak.

It's not because of their beliefs nor because of their past actions (although he can't seem to tell the difference between justice/deterrence and revenge, which is another category error.) At least not directly.

Anonymous tz October 13, 2014 9:01 AM  

@Michael

You added a few extra words.

-a prohibition on LGBT propaganda in public schools

Anonymous Sigyn October 13, 2014 9:03 AM  

Jesus, what a bunch of peacenik pansies. I thought you righties shot first and asked questions later.

We're sorry that we don't conform to your comfortable prejudices. We know this makes it harder for you to dismiss us in a flutter of self-righteous superiority, but unfortunately, we're not quite accommodating enough to change that just to suit you.

You'll just have to take us as you find us, civilization and all.

Anonymous The Great Gin & Tonic October 13, 2014 9:10 AM  

The beliefs of gay homos put everyone at risk of AIDS and other infectious diseases. Kill em all?

Anonymous The Great Gin & Tonic October 13, 2014 9:11 AM  

The beliefs of Africans result in ebola. Kill them all, raciss?

Blogger Tom Kratman October 13, 2014 9:17 AM  

"Harris now makes the Kratman solution look like self-defense."

I don't think I actually have any solutions. I have temporary fixes, that are frequently only a little less bad than the problems and foreseeable problems. That's not really the same thing.

Anonymous Sigyn October 13, 2014 9:17 AM  

You know, ironically enough, Harris' statement could easily be used as justification to, um, eliminate certain persons in the government for whom I suspect he voted due to their professed "dangerous beliefs" regarding certain communicable diseases.

Now here we have a DEFINITELY dangerous belief that may have already resulted in deaths. Will the Harris fanboys judge it "ethical"?

Anonymous a. atheist October 13, 2014 9:18 AM  

Guys... don't be so dense. We atheists will not genocide Jews, gays, blacks, Muslims, etc.

No, we want to murder YOU, white Christian males. Because you are a threat. So what? Is this news to you?

Anonymous Michael October 13, 2014 9:26 AM  

TGW, you have fallen for the Marxists' ploy that Muslims are the cause of all the world's problems hook, line and sinker, and that the only way to remedy the situation is to wage war against them.

Here's the problem: if the Marxists can successfully remove Assad from power and install their central bank in Syria, and then do likewise with Iran, the state of Israel* will rule the ME by proxy and initiate their socialist-communist NWO. That's the game plan.

*Many neocons still believe in the false notion that the Jews are still God's chosen people, but what they fail to notice is that their exalted status ended with the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. His Mercy was opened for all mankind, with no exceptions. As Jesus spoke to His mother while lifting the cross of our sins on His shoulders, "Behold, I make all things new." And so He did.

Galatians 3:28, "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

The real war underlying the global initiative is, as always, aimed at Christianity. In the same way that the pharisees plotted against Christ, so too in this day does the synagogue of Satan plot against Christ's followers, to deprive us of our liberty, to corrupt our morals and ethics, and to defraud and seize our property and assets by claiming it as 'security' for their fractional lending. Hence why we've been dubbed the "promised land."

Hope that clears things up.

Anonymous Laz October 13, 2014 9:34 AM  

@ Michael: I'm ok with CONSENTING euthanasia because, whether it's cowardly or not, it's a choice. Abortion and non-consenting euthanasia are not.

Blogger Desiderius October 13, 2014 9:35 AM  

Sigyn,

"You'll just have to take us as you find us, civilization and all."

That remains to be seen. Without sufficient (unified) force to back up that "have to," that statement is not necessarily true.

Anonymous Michael October 13, 2014 9:36 AM  

Laz, so-called consenting euthanasia is suicide.

Anonymous FrankNorman October 13, 2014 9:37 AM  

He should simply say: "I was wrong. It is not ethical to kill people for their beliefs, no matter how dangerous those beliefs may be."

I don't think he can do that.
My impression of people like him is that they cannot bring themselves to admit to being in honest error, let alone deliberate wrongdoing. They live emotionally in a world without forgiveness, in which any fault at all means death.

Anonymous Stilicho October 13, 2014 9:41 AM  

The trouble with your example is that you included actions as part of the observable evidence.

Sure, but how he feels is the important part.

Anonymous Stilicho October 13, 2014 9:43 AM  

Laz, so-called consenting euthanasia is suicide.

So?

Anonymous Uncle Ebola October 13, 2014 9:44 AM  

I've been anticipating this type of argument from the Left, who have been transmitting its arrival via outlets like the SPLC. You must submit to the liberal religion of political correctness or face their brand of jihad. So far their jihad has consisted of making their enemies (real ideological enemies, not the kept opposition respectable conservatives who are rewarded handsomely by the liberal establishment) unemployable or social pariahs,and in some extreme cases jail or death.

Now that their liberal religion is coming under organized and growing attacks their response will be to label any conflicting beliefs/words as evil and to criminalize anyone holding those conflicting beliefs. Harris, like many others on the left, realize that their words cannot win in an open market of ideas and so they are frightened by their inability to control the narrative any longer. Their entire worlds are built on colossal unnatural lies.

Harris clearly demonstrates that underneath the snarky ironic hip exterior of the social justice warrior, beats the heart of a frightened sadistic genocidal maniac.

Anonymous a. dictionary October 13, 2014 9:46 AM  

Only suicide if the killer and killed pull the same trigger.

Everything else is homicide.

Anonymous zen0 October 13, 2014 9:49 AM  

@ tz

" If you know people will kill you for being who you are,...". Who are they? Specific persons. Names or other things specifically giving identification.

How about the publishers of and writers for the ISIL magazine Dabiq?

You can get copies online here:

The Islamic State's (ISIS, ISIL) Magazine



Anonymous Michael October 13, 2014 9:51 AM  

Stilicho, "So?"

Suicide is immoral; it devalues human life.

Anonymous physics geek October 13, 2014 9:51 AM  

Both Greenwald and Aslan know that those words do not mean what they appear to mean.

Shorter Harris: "These are not the droids you're looking for."

I guess no one told him that Jedi mind tricks work ON the weak-minded. They are somewhat less effective when used BY the weak-minded.

Anonymous Alexander October 13, 2014 9:52 AM  

I wonder if Mr. Harris would include in that set of too dangerous beliefs that he refused to clarify, the belief that national borders are such a badthink that one is not permitted to close them even in the face of a highly lethal pandemic? Surely, once we accept the idea that one can be killed simply for a *thought* that could prove detrimental to society, then that one certainly qualifies.

Blogger dienw October 13, 2014 9:52 AM  

@Michael October 13, 2014 8:49 AM
This backs up Michael

And these are the search results for further perusal.

Anonymous FrankNorman October 13, 2014 9:56 AM  

Now that their liberal religion is coming under organized and growing attacks their response will be to label any conflicting beliefs/words as evil and to criminalize anyone holding those conflicting beliefs.

And further, when dealing with such people there is this to understand: for the Rabbits, expulsion from the Warren is forever. None who have transgressed are ever allowed back.
As I said before, they live in a world without forgiveness.

Christianity, on the other hand, welcomes converts, and lost sheep returning home.

Anonymous Stilicho October 13, 2014 10:05 AM  

Suicide is immoral; it devalues human life.

What, exactly, do you expect to accomplish by making suicide illegal?

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 October 13, 2014 10:07 AM  

Harris appears to be so stupid he would expose the beliefs of those who think like him before they gain absolute power. At least Lenin and Stalin lied about it before they started mass genocide. And even during it.

Anonymous Sigyn October 13, 2014 10:10 AM  

What, exactly, do you expect to accomplish by making suicide illegal?

From what I understand, it was always the attempt that was illegal. Decriminalizing it is a recent thing...

Anonymous Stilicho October 13, 2014 10:15 AM  


From what I understand, it was always the attempt that was illegal. Decriminalizing it is a recent thing...


Get it right or go to jail! And, yes, those laws have been on the books for quite a while. Anyway, you know what the focus of the question is: what does it accomplish?

Anonymous Michael October 13, 2014 10:15 AM  

njartist, right, though it should be clarified that although Marxism is Judaic political ideology, that isn't to be taken to mean that all the Jews are plotting to take down Christianity and western civilization. Also, let it be said, there are more than a handful of Gentiles, predominantly militant atheist, who are going along for the ride.

The point is that we need to keep our guard up and to expose corruption at every turn. There is nothing which evil can take away from you which God, the Creator of all things, cannot return to you with abundance. No matter how hopeless things may appear to be, our faith is to remain steadfast in Christ, for He will never abandon us.

Anonymous aero October 13, 2014 10:19 AM  

If you think of it, you'll be able to do it. A belief is a thought processes that one has already committed in their mind. The next step is too do it. This is the nature of all humans inequities and vanities.

Blogger Desdichado October 13, 2014 10:27 AM  

What, exactly, do you expect to accomplish by making suicide illegal?

Nothing, of course. The notion is stupid. Success at suicide gives you the death penalty.

Assisted suicide and suicide enablers should, however, be outlawed and harshly punished, IMO. If someone wants to commit suicide, let them do it the old-fashioned way by jumping off a bridge or taking a whole bottle of sleeping pills or something. Don't give them enablers and easy ways to do it.

Anonymous Michael October 13, 2014 10:30 AM  

njartist, a note: the guy who runs the truthfromgod website believes, among other things, that John the Baptist is in fact the prophet Elijah, which is pure nonsense, and that the Holy Trinity of God is not true when it is.

You see, this is why sola scriptura is bad, because it leaves the Word of God open to the personal interpretation of literally anybody and can therefore be construed to mean things it doesn't.

Anonymous Sigyn October 13, 2014 10:31 AM  

Anyway, you know what the focus of the question is: what does it accomplish?

Well, if nothing else, it expresses the community's opposition to murder.

Anonymous Michael October 13, 2014 10:31 AM  

P.S. False prophets, if you will.

Anonymous Sigyn October 13, 2014 10:33 AM  

If someone wants to commit suicide, let them do it the old-fashioned way by jumping off a bridge or taking a whole bottle of sleeping pills or something

And if they want to dump their family of kids on the community for care, hey, all's fair!

Not to mention if they screw it up and become dependent themselves.

Anonymous aero October 13, 2014 10:37 AM  

Suicide is not always an individual taken their own life. Some take their own family or strap bombs to themselves and fly airplanes into structures.

Anonymous Sigyn October 13, 2014 10:37 AM  

You see, this is why sola scriptura is bad, because it leaves the Word of God open to the personal interpretation of literally anybody and can therefore be construed to mean things it doesn't.

It's much better to leave interpretation in the hands of a committee of elected officials who couldn't possibly have their own personal biases or misapprehensions. I mean, it's not like they've ever changed their minds before.

And it's not like their decisions ever directly contradict Scripture, and they sure as the world never claim that their "traditions" are more authoritative.

Anonymous automatthew October 13, 2014 10:38 AM  

What, exactly, do you expect to accomplish by making suicide illegal?

Deter women from dramacide attempts.

Blogger dienw October 13, 2014 10:40 AM  

@ Michael October 13, 2014 10:15 AM
... it should be clarified that although Marxism is Judaic political ideology, that isn't to be taken to mean that all the Jews are plotting to take down Christianity and western civilization.

The first question one has to ask is "Who are the Jews?" Are they solely the descendant of the kingdom of Judah or are they other/more than that. Their own encyclopedia declares "Edom is modern Jewry;" God hates Esau; by intermarriage his progeny became part of the Serpent's seed. The Sephardi Jews are Edomites. Then you have the Ashkenazim and their relatives the Khazars, these are not Semites they are Japhethites - of the brother of Shem; The Edomites are mixed in with the Khazars. The elite Ashkenazim run the show and refuse to intermarry with their so-called lesser brethren. The descendent of Judah only make up approximately 15% of the Jews.

Then there are the Karaites; these are Hebraic Jews - Judahites - who deny the authority of the oral tradition - the Talmud - and solely focus on the Torah: Hebraism.

Anonymous Sigyn October 13, 2014 10:40 AM  

And for God's sake, why do the Catholics always have to make every thread be about how awesome their fanfictions are and insist on praying to angels and dead people?

It's just...bizarre, this obsession.

Anonymous A. Nonymous October 13, 2014 10:42 AM  

I guess no one told him that Jedi mind tricks work ON the weak-minded. They are somewhat less effective when used BY the weak-minded.

Did Harris himself approve that photo? I think even Joseph Stalin would find that face unnervingly soulless.

Anonymous Sigyn October 13, 2014 10:43 AM  

Suicide is not always an individual taken their own life. Some take their own family or strap bombs to themselves and fly airplanes into structures.

Not to mention the broad wake of non-lethal destruction. Widows, orphans, parents, and friends left wondering what they did wrong and whether they could have done something more to help, people left questioning their faith...

It's just bad business all around.

Anonymous Michael October 13, 2014 10:45 AM  

Sigyn, the Bible comes from the Catholic Church. The Protestants unilaterally removed 7 books, called the deuterocanonical books, because they contradict Protestant doctrine. I, being a Catholic, cannot rely on the quibblings of random people to interpret the Bible.

For more on what is wrong with sola scriptura, read the following:

http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=7185

Anonymous Stilicho October 13, 2014 10:47 AM  

Suicide is not always an individual taken their own life. Some take their own family or strap bombs to themselves and fly airplanes into structures.

Wrong. Suicide is taking one's own life. The fact that some suicides may decide to indulge in a helping of murder on the side doesn't change that.

And if they want to dump their family of kids on the community for care, hey, all's fair!

Not to mention if they screw it up and become dependent themselves.


Making it illegal won't change such outcomes.

It's much better to leave interpretation in the hands of a committee of elected officials who couldn't possibly have their own personal biases or misapprehensions. I mean, it's not like they've ever changed their minds before.

And it's not like their decisions ever directly contradict Scripture, and they sure as the world never claim that their "traditions" are more authoritative.


But, but , but....they meant well?



Blogger dienw October 13, 2014 10:48 AM  

@ Michael
"this is why sola scriptura is bad"
No it is not. It presupposes the interaction of the Holy Spirit with the faithful to obtain the true interpretation. We will always have liars and the unfaithful amongst us to cloud things; that does not mean the faithful have to give up their God given privilege to be taught of the Holy Spirit. Didn't Jesus deride the scribes for altering Scripture with their traditions of the elders (BTW: see Romanism and the authority of man's tradition).

PS. Deriding the carrier of the message is not evidence of the wrongness of the message.

Anonymous Stilicho October 13, 2014 10:49 AM  

It's just bad business all around.

Absolutely. I simply don't see how making it illegal changes any of that.

Anonymous Michael October 13, 2014 10:51 AM  

njartist, the very fact that the above-mentioned guy took it upon himself to infer that John the Baptist is in fact Elijah speaks for itself.

Anonymous Sigyn October 13, 2014 10:53 AM  

Sigyn, the Bible comes from the Catholic Church.

No, the Bible (the separate prophecies, histories, and revelations) comes from God. You guys assenting to it after the fact doesn't mean any of you has authority over it.

Whether you elected each other or not.

Anonymous aero October 13, 2014 10:54 AM  

There are only two interpretations of the Bible. The liberal one which is conceived out of the many sins of the human race. And the actual one which no human is capable of interpreting 100% or living by.
We are all born sinners and liberal

Anonymous Stilicho October 13, 2014 10:55 AM  

And for God's sake, why do the Catholics always have to make every thread be about how awesome their fanfictions are and insist on praying to angels and dead people?

It's just...bizarre, this obsession.


There's a subset who display tendencies similar to those of the militant atheist aspies. I don't know why. I suspect some of them want to burn Protestants at the stake just in case God doesn't agree with them (the Catholics).

Blogger dienw October 13, 2014 10:55 AM  

BTW, the major reason Protestants removed the seven books is that those books did not relate directly to Christ but were diversions so-to speak. Remember it is Christ who declares that Scriptures speak of Him; and remember that He provides an outlined of what He meant by Scripture and His fulfillment of it: the Books of Moses - the commandments/law -, the prophets, and the psalms.

Blogger dienw October 13, 2014 10:56 AM  

@Stilicho October 13, 2014 10:55 AM
Don't forget idols.

Anonymous Sigyn October 13, 2014 10:59 AM  

Absolutely. I simply don't see how making it illegal changes any of that.

Well, it's still illegal in many jurisdictions, so it's not "making it illegal". It IS illegal, or it WAS illegal. You're the one on the side of "making" here.

So, let me ask you this: If your position is that the state of the law as it is changes nothing, then what do you think making it LEGAL changes?

Anonymous Anonymous October 13, 2014 11:02 AM  

There's a subset who display tendencies similar to those of the militant atheist aspies. I don't know why. I suspect some of them want to burn Protestants at the stake just in case God doesn't agree with them (the Catholics).

I suspect most of them actually are militant atheist aspie trolls trying to start religious wars. They're no different from trolls going into alt.star-trek.tos and yelling "Kirk drools! Picard rules!"

Anonymous Eric Ashley October 13, 2014 11:02 AM  

Let's see, I can trust my eyes, or I can ask some rich Italian descended from folk who took Constantine's money....

Anonymous Feeligns, Nothing More Than Feelings October 13, 2014 11:02 AM  

Reading the actual entry at Sam Harris's site does nothing to improve the argument. That's a lot of butthurt in a small column. Pretending that beliefs are the same as flying airplanes into the WTC may feel like reason to Harris, but it isn't, it's just feelings.

Funny how often stuff like Harris boils down to feelings.

Blogger CarpeOro October 13, 2014 11:04 AM  

"I guess no one told him that Jedi mind tricks work ON the weak-minded. They are somewhat less effective when used BY the weak-minded."

Worked for TGM. Hmmm...

Anonymous aero October 13, 2014 11:06 AM  

Suicide sets a bad example for children to follow. Should any government or religion adopt suicide as a normal act. It will be the first step in the government or religion own suicide.

Blogger dienw October 13, 2014 11:07 AM  

Let's see, I can trust my eyes, or I can ask some rich Italian descended from folk who took Constantine's money....

Let's see, I can trust God - as He commands-, or I can ask some rich Italian descended from folk who took Constantine's money....

Fixed it for you.

Anonymous Michael October 13, 2014 11:07 AM  

Sigyn, wrong. Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom and thus he was the first Pope of the Catholic Church. The CC assembled the Bible, not the 16th century Protestant reformers who unilaterally decided to throw away 7 books and alter passages. Seriously, show me where Jesus authorized such actions. But I suppose the reformers knew better than the Church Christ Himself founded, right?

Furthermore, the author of that website asserts that the Jews are the "children of Satan," which is complete and utter nonsense. To take him at his word is to believe that Christ's Apostles - the first Christians - and those they converted while spreading the gospel in Israel were, in fact, the spawns of Satan. This is so bogus, I don't even know what to say.

And then there's this nonsense about John the Baptist being Elijah. So you're telling me that, after Elijah was taken up to Heaven, body and soul, God impregnated Elizabeth, Mary's cousin, with Elijah and then had his *new surrogates* rename him John? Seriously...? And even though he was martyred (beheaded), he's going to come again, for a third time, body and soul, along with Moses, to preach during the reign of the anti-Christ, i.e. Satan? Come on now.

Anonymous Bostonian October 13, 2014 11:15 AM  

"And for God's sake, why do the Catholics always have to make every thread be about how awesome their fanfictions are and insist on praying to angels and dead people?"

You realize there are 90,000 protestant churches in the USA alone. Many of them include the sanctification of sodomy, the inclusion of "New Age" beliefs, etc. With more than 90,000 protestant denominations, which one are you standing from to make this irrational attack on the One True Church?

Blogger Desdichado October 13, 2014 11:19 AM  

And if they want to dump their family of kids on the community for care, hey, all's fair!

That's beside the point. That's going to happen anyway, whether or not suicide is illegal. Illegal suicide is just dumb. It accomplishes nothing. All of the problems with suicide remain, because how do you convict someone for a crime if they're dead?

I do appreciate the quip above, though--that it might deter dramacide. But that's really my whole point with suggesting that suicidal folks be limited to old-fashioned methods of suicide. If they're really going to do it, they need to be committed to that course of action. If there are legal enablers, then we're in trouble as a society.

Anonymous question begger October 13, 2014 11:20 AM  

There's a subset who display tendencies similar to those of the militant atheist aspies.

...including the constant begging the question. Round and round circular arguments.

PROTIP: Get ahead of their presuppositions and the whole ship goes down.

Blogger Desdichado October 13, 2014 11:23 AM  

Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom and thus he was the first Pope of the Catholic Church. The CC assembled the Bible, not the 16th century Protestant reformers who unilaterally decided to throw away 7 books and alter passages. Seriously, show me where Jesus authorized such actions. But I suppose the reformers knew better than the Church Christ Himself founded, right?

That right there is your fanfic. Even though you claim that the Catholic church is responsible for the Bible (which is vaguely ridiculous, as at best the Catholics can be called compilers and editors) the Bible makes no mention of establishing Peter as a Pope. The best you've got is a vague allusion in Matthew 16:18 that you have to take out of context to make it sound like Jesus is establishing Peter as the rock on which the church is to be built, rather than revelation, which is abundantly clear if you ALSO happen to read verse 17 first.

All of the Apostles were killed. The local bishops had to pick up the pieces and try and keep the church running, which is why the church that Christ founded "evolved" into the Catholic church. I'll give (at least some) of them credit for being well-meaning and trying to do what was best for their flock, but the One True Church the Catholic church most certainly is not. Any idiot making a casual glance at the church, its doctrines and organizations and comparing them to the Church described in the New Testament can see that.

Blogger dienw October 13, 2014 11:24 AM  

Michael, Michael..
The first Bishop of Rome was Linus appointed by Paul; who went to Rome to lay a foundation of the faith where none was laid - that is his boast upon his work -; Peter was in the middle east: he was never Bishop of Rome. It was Alexander, Bishop of Rome, who disseminated the news that Peter had died a martyr.
If Peter really was the first Bishop, he is then the first Bishop to resign his office.
However, the great lie is that Peter was in Rome; actually it was Simon Pater, A.K.A Simon Magus how began the Samaritan "Christianity" that became the Roman Catholic Church.

Blogger dienw October 13, 2014 11:26 AM  

I was wrong about Alexander.

Anonymous Sigyn October 13, 2014 11:27 AM  

Sigyn, wrong. Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom and thus he was the first Pope of the Catholic Church.

Which is why James was the head of the council at Antioch and Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles.

That makes so much sense, of course.

The CC assembled the Bible, not the 16th century Protestant reformers

Again, assembling a collection of existing works does not make you the sole and final authority on them. That is God's authority only. Where you disagree with them is where you are wrong.

And you are wrong much too often.

Seriously, show me where Jesus authorized such actions.

Dude, pots and kettles. You guys have never much cared about what Jesus authorizes or doesn't. Indulgences? Annulments of marriages already consummated? Bachelor priests? Cathedrals? Holy wars?

Furthermore, the author of that website

What do I care about that guy? He may or may not be a crank. I've not been to his site and don't care.

The difference between you and me is that I don't consider his beliefs to be so dangerous that it might be ethical to kill him over them.

Anonymous Sigyn October 13, 2014 11:35 AM  

With more than 90,000 protestant denominations, which one are you standing from

What difference does that even make? If I were to claim membership in any of them, you would still tell me it was not authoritative and therefore I must be wrong. You'd still use it as an excuse to dismiss any facts, reasons, or truths that disagree with what you already are determined to believe.

Nice try, but you fail. Next.

Anonymous Sigyn October 13, 2014 11:37 AM  

Now that we've gone waaaayyyyyy off topic...

How 'bout them Harris fanboys?

Anonymous Stilicho October 13, 2014 11:39 AM  

Well, it's still illegal in many jurisdictions, so it's not "making it illegal". It IS illegal, or it WAS illegal.

Of course it is. Was using passive voice to describe action. No tense intended. I'm well aware that it has been illegal in most jurisdictions for quite a while.

You're the one on the side of "making" here

Not at all. I think it is a stupid idea that has more to do with feelings than reality. Let me satisfy your pedantic urges here: did making it illegal change those outcomes?

So, let me ask you this: If your position is that the state of the law as it is changes nothing, then what do you think making it LEGAL changes?

Not one fucking thing. "Assisted suicide" on the other hand, is a matter of making what would otherwise be manslaughter, legal.

Suicide sets a bad example for children to follow. Should any government or religion adopt suicide as a normal act. It will be the first step in the government or religion own suicide.

Only the truly retarded would depend upon a government to provide moral guidance. Might as well ask what purple tastes like. It's a category error.



Anonymous richard w comerford October 13, 2014 11:41 AM  

Question: Only Christians who are dangerous

Mr. Vox quoted Mr. Harris in part:

"Certain beliefs place their adherents beyond the reach of every peaceful means of persuasion, while inspiring them to commit acts of extraordinary violence against others. "

I could not find where Mr. Harris defined dangerous "beliefs". Would he accept that a belief in Communism or Socialism was dangerous; or does he claim that only a belief in Christ is dangerous?

God bless

Richard W Comerford

Anonymous Jack Amok October 13, 2014 11:44 AM  

I guess no one told him that Jedi mind tricks work ON the weak-minded. They are somewhat less effective when used BY the weak-minded.

Mind power is relative. In the land of the idiots, the mid-wit is king.


In other words, if the first demonstrable action they might make is to kill you, then you have the right to kill them without provocation.

That sort of person is either a sociopath or a barbarian. You rarely have to wait for them to try and kill someone to know what they are though, they usually make that very clear through all their other actions. One of the benefits of being civilized is supposed to be that you don't have to worry about random violence, but that only works if you keep the barbarians and sociopaths out of your society.

Blogger kurt9 October 13, 2014 11:45 AM  

Sam Harris's morality in this issue is comparable to that of Stalin or Hitler.

I actually agree with all of this:

-wants our constitutional republic restored
-infanticide (abortion) and euthanasia outlawed
-our borders secured and strict immigration policy enacted
-an end to the usury and speculation of the banking cartels and Wall Street, as well as jobs brought back home where they belong
-the demilitarization of the police
-an end to dual-citizens being allowed to attain positions of power (*hint hint*)
-fiscal responsibility and accountability
-a prohibition on LGBT propaganda in public schools
Etc.

However, I think an exception should be made for the euthanasia for what we call "cryothanasia" or "cryocide". People should have the right to enter bio-preservation while still legally alive or to have themselves be declared legally dead so that they can enter bio-preservation with their neuro-structure still intact. There are many medical conditions that are currently incurable (e.g. aging, cancer) that will most certainly be curable at some point in the future through advanced bio-medicine and synthetic biology. bio-preservation is essentially medical "time-travel" (ambulance ride into the future) that will allow people afflicted with much maladies today a chance to make it into the future where they can be cured of them.

Anonymous Bostonian October 13, 2014 11:48 AM  

"What difference does that even make? "

because I suspect you are of the Calvinist faith, the most dangerous belief system in the world. At teh very least, I suspect you are a follower of Martin Luther, the heretical monk (and ultimate Judaizer) who founded Puritanism, which of course is the religion that was the immediate predecessor of what we call "Left Wing" atheisim today.

Anonymous The Sound Of One Dog Not Barking October 13, 2014 11:50 AM  

Say, where are all the Harris fanboys?

Anonymous aero October 13, 2014 11:50 AM  

Is it a sin of Covetousness? When one believes their interpretation of the bible is that of God.

Anonymous Stilicho October 13, 2014 11:50 AM  

I actually agree with all of this:

-wants our constitutional republic restored
-infanticide (abortion) and euthanasia outlawed
-our borders secured and strict immigration policy enacted
-an end to the usury and speculation of the banking cartels and Wall Street, as well as jobs brought back home where they belong
-the demilitarization of the police
-an end to dual-citizens being allowed to attain positions of power (*hint hint*)
-fiscal responsibility and accountability
-a prohibition on LGBT propaganda in public schools


I expect that most of the Ilk with Michael on these things as well. I do. Our differences lie...elsewhere.

Anonymous Feelings, Nothing More Than Feelings October 13, 2014 11:52 AM  

I could not find where Mr. Harris defined dangerous "beliefs".

Harris doesn't do that. It would be too clarifying, and he's in enough feelbad trouble now.

Anonymous Stilicho October 13, 2014 11:53 AM  


because I suspect you are of the Calvinist faith, the most dangerous belief system in the world. At teh very least, I suspect you are a follower of Martin Luther, the heretical monk (and ultimate Judaizer) who founded Puritanism, which of course is the religion that was the immediate predecessor of what we call "Left Wing" atheisim today.


It's just so bloody difficult to find good trolls these days. Sigh.

Anonymous Michael October 13, 2014 12:05 PM  

Joshua Dyal, "That right there is your fanfic. Even though you claim that the Catholic church is responsible for the Bible (which is vaguely ridiculous, as at best the Catholics can be called compilers and editors) the Bible makes no mention of establishing Peter as a Pope. The best you've got is a vague allusion in Matthew 16:18 that you have to take out of context to make it sound like Jesus is establishing Peter as the rock on which the church is to be built, rather than revelation, which is abundantly clear if you ALSO happen to read verse 17 first."

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/origins-of-peter-as-pope

"All of the Apostles were killed."

Except John the Apostle.

"The local bishops had to pick up the pieces and try and keep the church running, which is why the church that Christ founded "evolved" into the Catholic church. I'll give (at least some) of them credit for being well-meaning and trying to do what was best for their flock, but the One True Church the Catholic church most certainly is not. Any idiot making a casual glance at the church, its doctrines and organizations and comparing them to the Church described in the New Testament can see that."

Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom and he formed the Catholic Church. The Protestant reformers, nor anyone else, have the authority to seize the reigns.

njartist, "Michael, Michael..
The first Bishop of Rome was Linus appointed by Paul; who went to Rome to lay a foundation of the faith where none was laid - that is his boast upon his work -; Peter was in the middle east: he was never Bishop of Rome. It was Alexander, Bishop of Rome, who disseminated the news that Peter had died a martyr.
If Peter really was the first Bishop, he is then the first Bishop to resign his office.
However, the great lie is that Peter was in Rome; actually it was Simon Pater, A.K.A Simon Magus how began the Samaritan "Christianity" that became the Roman Catholic Church."

Whether Peter was in Rome or not in no way negates his status as first Pope. I refer you to the above link (I'm pressed for time).

Sigyn, "Which is why James was the head of the council at Antioch and Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles.

That makes so much sense, of course."

Oh, and in what way does St. Paul preaching the gospels negate the authority Christ gave to Peter?

"Again, assembling a collection of existing works does not make you the sole and final authority on them. That is God's authority only. Where you disagree with them is where you are wrong.

And you are wrong much too often."

Catholic rely upon the Magisterium of the RCC to interpret scripture, or sola ecclesia, to protect it from error or misinterpretation.

"Dude, pots and kettles. You guys have never much cared about what Jesus authorizes or doesn't. Indulgences? Annulments of marriages already consummated? Bachelor priests? Cathedrals? Holy wars?"

I don't have the time necessary to address all of this, sorry.

"What do I care about that guy? He may or may not be a crank. I've not been to his site and don't care.

The difference between you and me is that I don't consider his beliefs to be so dangerous that it might be ethical to kill him over them."

Astonishing. Tell me how you extrapolated "it might be ethical to kill him over them" from what I wrote?

Anonymous Feelings, Nothing More Than Feelings October 13, 2014 12:06 PM  

because I suspect you are of the Calvinist faith, the most dangerous belief system in the world. At teh very least, I suspect you are a follower of Martin Luther, the heretical monk (and ultimate Judaizer) who founded Puritanism, which of course is the religion that was the immediate predecessor of what we call "Left Wing" atheisim today.

Moldbuggery is so passe', the only feeling it induces is ennui

Anonymous Feelings, Nothing More Than Feelings October 13, 2014 12:08 PM  

I wonder if cailcorishev is right, that some of those posing as rabid Catholics are really Harris fanboys trying to stir up a fight that will distract from further dissection of Harris's moronicity?

I have a feeling there could be something to this.

Blogger dienw October 13, 2014 12:13 PM  

@ Stilicho October 13, 2014 11:53 AM
If ignorance is bliss; mis-education is euphoria.
-Any believer on Christ and on Him who sent Him is a heretic once he starts putting two and two together and doesn't come up with Romanism(5).
-Luther declared salvation by faith, not faith and works; to be saved by Grace means outside the Law, as Christ fulfilled the requirements of the Law. This is not Judaizing. Judaicizing(sp?) means making the Law the means of salvation for the believer. As an act of love towards God we obey His commandments.

Blogger dienw October 13, 2014 12:17 PM  

Whether Peter was in Rome or not in no way negates his status as first Pope. I refer you to the above link (I'm pressed for time).

Oh, for Pete's sake, do they get any more irrational than this?

Anonymous Eric Ashley October 13, 2014 12:23 PM  

Coulter's suggestion was Jacksonian nation building. Unlike W who went for Wilsonian nation building.

One of the chief complaints about neocons here is how they are doing the will of their not really Jewish masters, and getting Christians in the ME killed off. Whether those 'Christians' are really so, and why they don't engage in some American problem solving techniques are other questions.

Its clear however that she would have been sympathetic to Christian concerns.

She also spent some time pointing out the flaws of the TSA.

Jacksonian war does not require wanton slaughter, nor mind readers. Also, not every killing instantly raises us a mouthful of dragon's teeth. Violence is not that simple.

It's clear Wilsonianism did not work, if only because America grew tired. Its not clear that a 'salt Fallulah with radiation and burn half Baghdad down' and send in the Evangelicals at the point of a tank cannon would not have worked.

And as a plus, it would really have infuriated Sam Harris.

Anonymous Eric Ashley October 13, 2014 12:26 PM  

Does mine count as good trollinng?

Anonymous Laz October 13, 2014 12:34 PM  

"I do appreciate the quip above, though--that it might deter dramacide. But that's really my whole point with suggesting that suicidal folks be limited to old-fashioned methods of suicide. If they're really going to do it, they need to be committed to that course of action. If there are legal enablers, then we're in trouble as a society."

What about the ones too weak to even feed/water themselves and just want it to all be over? or the quadriplegic?

Anonymous A. Nonymous October 13, 2014 1:00 PM  

And for God's sake, why do the Catholics always have to make every thread be about how awesome their fanfictions are and insist on praying to angels and dead people?

Probably because they don't want to let the inflammatory ranting of grudge-bearing Protestants go unchallenged.

Anonymous Anonymous October 13, 2014 1:20 PM  

"No, the Bible (the separate prophecies, histories, and revelations) comes from God."

Correct.

"All Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work." (II Timothy 3:16)

Not 'Catholic-breathed'.

Anonymous Student in Blue October 13, 2014 1:26 PM  

Probably because they don't want to let the inflammatory ranting of grudge-bearing Protestants go unchallenged.

The rules of this blog state, "Do not attempt to hijack posts; if you are interested in a discussion of a particular subject, email me a request."

Now, the context of that line is for Creationism/evolution hijacking, but the spirit of the rule seems very relevant here. There is a topic for this thread, and it has to do with what was posted. Protestant vs Catholic is not the topic, sola scriptura vs Pope infallibility is not the topic. And kneejerking back to what was kneejerked in the first place does not do anyone well.

This is true for everyone.

Anonymous richard w comerford October 13, 2014 2:09 PM  

Mr. Feelings:

Thank you for the clarification.

God bless

Richard W Comerford

Anonymous A. Nonymous October 13, 2014 2:46 PM  

The rules of this blog state, "Do not attempt to hijack posts; if you are interested in a discussion of a particular subject, email me a request."

Now, the context of that line is for Creationism/evolution hijacking, but the spirit of the rule seems very relevant here. There is a topic for this thread, and it has to do with what was posted. Protestant vs Catholic is not the topic, sola scriptura vs Pope infallibility is not the topic. And kneejerking back to what was kneejerked in the first place does not do anyone well.


Indeed.

Anonymous Anonymous October 13, 2014 3:02 PM  

Yep. Some toes were over the line. It's a league game. Mark it zero!

Anonymous Bostonian October 13, 2014 3:06 PM  

"Probably because they don't want to let the inflammatory ranting of grudge-bearing Protestants go unchallenged"

Exactly true. The topic of protestant heresy is ON TOPIC because it was the so-called "reformers" that spawned 90,000 protestant churches in North America alone, by one count. And from these Puritans came Left Wing atheists, like Sam Harris.

Thus,it is the protestants that spawned Mr. Harris.Which makes the false claims of protestantism fair game.

Anonymous Feelings, Nothing More Than Feelinss October 13, 2014 3:07 PM  


Richard W Comerford
Mr. Feelings:
Thank you for the clarification.


My pleasure, Mr. Comerford. While it is generally a good idea to not confuse incompetence with malice, nor stupidity with meanness, in some cases it's best to avoid assuming simple error where dishonesty is really at work.

Harris's body of written work leaves me feeling he's a liar, and not always very good at it.

God bless

Anonymous richard w comerford October 13, 2014 3:33 PM  

Mr. Bostonian:

"Thus,it is the protestants that spawned Mr. Harris.Which makes the false claims of protestantism fair game."

Would it not be more fair to say that the Original Sin spawned Mr. Harris?

In my experience some of the very best and steadfast American Christians are the Bible Thumpers.

God bless

Richard W Comerford

Blogger dienw October 13, 2014 3:40 PM  

Thus,it is the protestants that spawned Mr. Harris.Which makes the false claims of protestantism fair game.

Maybe you should remember Protestantism brought forth The United States Of America; before Papists flooded into this country and turned it away from Liberty and returned it to serfdom. Liberty is the great heritage the the Protestant; want to see the Heritage of the papist? Look to Central and South America, and to bloody Spain; look to Italy; look to the auto de fe and to the hundreds of martyred Protestants in England and Scotland.

Just as Vox declares that only those from the founding culture and nations of this country should be permitted into this country; so can we Protestants declare that only those who share the Protestant faith should be allowed to settle in this nation. In fact, that was the view of the early nation.

Anonymous Steve-waa October 13, 2014 3:51 PM  

"and from these Puritans came left wing atheists, like Sam Harris"

Sam Harris is a jew who supports Israel. He is a jewish atheist who supports Israel. So while he may not like religion, he sure as hell likes his own tribe, and will defend his own tribe's homeland. And he will defend his tribe's homeland doing terrible things to others. So, his tribe is his religion.

(http://mondoweiss.net/2014/08/defends-silence-slaughter)

From mondoweiss: "It says what he's been saying for the last ten years: Netanyahu has the moral high ground. The IDF is brutalized by the Palestinians. But the crimes and predations of secular Israel command his full support. 'I'm a great supporter of Israel' he told us on the book tour..."

So no, Sam Harris did not come from Puritans. Your anti-protestant hatred blinds you to the truth. Sam Harris' ideology comes from his jewish background.

Anonymous Student in Blue October 13, 2014 3:59 PM  

Exactly true. The topic of protestant heresy is ON TOPIC because it was the so-called "reformers" that spawned 90,000 protestant churches in North America alone, by one count.

Really, now? I think you either lack the ability to comprehend what you read, or are dishonest enough to try rewriting what people actually typed.

If the topic is "Protestants cause Left Wing Atheism!", then actually bring it up and discuss it. What has been done is "Catholics are stupid/evil/wrong because XYZ" and "Protestants are stupid/evil/wrong because XYZ".

Don't try to explain (read: bullshit) after-the-fact that it's actually on topic. If it's on topic it will be readily apparent as it will make reference to the initial point. The thing that kicked off this chain of kneejerking was Michael blaming the owner of truthfromgod.com's weird views as being a result of sola scriptura. Everything else after was standard Protestant vs Catholic. That is a far different chain of thoughts than blaming Protestants for Left Wing Atheism, and your claim is the first instance.

So, please, stop being blatantly dishonest.

Anonymous richard w comerford October 13, 2014 3:59 PM  

njartist:

You posted in part:

"Maybe you should remember Protestantism brought forth The United States Of America; before Papists flooded into this country and turned it away from Liberty and returned it to serfdom."

No one is perfect. Did not some of the liberty loving founding Fathers wage genocidal war against the Indians, introduce indentured servitude (a.k.a. slavery light and whites) and profit from the African slave trade?

Was not Shay's Rebellion a reaction against the rich Boston founding Fathers (Many of whom did not lift a musket during the Evolution) who were attempting to reduce to serfdom farmers from Western Massachusetts who were retuning home from actually fighting the Revolution?

The Founding Fathers did many great things. But they were also sons of Adam and Eve weakened by the Original Sin.

God bless

Richard W Comerford

Anonymous Giuseppe October 13, 2014 4:03 PM  

Perhaps the ilk should call the cops on Harris. I mean, he extended a death threat to all of us en masse if I ever heard one...

Anonymous Agreeing With Bostonian October 13, 2014 4:03 PM  

And from these Puritans came Left Wing atheists, like Sam Harris.

Not to mention Rousseau, Voltaire, Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Honecker, Saloth Slar, Fidel Castro…all trained in their Left Wing atheism in one of the 900,000,000 (by one count) Protestant churches in the US.

Blogger dienw October 13, 2014 4:05 PM  

And Bostonian: We haven't even begun to speak of the Jesuits or Francis Xavier, the real namesake of the current Pope, and their persecution in India Particularly Portuguese Goa.
One of Xavier's targets was The Christians he found in India who kept the true Sabbath, not the Babylonian one.

BTW, the Jesuit Black Pope is head of the Secret Societies around the world; take a look at the masked murderers in this article; tell me if it reminds you of a particular loathsome American secret society. Patterns repeat.

Anonymous Feelings, Nothing More Than Feelings October 13, 2014 4:06 PM  

Perhaps the ilk should call the cops on Harris. I mean, he extended a death threat to all of us en masse if I ever heard one…


That could be done, especially by anyone who had a genuine feeling that Harris is out to get him. But there'd have to be names named, or addresses addressed, something like that.

The cops generally are only interested in credible death threats.

Anonymous Eastern Star October 13, 2014 4:12 PM  

Harris is certainly talking about people who have acted on their beliefs a violent way. Isis is a perfect example of what he is talking about. Why are you purposefully misrepresenting what he said?

Anonymous richard w comerford October 13, 2014 4:15 PM  

Mr. njartist:

Thank you for the link which read in part:

"The truth is that these men covered their identity, to avoid being exposed during their Satanic acts during the Spanish inquisition. When the priests told them to butcher Baptist Christians, the clergy made it impossible for the victim’s to identify the criminals"

I was unaware that there were Baptists residing in Spain during the Royal Inquisition under Ferdinand and Isabella. And IIRC the Royal Inquisition had authority only over self declared Catholics. Also IIRC the best and quickest way to escape the Royal Inquisition's authority was simply for one to declare that he was not a Catholic.

Do you really think that at a time when an attempt is being made to extinguish Christianity in the USA that arguments such as these are necessary?

God bless

Richard W Comerford

Anonymous A Paradimg Is More Than Twenty Cents October 13, 2014 4:21 PM  


Harris is certainly talking about people who have acted on their beliefs a violent way.

If this was true, Harris would not have uesd the word "believe".

Care to try again?

Blogger dienw October 13, 2014 4:24 PM  

@Richard W Comerford
Rome has demonstrated quite clearly that it willing to extinguish Christianity and Christian liberty in these United States.
"And IIRC the Royal Inquisition had authority only over self declared Catholics. " What is said and what it did are two different things:
Chapter 8: As mentioned earlier, the original charter of this ingenious device for the
salvation of souls was to be applied only to those who had been baptized into the
Roman Catholic faith. Although in practice this did not preclude the Portuguese priests
from interfering in the lives of Hindus around Goa and Moslems in general, yet it was still
illegal according to Portuguese law. With so much "Judaizing" (Sabbath-keeping) and
opposition to the non-scriptural practices of Romanism, it became apparent that the only
way to control these "heretical Nestorians" would be to bring them under the jurisdiction
of Portuguese Romanism. They would then be
automatically subject to the rules and
regulations of the Holy Office in the Inquisition

Anonymous Eastern Star October 13, 2014 4:24 PM  

"Certain beliefs place their adherents beyond the reach of every peaceful means of persuasion, while inspiring them to commit acts of extraordinary violence against others."

This can only be read to mean the object of his concern has already committed extraordinary violence against others. Their is no other reasonable way to read it.

Anonymous Anonymous October 13, 2014 4:39 PM  

Please, forgive my ignorance in advance.

My understanding is that Martin Luther, the father of the so-called Reformation, never formally broke away from the Catholic church or renounced Catholicism per se, but only sought to reform some areas within the church with which he took issue.

Are Protestants, then, not just Catholics by another name who differ in expression and practice of a faith that was declared catholic i.e. universal?

Blogger dienw October 13, 2014 4:42 PM  

And BTW Richard W Comerford, anybody who practices Sunday as the so-called Sabbath would - by Papist lights - come under the authority of Rome (from the same source, Chapter 7): Council of Trent:
It is this great weakness in the armour of, Protestantism which exposes these
would-be Reformers to such cutting thrusts by Rome. They had claimed to have gone forth to do battle with the antichrist in the armour of "the Bible and the Bible only" with "Sword of the Spirit", but nowhere in the Bible could they find authority for Sunday observance. In refusing to abandon the pagan day of the sun in favour of God's memorial day of creation they had acknowledged that Roman Catholic tradition had more authority than scripture. The Council of Trent had triumphed over Protestantism.

Anonymous richard w comerford October 13, 2014 4:43 PM  

Mr. njartist:

Thank you for your reply and the link to H. H. Meyers.

The link did not mention anything about "Rome has demonstrated quite clearly that it willing to extinguish Christianity and Christian liberty in these United States."

However Mr. Meyers, a 7th day Adventis, is a well known and controversial figure. When he is not denouncing Catholics, he is attacking other Protestants with equal energy to include his fellow 7th day Adventists.

Perhaps you should rely so heavily upon on an author who has not made it his life's worth to denounce his fellow man: both Protestants and Catholics?

God bless

Richard W Comerford

Blogger dienw October 13, 2014 4:45 PM  

Rabbi B
That was his initial attempt. In the end it was a complete break.

Blogger dienw October 13, 2014 4:47 PM  

Richard, defaming the person of the source of information does not disprove the information.

Anonymous Corvinus October 13, 2014 4:48 PM  

@njartist

You bring up alleged abuses during the Inquisition, and I'll raise you the well-documented persecution of Catholics by Protestants in the British Isles. And don't bring up the Huguenots, as one major reason they got drop-kicked was because they themselves were attacking Catholics in France and otherwise causing all sorts of trouble.

Protestantism is fundamentally a shitlib enterprise.

Anonymous Corvinus October 13, 2014 4:50 PM  

Please, forgive my ignorance in advance.

My understanding is that Martin Luther, the father of the so-called Reformation, never formally broke away from the Catholic church or renounced Catholicism per se, but only sought to reform some areas within the church with which he took issue.

Are Protestants, then, not just Catholics by another name who differ in expression and practice of a faith that was declared catholic i.e. universal?


@Rabbi B
They're what's commonly known as "heretics". Modernist Novus Ordo "Catholics" are exactly the same way.

Blogger dienw October 13, 2014 4:53 PM  

And Richard, given the terrible state of the Protestant church brought about by unbiblical and false doctrines, heretical preachers and infection form Babylonian Rome, the Protestant church most definitely deserves to be severely critiqued.

Anonymous Anonymous October 13, 2014 4:53 PM  

"They're what's commonly known as "heretics""

So, am I correct to understand that his so-called reforms were rejected and considered heretical?

Anonymous Corvinus October 13, 2014 4:55 PM  

@Rabbi B

Yes. It was most solemnly articulated and pronounced thusly at the Council of Trent.

Anonymous richard w comerford October 13, 2014 4:56 PM  

Rabbi B:

You posted in part:

"My understanding is that Martin Luther, the father of the so-called Reformation, never formally broke away from the Catholic church or renounced Catholicism per se, but only sought to reform some areas within the church with which he took issue."

I am just a knuckle dragger but IIRC (and at my age that is always problematic) Augustinian monk, Father Martin Luther, was indeed one of a large group of reformers who identified themselves as loyal sons of the Catholic Church.

However as a Monk he had taken the triple vow of poverty, chasity and obedience in imitation of the life of Christ, and when he married a nun, who had taken the same vow, he placed himself formally out of the Catholic Communion.

Unlike that genius, Jean Calvin, who in his work, Institutes, established a religion diametrically opposed to Catholicism, Luther, to my knowledge, did not formally organize a separate Church.

Several Priest that I have encountered over the years have urged us to pray for the repose of the soul of Martin Luther - priest and monk.

God bless

Richard W Comerford

Anonymous ... October 13, 2014 5:00 PM  

aspies gonna aspie

Anonymous richard w comerford October 13, 2014 5:02 PM  

Mr. njartist:

Thank you for your reply wherein you posted in part:

"Richard, defaming the person of the source of information does not disprove the information."

It was and is certainly not my aim to defame the gentleman. But he is famous in certain circles. as evidenced by a simple search of Mr. Googles records the gentleman has published article after article attacking fellow Adventists, other Protestants and Catholics.

Do you really wish to rely on such a contentious guy?

God bless

Richard W Comerford

Blogger dienw October 13, 2014 5:05 PM  

@ Corvinus; Father of Vampyres and Werewolves:
From this"\:
"NO ROMAN MARTYRS UNDER THE FIRST PROTESTANT KING!
During the reign of Edward VI 1547 - 1553 there was no persecution of Roman Catholics. The Bishops who refused to destroy high altars, rood-lofts, and images, were quietly retired. Only one was imprisoned - Stephen Gardiner of Winchester - in the Tower of London. It was not a very severe imprisonment. None was charged with treason or executed. Bishop George Day of Chichester is a good example. He was given honourable retirement and returned to Chichester in the reign of Mary I. He also preached the sermon at her Coronation. Later he presided at the trials and burning of some of the Sussex Protestant Martyrs. During Edward's reign the Reformation of doctrine and practice took place. "

And:
"TRAITORS ARE NOT MARTYRS
When we look at the Roman Catholic Martyrs, we are dealing with another situation altogether. In the abortive effort to put Lady Jane Grey on the throne, there was considerable suffering. Sir Thomas Wyatt, who led the revolt, was executed when the attempt failed. One hundred of his men of Kent were executed; altogether in the attempt to place a Protestant Monarch on the throne some 400 persons were executed. If Protestants counted those who acted as traitors to a lawful sovereign as martyrs, all of these would be classed as such. Yet even Lady Jane Grey, her Father and her Husband are not so counted or regarded, yet Mary Queen of Scots is regarded as a martyr by Romanists. "

Blogger dienw October 13, 2014 5:05 PM  

And:
THE EVIDENCE FROM STATE PAPERS OF ROMAN CATHOLIC MARTYRS
The Roman Catholic "Martyrs" were very different. Only one was burnt, he was roasted to death in an iron cage. He was Father Forest, Father Confessor to Catherine of Aragon. He refused to acknowledge Henry VIII as head, under God, of the English Church. When tried in Westminster Hall he said the worst Henry could do to him was to hang, draw and quarter him (punishment for treason). In spite, Henry revived an old Saxon statute and so he met his painful death. However, he died before England was Protestant, under a doctrinally Roman Catholic King and Parliament. We have already stated that both Bishop John Fisher and Mary Queen of Scots were implicated in treason and this is clear from the State Papers. (See 'Jesuit Plots from Queen Elizabeth I to King George V' by Albert Close, pages 115-151 and 175).

Anonymous richard w comerford October 13, 2014 5:06 PM  

Mr. njartist:

Thank you for your reply wherein you posted:

"And Richard, given the terrible state of the Protestant church brought about by unbiblical and false doctrines, heretical preachers and infection form Babylonian Rome, the Protestant church most definitely deserves to be severely critiqued."

We are all fallen sons of Adam and Eve, weakened by Original Sin. In the Protestant Church you criticize are superb Christians.

Perhaps what is needed is a little more light and a little less fire?

God bless

Richard W Comerford

Blogger dienw October 13, 2014 5:08 PM  

I need to apologize to Vox: I am posting considerably beyond what I consider being a good guest on his blog. If he wishes to delete much of my posting in the best interest of his blog, I will not protest.

I have posted enough.

Blogger vandelay October 13, 2014 5:09 PM  

Harris thought he could get away with this stuff the same way Hitchens did. He's probably very confused as to why he doesn't. After all, Hitchens is still by and large revered on the atheist/progressive left, whereas Harris has been all but excommunicated from the movement, and they held almost identical views on Muslims and the like. My guess is just that Harris lacks charm, whereas Hitchens was 98 per cent charm.

Anonymous Stilicho October 13, 2014 5:10 PM  


Protestantism is fundamentally a shitlib enterprise.

That must be why the country gets observably less free and more leftist with every group of Catholics that are imported (starting in the 1850's with Irish and Germans, followed by Poles, Italians, and, most recently, 60 million Mexican and assorted other "hispanics").

Anonymous Corvinus October 13, 2014 5:19 PM  

@Stilicho

It makes total sense if you consider that Vatican II was the Protestantization of the Vatican.

Anonymous richard w comerford October 13, 2014 5:23 PM  

Mr. njartist:

"I have posted enough."

I enjoyed your posts and chatting with you.

God bless

Richard W Comerford

Anonymous richard w comerford October 13, 2014 5:33 PM  

Mr. Stilicho:

You posted in part:

"That must be why the country gets observably less free and more leftist with every group of Catholics that are imported"

That is an interesting comment.

Rome of course has repeatedly condemned communism and socialism. IIRC it was Pius XI who famously wrote in Quad Anno: "No one can be at the same time a sincere Catholic and a true socialist."

As I recall the old Catholic ethnic parishes were in fact extremely conservative which perhaps is why they were targeted by Mr. Aylinski and his organizers for destruction - sadly with spectacular success.

God bless

Richard W Comerford

Anonymous A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents October 13, 2014 5:37 PM  

"Certain beliefs place their adherents beyond the reach of every peaceful means of persuasion, while inspiring them to commit acts of extraordinary violence against others."

Eastern Star
This can only be read to mean the object of his concern has already committed extraordinary violence against others.

Nonsense, it is quite possible to be inspired and yet to never act.

Harris wants thought police. He wants to have people with bad thoughts killed.

Why do you agree with this appalling idea?



Their is no other reasonable way to read it.

Anonymous Corvinus October 13, 2014 5:42 PM  

THE EVIDENCE FROM STATE PAPERS OF ROMAN CATHOLIC MARTYRS
The Roman Catholic "Martyrs" were very different. Only one was burnt, he was roasted to death in an iron cage.


@njartist
With all due respect, that source is flat-out lying.

Essentially, it's saying that Thomas More, John Fisher, Edmund Campion, Margaret Clitherow, Robert Southwell, etc. etc. never existed.

Anonymous Bostonian October 13, 2014 5:47 PM  

Baptist filth lie compulsively.

Sam Harris is there spawn.

Anonymous richard w comerford October 13, 2014 5:53 PM  

Mr. Bostonian:

You posted in part:

"Baptist filth lie compulsively."

That is not very charitable.

Neither is it very accurate. By and large American Baptists have been absolutely heroic in their steadfast loyalty to Jesus Christ in an increasingly secular and anti-Christian society.

God bless

Richard W Comerford

Anonymous Stilicho October 13, 2014 5:57 PM  


As I recall the old Catholic ethnic parishes were in fact extremely conservative


They were certainly socially conservative and many still are. And the majority of them were also supporters of big government, welfare, etc. The Catholic church in America encourages "charity" via government force--a practice that is neither Christian nor charity. They are beginning to reap what they have sown via Obamcare, gay marriage, etc. They committed one of the seven classic blunders (the most famous of which is never fight a land war in Asia); they helped create a government big enough to give them everything they wanted. They forgot that such a government is also big enough to take away everything they have. It's only to be expected though: lie down with leftists, get up with chains.

Anonymous Stilicho October 13, 2014 6:03 PM  

Richard, I will add that they also make a mistake that they share with some Protestants. Namely, they think that they can create a moral government through their involvement with it and that this will help create a moral people. That is exactly backwards. A moral government can only be created and sustained by a moral people.

Anonymous PTR October 13, 2014 6:14 PM  

How pleasant to witness a christian gentleman engage in argument. I refer to Richard W Comerford. Sir, I believe there is a little matter in the middle east that could do with your attention.

Anonymous richard w comerford October 13, 2014 6:19 PM  

Mr. Stilicho:

Thank you for your reply. You posted in part:

"And the majority of them were also supporters of big government, welfare, etc."

In my own, admittedly limited, experience, none of the Catholics who were and are in full communion with Rome accept big government socialism. BTW socialism was condemned repeatedly by Pope after Pope starting @ 1891 with Leo XIII in Rerum Novarum.

And in part:

"The Catholic church in America encourages "charity" via government force"

Sadly, again in my experience, the Church bureaucrats embrace big government socialism. IIRC an article in the British magazine titled "the Economist" estimated that the American Church bureaucracy collects only about 15% of its funds from the pews (and spends only @ 6% on the parishes). The rest the Church bureaucrats get direct or indirectly from State and federal governments.

IIRC this year's budget for the USCCB was @ $147 million with @ $73 million directly from the federal government. And I think the USSCB just got @ $4 million from the feds to hire lawyers to defend "undocumented" folks.

BTW right before he resigned Pope Benedict urged Bishops to take NO funds from government.

God bless

Richard W Comerford

Anonymous richard w comerford October 13, 2014 6:26 PM  

Mr. Stilicho:

Than you for your reply. You posted in part:

"A moral government can only be created and sustained by a moral people."

Bingo! That makes a lot of sense.

God bless

Richard W Comerford

Anonymous Bostonian October 13, 2014 6:27 PM  

"That is not very charitable"

Neither is your tolerance for heresy.

John C Wright had,made the connnection between Puritanism and modern atheisim. It is also well documented among the Dark Enlightenment the direct connection of protestantism and Left Wingism. filth is filth

Anonymous richard w comerford October 13, 2014 6:28 PM  

Mr PTR:

You are too kind. However I cannot take credit. For if I am impolite my little Sicilian wife beats me.

God bless

Richard W Comerford

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus October 13, 2014 6:30 PM  

Joe Stalin: "The great thing about atheists is we murder MILLIONS of other atheists.

A thank you maybe?"

Thanks, Uncle Joe!

Anonymous Corvinus October 13, 2014 6:37 PM  

@Titus

Heh, if you think about it, it was Uncle Joe who led to the demise of the Soviet Union and freeing the Russian people by whacking so many Bolsheviks.

Anonymous richard w comerford October 13, 2014 6:39 PM  

Mr Bostonian:

Thank you for your reply wherein you posted in part:

"Neither is your tolerance for heresy."

IIRC a sincere protestant cannot be a heretic. Only a Catholic who publicly identifies himself as a Catholic can be a heretic.

A heretic (if memory serves) is a Catholic who gives scandal by rejecting a point of Catholic faith or morals repeatedly, over time; and in spite of continued admonitions by the Church and while still claiming to be Catholic.

Right now the Bible thumpers are the bulwark of Christianity in the USA; and they often pay for it. They deserve our support and gratitude.

God bless

Richard W Comerford

Blogger VFM #7634 October 13, 2014 6:39 PM  

Which makes me wonder if Stalin wasn't engaging in the ultimate case of blackknighting...

Anonymous Corvinus October 13, 2014 6:41 PM  

@Mr. Comerford:

IOW, Protestants are to be regarded as the same as Muslims. I'll go along with that.

Anonymous Elementary, My Dear Logician October 13, 2014 6:44 PM  

John C Wright had,made the connnection between Puritanism and modern atheisim.

The well known theologian John C. Wright? Appeal to authority.

It is also well documented among the Dark Enlightenment the direct connection of protestantism and Left Wingism.

Argumentum ad populum.

Moldbuggery really does not work well here.

Anonymous Elementary, My Dear Logician October 13, 2014 6:46 PM  

Bostonian
Baptist filth lie compulsively.

Argumentum ad hominem.

Sam Harris is there spawn.

Where spawn?

Moldbuggery doesn't work well here.

Anonymous Statists are so dull October 13, 2014 6:50 PM  

He's just perpetuating the goode olde leftist tradition of genocide for wrong-think:
Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot et al.

Hey communists - when you have to kill huge amounts of your population because they don't believe your shit - maybe you are wrong?

Anonymous A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents October 13, 2014 6:51 PM  

Heh, if you think about it, it was Uncle Joe who led to the demise of the Soviet Union

Uh, ok. Stalin died in 1953 and almost overnight…a mere 36 years later … the USSR collapsed. You sure about that cause and effect thing?

and freeing the Russian people by whacking so many Bolsheviks.

Except that in the course of whacking so many Bolshies, Stalin also managed to kill millions upon millions of other people. So, no, you're full of Dzugashvili.

Anonymous richard w comerford October 13, 2014 7:03 PM  

Mr Corvinus:

Thank you for your reply wherein you posted in part:

"IOW, Protestants are to be regarded as the same as Muslims."

The great commandment from Christ can be summarized simply as "Love God. Love neighbor."

Our neighbor is anyone we come into contact with. By love we mean we treat them as we ourselves would rightly wish to be treated.

The only exception to the great commandment is, of course, the New York Yankess. It is my understanding that the Vatican is going to grant a plenary indulgence to anyone who captures and water boards a pinstripper.

God bless

Richard W Comerford

Anonymous Eastern Star October 13, 2014 7:10 PM  

"Nonsense, it is quite possible to be inspired and yet to never act. "

No, in fact Harris could not ever assume someone was inspired by their beliefs to act unless they had acted already. The alternative, that which you suggest, makes no sense. Hence, the deliberate misinterpretation of Harris. The question is why perpetrate such a lie.

Anonymous A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents October 13, 2014 7:23 PM  

"Nonsense, it is quite possible to be inspired and yet to never act. "

No,

Yes, obviously, by the most casual inspection of the real world. There are alcoholics who are inspired by speakers with charisma…and who never stop drinking, i.e. they do not act. More specifically, there are plenty of Moslems in parts of the world who on the one hand are clearly inspired by the call to jihad - they talk about it incessantly, but who on the other hand never engage in anything more than talk.

They are inspired, but they do not act. Harris wants them killed for their thoughts. It appears you want the same. Why?

in fact Harris could not ever assume someone was inspired by their beliefs to act unless they had acted already.

But he did not write about killing people because they were "inspired by their beliefs to act", now did he?

No, he wrote that some beliefs justify killing the people who hold them, now isn't that the truth?

The alternative, that which you suggest, makes no sense.

What makes no sense is killing people for their beliefs. Unless one is a Stalin, or a Mao, or a Harris.

Or you? It appears that your beliefs could lead you to want to kill people like me. What should be done about this?

Anonymous Stilicho October 13, 2014 7:29 PM  

No, in fact Harris could not ever assume someone was inspired by their beliefs to act unless they had acted already. The alternative, that which you suggest, makes no sense.

Sure, Harris is just operating on a level where the difference between "actions" and "beliefs" is not important... a sort of quantum rhetoric where words change meaning like light changing from particle to wave (or even being both at the same time!). That's why he stated that some people should be killed for their beliefs. It all makes sense now. Everyone just missed the nuance where "beliefs" became "actions" when properly interpreted. It must have been emanating in the penumbras or effervescing in the effluvia. Thanks for catching that.

Anonymous Angry October 13, 2014 7:39 PM  

Statists are so dull

"Hey communists - when you have to kill huge amounts of your population because they don't believe your shit - maybe you are wrong?"

Meanwhile, Pinochet did not need to kill millions of people to save Chile from Statists. He just had to kill a few thousand of them.

The same math operates in the United States. I estimate around 650,000 statists need to be removed if you follow the Pinochet Ratio.

Anonymous Student in Blue October 13, 2014 8:23 PM  

John C Wright had,made the connnection between Puritanism and modern atheisim.

Someone already got to it, but I'm going to add my two cents.

Assuming "Puritans -> modern atheism" is true and correct - you have not bothered to share why a small subset of protestantism, disliked by others enough that they fled their country, being linked means that every Protestant is responsible for modern atheism, and thus is "filth".

It is also well documented among the Dark Enlightenment the direct connection of protestantism and Left Wingism.

...and? Where's the part where you actually put on your big boy pants and use your own logic and words, instead of blithely reporting that someone, somewhere, wrote something relating X to Y. Instead you duck and avoid actually putting up instead of shutting up.

There's more logic work that would have to be done if you can establish a link between Protestantism and Left Wingers, but I'm guessing you'll just bitch out like last time.

Anonymous Corvinus October 13, 2014 8:46 PM  

@Student in Blue

It's quite simple if you think about it. Protestantism rejects a centralized metaphysical, spiritual authority for determining what is or isn't real Christian dogma, and instead insists that everybody has an equal right to interpret the Bahbull for himself. (Equal right? Nobody can "impose his beliefs" on other people? Both shitlib propositions come from Protestantism and all its thousands of denominations.) Of course, this also means rejecting Catholic sacraments and priesthood in favor of the Protestant Shahadah, i.e., believing on the Lord Jesus Christ to be saved, with however many other sins you commit afterwords being irrelevant.

Meanwhile, the Lockeian state was thought up as a way to govern, with the USA being the paradigm, but equalist attitudes have eroded whatever hierarchical sanity had remained in the original model. Nevertheless, the idea of cutting off governance from a centralized spiritual authority is the basic idea behind Protestantism, and through the logical succession of Separation of Church and State, and rejection of centralized spiritual authority, is directly responsible for the leftoid idiocy we see today.

With gay marriage being the latest little tidbit.

Anonymous Kakistocrazy October 13, 2014 8:49 PM  

“We do it because of their STATED INTENTIONS to cause our society, our religion, and our way of life harm. Because of the CREDIBLE THREAT that they have already made, and which they are carrying out as we speak.”

Good ol’ Col. Krautman said it best...The solution, of course, is to kill or exile progs and nail feral black common law felon teenagers up as a sharp reminder of acceptable and unacceptable behavior. Same for feral whites, of course.

Let’s keep it real. We all know that by 2033, America is going to be at war, a house divided. Blacks vs whites, low class vs. high class...it's going to get ugly. So, why not accelerate matters, right? Progs are pure evil. They are vermin.

So, since Christians have the moral high ground, there is justification to start the purge now to avoid a complete meltdown. Makes complete sense. Especially since it is a forgone conclusion that whites will unite with whites. It's a racial thang.

So, the question remains, who has the balls here to actually start and/or participate in such a purge, rather than 1) simply wait for it to happen or 2) talk about how only when the fireworks start they will join in?


“They're what's commonly known as "heretics". Modernist Novus Ordo "Catholics" are exactly the same way.”

And so are Catholics who claim they are Catholics but in reality are PUA’s.


“I suspect most of them actually are militant atheist aspie trolls trying to start religious wars.”



Or militant conservatives. Or militant liberals. Or militant libertarians. Etc.


“That must be why the country gets observably less free and more leftist with every group of Catholics that are imported (starting in the 1850's with Irish and Germans, followed by Poles, Italians, and, most recently, 60 million Mexican and assorted other "hispanics").”


Last time I checked, the Irish, the Germans, the Poles, and the Italians are considered “white”. Assuming you are Caucasian, why do you hate your own kind?

Blogger rcocean October 13, 2014 9:00 PM  

A lot of people like Mr. Harris, denied they wanted to kill people for having "dangerous thoughts". Then they got in power, and killed millions for "Having dangerous thoughts". It was called the USSR and Mao's China. So, I don't think Mr. Harris "misspoke" - I think he reveled himself.

Anonymous richard w comerford October 13, 2014 9:03 PM  

Mr. Kakistocrazy:

You posted in part:

"So, since Christians have the moral high ground, there is justification to start the purge now to avoid a complete meltdown."

From "A Man for All Seasons":

William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!

Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!

God bless

Richard W Comerford

Blogger rcocean October 13, 2014 9:03 PM  

I think if you could have transported Trotsky or Kaganovich to 2014, they'd probably talk just like Sam Harris. "Hey, we're just harmless, little atheist fuzzballs. Wouldn't hurt a fly. Really"

Anonymous f October 13, 2014 9:23 PM  

Agreed, Protestants are shitlib filth.

1 – 200 of 290 Newer› Newest»

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts