ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Saturday, February 14, 2015

No God, no rights

Every now and then, the mask accidentally slips from the ghoulish face of the Left:
During a heated discussion over gay marriage, CNN morning Anchor Chris Cuomo opined that the unalienable rights endowed to all Americans do not come from God. Cuomo was debating Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore on the constitutionality of same-sex marriage. Near the end of the back-and-forth and after Moore argued that rights cannot be handed down by men, Cuomo blurted out:

“Our rights do not come from God, your honor, and you know that. They come from man... That’s your faith, that’s my faith, but that’s not our country. Our laws come from collective agreement and compromise.”
This is why the Left is so willing to abrogate and alienate what the Declaration of Independence declared to be self-evident and unalienable rights, among them being Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. They simply don't accept that God-given rights are not laws, or that laws that do not respect those rights are illegitimate.

Worst of all, the Left fails to grasp the obvious consequences of their ill-considered actions. If the law can legitimately permit a homosexual man to force a Christian man to bake him a cake, then it can legitimately permit a white man to force a black man to pick his cotton. If the law can legitimately deem a man to be a woman, or two men to be married, it can just as legitimately deem a Jew to be subhuman or an African to be a monkey.

But the Right can certainly play the game by the new rules that have been established. Indeed, across Europe, it is beginning to do so. In America, it is beginning to recognize the need to do so. And the Right will have no mercy on the Left once it begins playing by the Left's rules; they will cry out in appeal to the very rights they denied and alienated in vain.

Labels: ,

115 Comments:

Anonymous The Great Martini February 14, 2015 7:01 AM  


This is why the Left is so willing to abrogate and alienate what the Declaration of Independence declared to be self-evident and unalienable rights, among them being Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.


The DOI was written by men, at a time when slavery was legal. Don't you think it's a bit ironic that a group of slave owners sat down and wrote a list of human rights that come from God? OK, so let's just say they were hypocrites, that rights really do come from God, but they either they didn't abide by their own list or got it wrong. Then, what are the rights that come from God? How do we know it, other than, say, grabbing them out of the air or making a list that sounds kind of like what God would put His stamp on?

Anonymous Stilicho February 14, 2015 7:06 AM  

Do what thou canst get away with shall be the whole of the law...

...because collective will and compromise...

Blogger Cataline Sergius February 14, 2015 7:18 AM  

The concept of Rights are the great gift of the Enlightenment.

Not too long ago my position, would be in closer support of Governor Cuomo's even if he is a Democrat.

These days however, it would be an utterly pointless debate. He doesn't really believe in Rights.

The left has now in it's deepest heart, completely and irrecoverably rejected the concept of rights as something that must be claimed by individual free men. They have rejected the central theory of the Enlightenment and believe that Rights may only be granted by the state.. Which means of course they can also be revoked by the state. Which means they aren't Rights at all but merely privileges, vulnerable and temporary.

They have become genuine fascists in all but name. And Free Speech is the first thing on their to kill list.

Misters and Misses Free Speech At All Costs, if you represent the civilization to which I’m supposed to aspire then I am all savage, and damned proud of it. -

Blogger njartist February 14, 2015 7:36 AM  

@The Great Martini
Very well, TGM, when you fall into the hands of wicked men, do not cry out for your rights or for justice; for those are from God: we who have faith might seek to help you, but only after a long hearty laugh.

Blogger Salt February 14, 2015 7:40 AM  

And the Right will have no mercy on the Left once it begins playing by the Left's rules; they will cry out in appeal to the very rights they denied and alienated in vain.

"Vengence is mine," sayeth the Lord? I have no problem with that. What He uses as His instrument(s), that's debatable from our perspective and I know of no one who is capable of answering that question. So what reason is there to even worry over debating it? Bring it on and He'll sort it out later.

His will be done.

Blogger Vox February 14, 2015 7:54 AM  

Don't you think it's a bit ironic that a group of slave owners sat down and wrote a list of human rights that come from God? OK, so let's just say they were hypocrites, that rights really do come from God, but they either they didn't abide by their own list or got it wrong.

Not particularly, considering that they were specifically advocating "the Rights of Englishmen". But even if they were, as you say, hypocrites, that doesn't change anything. If you deny that rights are unalienable and from God, then the government can legally kill all the subhuman Juden and niggers and kulaks it likes, so long as there is sufficient collective agreement on the wisdom of that policy.

Is that really the game you want to play. Are you THAT confident the numbers are on your side, given the entire written history of Man? Voltaire was no believer, but at least he understood the obvious consequences.

Anonymous Old Man in a Villa February 14, 2015 7:56 AM  

"Don't you think it's a bit ironic that a group of slave owners sat down and wrote a list of human rights that come from God?"

Not in the least. They believed, based on their experience and the realities of nature that certain people- like minor children, women and the negro, for example- were not full participants in the political experiment, not "men" as it were. Their logic was built upon a foundation of natural law, not theoretical equalitarian posturing for the sake of partisan politics.

Do we allow convicted felons, people in comas or five year olds to vote? Don't you think that is hypocritical to those who profess to believe in the equality of man?

No one actully believes in theoretical equality because if they did, there'd be no elections, we'd merely pick names in a national lottery whenever we needed a new representative because everyone woukld be equally up to the job, but that isn't the case. Some people are uniquely better suited to governing than others and in manipulating the masses to keep them in power (think the dynastic cults of Bush/Clinton) by the endless repetition of equality dogma for every low IQ shuffletard with a set of opposable thumbs and a hunger for free shit.

There is no irony in rock solid reality unless you're looking for it based of flawed beliefs.

Anonymous zen0 February 14, 2015 8:00 AM  

Like the article says, civics fail.

Recently, our new mayor was sworn in, and she declined to pledge fealty to the Queen. She thought it was not necessary and "outdated", obviousy ignorant of the fact that the point of the exercise is pledging to work in the interest of the people (the Queen's subjects) and not her ideology.

When the tide turns, the precedent has been set.

Anonymous Homesteader February 14, 2015 8:07 AM  

When all you worship is temporal Power, then the idea of a Higher, atemporal, absolute Power is anethema.

Thus the Left's hatred of Christianity-it is a rebuke of their Luciferian ambition and pride.

Making Christians bake cakes is just another form of the secular dhimmitude their hatred drives them to impose upon those who defy their rule.

Those who seek power are unfit to wield it. Power entails responsibility, and when your entire worldview revolves around the accretion of power AND the denial of responsibility that said power necessarily brings, you end up doing things such as murdering babies and babying murderers, embracing decadence while bewailing consequence, and denying reality when it defies vanity.

The Gods of Copybook Headings indeed...








Blogger Hd Hammer February 14, 2015 8:08 AM  

@Salt,
A Nassim Taleb tweet this week comes to mind - "Being nice to the harmful is equivalent to being harmful to the nice"
Perhaps Christians have a duty to wreck havoc on the harmful?

Blogger James Dixon February 14, 2015 8:13 AM  

> Then, what are the rights that come from God? How do we know it

By examining our nature and using reason. But the, the let doesn't believe in reason anymore, do they?

> If you deny that rights are unalienable and from God, then the government can legally kill all the subhuman Juden and niggers and kulaks it likes, so long as there is sufficient collective agreement on the wisdom of that policy.

Or when they have a full override majority, the republicans can simply order all democrats rounded up and eliminated. Or, if they don't want to go that far, simply remove their "right" to vote. That is, after all, a government granted privilege.

> No one actully believes in theoretical equality because if they did, there'd be no elections, we'd merely pick names in a national lottery whenever we needed a new representative because everyone woukld be equally up to the job, but that isn't the case.

At this point, I think a legitimate argument can be made that it would work better than our current system.

Anonymous PhillipGeorge©2015 February 14, 2015 8:13 AM  

real politics? They'll cut your fucking heads off because you're infidels.

You have the right to....... blah, blah, blah,.......

you retain the right to crash spectacularly, burn and die.

Jesus or bust fools. 2015

Blogger Salt February 14, 2015 8:17 AM  

Not particularly, considering that they were specifically advocating "the Rights of Englishmen".

Their Declaration was to their Sovereign, King George so it's axiomatic it was aimed at Englishmen. That really doesn't matter as to its ideal versus what was practical and doable at the moment. Have to start somewhere. Proof to the question of slavery being on the table is evident in the discussions concerning forming the new Republic.

Just because slavery existed in the colonies does not invalidate the universality of Rights being From God.

Anonymous Laz February 14, 2015 8:17 AM  

"Do we allow convicted felons, people in comas or five year olds to vote?"

I know at least non-violent felons get to vote after time served

Blogger Vox February 14, 2015 8:18 AM  

No one actully believes in theoretical equality because if they did, there'd be no elections, we'd merely pick names in a national lottery whenever we needed a new representative because everyone woukld be equally up to the job, but that isn't the case.

Good point. I tweeted it. And you can do more than make a case for it, there is no question it would work better than permitting sociopaths to manipulate the electorate.

Anonymous PhillipGeorge©2015 February 14, 2015 8:22 AM  

appendix that.
any discourse on rights presumes civility - which is among the most stupid overreaching presumptions of them all.

Anonymous NorthernHamlet February 14, 2015 8:25 AM  

The Great Martini?

How do we know it, other than, say, grabbing them out of the air or making a list that sounds kind of like what God would put His stamp on

Some research has shown that even at a young age, children show compartmentalization of ethics vs morals (I believe that's the terms they used). A rule that should be followed but in extreme cases may be broken vs. a rule that can never be violated.

Perhaps this is the difference.

Also, in this account of God-given rights, I've always thought of those rights in the same way you would if you and your neighbor agreed that neither of you would ever punch each other in the face. In this case, your neighbor is really big, really tough, has lots of money, and well, he owns your house too and can burn it down at his leisure.

Luckily, Jesus is a really cool guy. He'll even let you use his weight bench, show up to his parties, and borrow his hedge clippers. And really, do you want to punch someone that tough?

Blogger Salt February 14, 2015 8:28 AM  

we'd merely pick names in a national lottery whenever we needed a new representative

Would not need them, as every person, being equal, would vote the same. Since all votes are the same, what is the need of being represented as to any question?

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 February 14, 2015 8:33 AM  

The only reason that white people haven't enslaved minorities again is because we have some moral opposition to it. But the Left is gradually removing that morality so if they succeed, we'll see outright slavery again in a generation or two.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus February 14, 2015 8:36 AM  

What is a "right"? A right is what remains for you the oppressors, after we the victims have taken all that justice should give us, which is everything, and some more for spite. That is, unless our academic friends suggest even more things that you should lose, which they will.

Signed: The Management

Anonymous Bah February 14, 2015 8:38 AM  

Don't you think it's a bit ironic that a group of slave owners sat down and wrote a list of human rights that come from God? OK, so let's just say they were hypocrites, that rights really do come from God, but they either they didn't abide by their own list or got it wrong.

Neither the Bible nor much in pre-1700s Christian tradition says anything against slavery, so no irony or hypocrisy exists.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus February 14, 2015 8:41 AM  

swiftfoxmark2: "The only reason that white people haven't enslaved minorities again is because we have some moral opposition to it."

Specifically in England, which essentially ended it in the white world.

But the vice is already established in England again. Import enough Muslims, and the job is done.

Anonymous The Great Martini February 14, 2015 8:46 AM  


Is that really the game you want to play. Are you THAT confident the numbers are on your side, given the entire written history of Man? Voltaire was no believer, but at least he understood the obvious consequences.

The argument obviously depends on how you want to frame it and inside what scope you want to have it. If I argue from an atheist perspective, then obviously I would say that since there isn't a God, then rights don't derive from God. Considering God as the wellspring of human rights (or morals, for that matter) might still be a net benefit, even if you don't believe it, but this is the obscurantist position of living a benevolent lie. In this sense, "God given..." is just a hyperbolic expression. The obvious downside to this is that the objective "God given" sense is just a symbolic gesture, a nod to tradition. It's not impossible that this is just the meaning the Founders had in mind, but that's another can of worms. I accept that most of them were theists.

Certainly you don't believe the benevolent lie angle, since you're Christian. It's still possible for you to believe some rights are derived from Man, not God, at least that there is a shared responsibility. Some, essential rights come from God, but others are crafted by us. Then there's the matter of how we know which are in which category.

Anonymous The Great Martini February 14, 2015 8:49 AM  


Neither the Bible nor much in pre-1700s Christian tradition says anything against slavery, so no irony or hypocrisy exists.


You're kind of making my point for me. How then do you know that freedom is a right of Man?

OpenID simplytimothy February 14, 2015 8:50 AM  

@The Great Martini

"Don't you think it's a bit ironic that a group of slave owners sat down and wrote a list of human rights that come from God?"

Not at all. To your point, the process for Christians to work out the rights of all men--including slaves--started with St. Paul when he convinced the slave Onesimus to return to his master Philemon. By your logic, St. Paul is to be disqualified from instructing us because "slavery". Or, Americans are to reject their God because "slavery" or "homo-phobia" or "feminism" or "Phil Robertson has a beard and shoots ducks".

It don't work no more.

(an aside to the historicaly literate ilk. Where else but the Christian West has the moral framework for repealing slavery been done? thx.)




Blogger James Dixon February 14, 2015 8:52 AM  

> It's still possible for you to believe some rights are derived from Man, not God

Things granted by Man are called privileges. And they can be taken away as easily as they are granted.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus February 14, 2015 8:57 AM  

Old Man in a Villa: "No one actully believes in theoretical equality because if they did, there'd be no elections, we'd merely pick names in a national lottery whenever we needed a new representative because everyone woukld be equally up to the job, but that isn't the case."

This is just demarchy, also called sortition. It used to be taught at Sydney University. People definitely believe it, they just have not been able to get the power to implement it.

With the suggested safeguards, it would have worked much better than our current system, I think.

The idea depends on a homogeneous, high-quality pool of potential administrators-by-lot. We used to have that.

Now we've imported millions of reasons why neither than or any other democratic system will work.

The evil men that did this are not slowing down. Even if we survive, as they are determined that we shall not, the democratic, just, orderly sort of politics we prefer is receding further and further from possibility, as our anti-white "betters" destroy the foundations of the good life.

Blogger Salt February 14, 2015 8:57 AM  

Then there's the matter of how we know which are in which category.

That's not difficult. For instance, the right to vote. That's a right derived by Man. Vote the wrong way and you'll violate my God given Right. The mistake you're making is assigning the term Right to those of Man. Anything of Man is but a privilege.

Blogger deadman February 14, 2015 9:00 AM  

While I am acutely aware American's have a thing for this whole 'rights' business, I'll take a slightly different view of it as an outsider.

There really is no such thing as 'rights'.

There is only - will, intent, action & consequence.

If you reside in a district that outlaws handguns, yet you have the will & intent to possess a handgun & conduct that action. As long as you're willing to face the potential consequences (good, bad or ugly); then that law banning handguns is a moot point.

Even if an individual says that they are going to take away your right to conduct xyz; if you have the will & intent to conduct that action nonetheless; have they really taken anything away?
As long as you're willing to face the consequences?

Blogger Salt February 14, 2015 9:04 AM  

As long as you're willing to face the consequences?

A consequence which would violate a Right, such as to be free? It's the basis of the consequence that's problematic here. Owning a chunk of steel, say a half-inch to short, and one faces a consequence?

Anonymous Godfrey February 14, 2015 9:05 AM  

Maybe, rights come from the barrel of a gun? That seems to be what the Left is saying. He who holds the gun, determines the rights.

Now we know the rules. Thank you for clarifying it for us Cuomo.

Blogger Salt February 14, 2015 9:09 AM  

@Godfrey /snicker, and the Left won't have even seen it coming.

Anonymous grey enlightenment February 14, 2015 9:11 AM  

But man enforces these divine rights, no?

Blogger hank.jim February 14, 2015 9:12 AM  

The left's rules only apply 'against' the right. That's why they are so arrogant. The still expect the right to play by their rules since they are 'Christians'.

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler February 14, 2015 9:12 AM  

I wish people would read Matthew Stewart's book, Nature's God, The Heretical Origins of American Republic. The term "Nature's God" is NOT the Christian God! Thomas Jefferson did NOT believe in the Trinity. What "Nature's God" refers to is the Spinozist/Giordano Bruno conception of "God IN Nature". God and Nature are the same thing. John Toland who had great influence on English/American thought wrote a book called the Pantheisticon. The term "Nature's God" is pantheism and at the worst Atheism. For these people, the rejected the point that God created matter ex nihilo! It is matter that is eternal and infinite not the Christian God.

"Our rights" come from "Nature's God". In NO way was the American Revolution Christian.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus February 14, 2015 9:14 AM  

James Dixon: "Things granted by Man are called privileges. And they can be taken away as easily as they are granted."

So true.

The taking-away requires no formal notice. For one example: the Constitutions of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics had lots of "rights". For another example: the way we live now.

Anonymous Bah February 14, 2015 9:14 AM  

You're kind of making my point for me. How then do you know that freedom is a right of Man?

Bible does not support the view that God wants us to have political freedom, either. Nor is "equality" in there.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus February 14, 2015 9:18 AM  

hank.jim: "The left's rules only apply 'against' the right. That's why they are so arrogant. The still expect the right to play by their rules since they are 'Christians'."

That's right.

Anonymous Northern Observer February 14, 2015 9:22 AM  

VD: " If the law can legitimately deem ... two men to be married..."

I think that this was a mistake of the Christian Right. They should never of fought so hard for the government to enshrine a definition of marriage in law(s). Once they argued so vehemently for the government to take on that responsibility, that power, they should not have been surprised when the government used it in a way that they never intended (or in this case the complete opposite of what they intended).

They would have been much better off spending all of that time, energy and money on fighting to keep government out of marriage.

Anonymous zippo February 14, 2015 9:23 AM  

"It's still possible for you to believe some rights are derived from Man, not God,"

But then of course you get into the sticky question of, Which men, exactly, will do the deriving?

As usual, the Left calls dibs!

Blogger CM February 14, 2015 9:24 AM  

While I am acutely aware American's have a thing for this whole 'rights' business, I'll take a slightly different view of it as an outsider.

There really is no such thing as 'rights'.

There is only - will, intent, action & consequence.


Even as an American, I'm inclined to agree with you.

I'm wary of putting too much faith in a document that requires men to uphold and defend it.

As Bah says, scripture doesn't defend our right to liberty (the slave argument) from tyranny/eenslavement, but the freedom from sin. We have no guarantee to temporal life in scripture as we abdicated that in Eden - simply an unbreachable right to eternal life with the Father upon the acceptance of our Savior's gift. And the Pursuit of Happiness in scripture is joy that transcends our earthly circumstances.

Temporal life is subject to the heads of state that come into power over us and we have no guarantee of those "rights".

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus February 14, 2015 9:27 AM  

deadman: "As long as you're willing to face the consequences?"

Even Winston Smith in 1984 had the right to do anything he liked as long as he was willing to face the consequences.

Anonymous Tin Scarecrow February 14, 2015 9:41 AM  

..what are the rights that come from God? How do we know it, other than, say, grabbing them out of the air or making a list that sounds kind of like what God would put His stamp on?

Easy peasy. What one man has no right to do to another, the other man has an implied right not to have done by man to him.

Thou shalt not murder implies that I have a right night to be murdered by men.

Thou shalt not steal implies that I have a right to property.

Thou shalt not commit adultery that I have a right to marital fidelity.

None of these implies that I've any right to expect these things from God, but they do imply that God has given me these rights against men.

The right to life, property, the honor of one's children, and an unbreakable marriage contract. Not exactly the rights of the Enlightenment set.


"Our rights" come from "Nature's God". In NO way was the American Revolution Christian.


Doesn't matter. Either human rights are imposed from an external, morally authoritative source, or they are not. The Left believes they are not. Therefore, they have nothing they may congruently appeal to when their backs are against the wall.

Anonymous Trimegistus February 14, 2015 9:42 AM  

If there is no God, then rights are simply what you can persuade/trick/bully people into agreeing on. They can be taken away at the whim of the powerful.

Which is why we should be absolutists about rights. BECAUSE they are simply human constructs we can never allow them to be eroded. There's no Divine providence to save us and no Divine justice to punish the tyrants. It's up to us and us alone. If you value your rights you'd better be willing and ready to fight for them.

Conversely, if rights ARE God-given, then it's even more important to defend them with every ounce of strength. To do otherwise would be to go against, well, God. If you tolerate tyranny you're not just helping tyrants, you're helping absolute cosmic evil.

Either way: fight!

Blogger Josh February 14, 2015 9:55 AM  

John Toland who had great influence on English/American thought

Edmund Burke in his Reflections on the Revolution in France wrote dismissively of Toland and his fellows: "Who, born within the last 40 years, has read one word of Collins, and Toland, and Tindal, and Chubb, and Morgan, and that whole race who called themselves Freethinkers?"

Of his influence, humanities professor Robert Pattison wrote: "Two centuries earlier the establishment would have burned him as a heretic; two centuries later it would have made him a professor of comparative religion in a California university. In the rational Protestant climate of early 18th-century Britain, he was merely ignored to death."


How very influential indeed.

Blogger S1AL February 14, 2015 9:56 AM  

"Neither the Bible nor much in pre-1700s Christian tradition says anything against slavery, so no irony or hypocrisy exists."

That's just false. The catholic church banned slavery some time during the middle ages. Slander didn't return to the west until after the secularization that occurred during the enlightenment.

Blogger S1AL February 14, 2015 9:57 AM  

*Slavery didn't


Also worth noting that the bible condemns "slavers" in at least one passage.

Anonymous Daniel February 14, 2015 10:14 AM  

Specifically, S1AL, there is a biblical and Christian tradition of charity and grace to slaves, but the Catholic opposition to slavery was that of a Muslim institution against Christians, not as a general economic institution. I think the "not much" that is being referred to is the general institution, and neither bible nor Church addressed the institution in general much.

More importantly, Cuomo drops the mask with a ham-handed bait-and-switch. "Our rights do not come from God" because "our laws come from collective agreement."

Mind the gap.

Blogger IM2L844 February 14, 2015 10:25 AM  

Either human rights are imposed from an external, morally authoritative source, or they are not. The Left believes they are not.

I would say determined by rather than imposed from, but, nevertheless, you're basically right. The relativistic left is banking on no eternal consequences. We'll see.

Blogger Laguna Beach Fogey February 14, 2015 10:27 AM  

No mercy.

Blogger Laguna Beach Fogey February 14, 2015 10:29 AM  

Perhaps Christians have a duty to wreck havoc on the harmful?

Yes, I've long argued this. The problem may be, White Christians have been pussified beyond redemption.

Blogger A Wiser Man Than I February 14, 2015 10:31 AM  

If the law can legitimately permit a homosexual man to force a Christian man to bake him a cake, then it can legitimately permit a white man to force a black man to pick his cotton.

And the law can legitimately permit a black knight to force a Muslim man to bake him a cake adorned with an image of Mohammed.

Anonymous Daniel February 14, 2015 10:43 AM  

The problem may be, White Christians have been pussified beyond redemption.

Maybe. Or maybe Christians tend to follow their historic pattern of not jumping the gun. That probably usually involves a bad generation or two of Christians along the way.

Blogger LP 999/Eliza February 14, 2015 10:47 AM  

Good to read Cu was finally honest but its a lose-lose for the atheists whose arguments crumble so easily yet so sweetly ironic! post americants times!

Anonymous some atheists fucking hate Leftists too February 14, 2015 11:04 AM  

You make me bake you a cake...
And I will bake you in a oven.
DEAL?

Blogger S1AL February 14, 2015 11:11 AM  

@Daniel - http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/POPSLAVE.HTM

That's just a more recent list. It's also notable that Christian Europe had effectively abolished slavery within its bounds somewhere between 500-1000 AD, a feat unmatched in human history.

Sorry to pontificate, but this is an issue I have to constantly correct.

But Cuomo does make a very honest point - to the left, the law is not natural in any form. Even the heathens and pagans of Greece and Roman would have been appalled at the notion.

Anonymous some atheists fucking hate Leftists too February 14, 2015 11:12 AM  

If rights come from the barrel of a gun...
WHO has the guns?

Anonymous Black Knight 37 February 14, 2015 11:21 AM  

Vox:

Serious question from a Black Knight perspective...

If History proves that the end game for Jews, queers and Africans is mass slaughter...

Is not this trend a GOOD thing?

-BK

Anonymous Angry February 14, 2015 11:25 AM  

I am reminded of this from Oscar the Grinch.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Stop complaining about a double standard, and see the truth.

For the left, there is no “double standard”; there is a single standard, universally applied, and it is this:

F*** you, whitey. No matter what the facts are, no matter what the circumstances are, just f*** you, whitey. Die, white man.

That is the core of their belief. They are not your loyal opposition, with whom you can argue in good faith. They are your deadly ENEMIES, who want you exterminated from the face of the earth. And they don’t care about any abstract principles; their only true principle is to exterminate YOU. They are more than happy to pretend that there are outside standards or principles of fair play, because so long as you believe that, they have the advantage.

Remember: whenever a leftist/liberal/anti-racist opens his mouth, all he is really saying is: Die, white man. F*** off and DIE.

Anonymous Bah February 14, 2015 11:25 AM  

S1AL,

That is a tendentious article.

"From 1435 to 1890, we have numerous bulls and encyclicals from several popes written to many bishops and the whole Christian faithful condemning both slavery and the slave trade."

There were Bulls that sanctioned and justified slavery.

The condemnatory Bulls were against *unjust* slavery - i.e., the enslavement of Christians. Just slavery - of pagans and Muslims - was permissible.

Blogger S1AL February 14, 2015 11:36 AM  

This is simply false. There is a quotation in that article condemning and forgiving the enslavement of the natives of the canary islands.

That, and slavery just didn't exist in Europe for a millennium... Aquinas wrote about it as a problem of foreign lands, useful for theological and philosophical insight, not a present issue.

Blogger Al Cibiades February 14, 2015 11:36 AM  

@ S1AL

One of the Cappadocian Church fathers had this to say about slavery in his Homily on Ecclesiastes I have excerpted below. This gets to the heart of the self-promoting humanitarians: They are assholes of the first order, full of envy and pride, never satisfied until all pay homage to their superiority. They can't conceive of a world without an agenda.

Why else would Obama and co. steeped in their own collective hubris, pitch a fit about Netanyahu speaking to congress? I wouldn't be surprised if they fancied themselves righteously ruthless characters in a modern setting of GRR Martin novel where they, naturally, prevail due to their supremacy. Now, to Gregory:

"I got me slaves and slave-girls."

For what price, tell me? What did you find in existence worth as much as this human nature? What price did you put on rationality? How many obols did you reckon the equivalent of the likeness of God? How many staters did you get for selling the being shaped by God?

God said, "Let us make man in our own image and likeness." If man is in the likeness of God, and rules the whole earth, and has been granted authority over everything on earth from God, who is his buyer, tell me? Who is his seller? To God alone belongs this power; or rather, not even to God himself. For his gracious gifts, it says, are irrevocable (Rom 11:29).

God would not therefore reduce the human race to slavery, since he himself, when we had been enslaved to sin, spontaneously recalled us to freedom. But if God does not enslave what is free, who is he that sets his own power above God's?

Gregory of Nyssa +395 AD

Blogger S1AL February 14, 2015 11:37 AM  

*condemning and forbidding

Blogger S1AL February 14, 2015 11:39 AM  

Great quote, thank you. I'll have to keep a note of that one.

Anonymous Earl February 14, 2015 11:45 AM  

The right is much more likely to have mercy on the left than the left is to have on the right. It is one of the fatal flaws of the right as seen from the leftist perspective.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus February 14, 2015 11:46 AM  

Angry February 14, 2015 11:25 AM, of course.

Anonymous Earl February 14, 2015 11:48 AM  

And also from the godless conservative perspective.

Blogger Al Cibiades February 14, 2015 11:53 AM  

@ Earl

Right! They fight to destroy. Christians, ideally, fight to break the other's will to fight, not to destroy.

Who are we to kill to solve a temporary "problem" except in defense? Check out Systema and Mikhail Ryabko. Very insightful regardless of the efficacy of the martial art itself.

Anonymous sawtooth February 14, 2015 12:14 PM  

"Our laws come from collective agreement and compromise"

This demonstrates how full of shit the left is.

So does the unborn have a say in this "collective agreement and compromise"?
Oh, perhaps because the unborn are incapable of "saying" anything then to the left, they aren't really human.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus February 14, 2015 12:20 PM  

sawtooth: "Oh, perhaps because the unborn are incapable of "saying" anything then to the left, they aren't really human."

In many cases the fathers are capable of saying something. They are not heard.

Blogger Maple Curtain February 14, 2015 12:24 PM  

That's what two generations of hippydom* has come down to - the will to power.

And, the narcissistic twits don't even understand that that is the whole of their ideology.

* The "Me" generation that were too young to fight the war but which benefited immensely from its aftermath, and the first-wave Boomers.

We can refer to the "r-selected" if we like, or merely observe that human beings cannot deal with peace and prosperity, without a sizable portion of the population assuming that it sees God in the mirror.

No crucible, no soul?

Blogger David February 14, 2015 12:30 PM  

It seems everyone today is a Great Collectivist, denying to individuals any premise that limits the power of those who rule.

Has empathy so fallen from favor that simply recognizing the unique life of other individuals (and all the subordinate rights of life, like liberty, property, freedom of thought, speech, and association) is too unfashionable to embrace?

Such is the foundation of total barbarism, synonymous with the Total State ruled by men and women who observe no inviolable boundaries on their actions.

The idiocy of Outcome Utilitarianism thus animates all, yielding the absurdity that a ruler, assuming the omniscience of a god, can predict the certain outcome of a plan of action and thus justify any act, completely unrestrained (e.g., the slaughter of innocents) as the means to the ends.

Theist or atheist, this is where we all now stand.

Blogger Chris Mallory February 14, 2015 12:34 PM  

"We can refer to the "r-selected" if we like, or merely observe that human beings cannot deal with peace and prosperity, without a sizable portion of the population assuming that it sees God in the mirror.

No crucible, no soul?"

Which is why the Lord Jesus Christ said "Blessed are the Peacemakers", because we need war to have a soul. You are way off base.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus February 14, 2015 12:38 PM  

Maple Curtain: "That's what two generations of hippydom* has come down to - the will to power.

And, the narcissistic twits don't even understand that that is the whole of their ideology."

Nor do they understand that the wielders of the power are anti-white, and as such they will leave nothing of the posterity or the values of any sub-set of whites, "hippies" included.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus February 14, 2015 12:39 PM  

"Our laws come from collective agreement and compromise."

No they don't. On key issues there is no compromise, only deceit, coercion and a false "consensus".

Blogger David February 14, 2015 12:46 PM  

Most people have to be socialized OUT of the normal reluctance to kill other humans (e.g., by military training) before they willingly engage in slaughter.

This shows that the norm is innate respect for others' right to life. The Left seems to openly embrace a brutal standard, that any individual who stands in the way of making an Eden of Earth is legitimately destroyed, thus freeing those in power to exercise at will the highest such action, that of tuning a person into a thing (a corpse.)

The zombie genre is thus art attempting to imitate Leftist life, and those who are not Saved (according to the Leftist bible) are but animated corpses to be de-animated.

Blogger Maple Curtain February 14, 2015 12:52 PM  

@Chris Mallory:

"Which is why the Lord Jesus Christ said "Blessed are the Peacemakers", because we need war to have a soul. You are way off base."

Sorry. Not making sense of that. Can you elaborate?

Blogger IM2L844 February 14, 2015 12:54 PM  

It is one of the fatal flaws of the right as seen from the leftist perspective.

Yes. They regard any semblance of a willingness to retreat and/or compromise on the part of the right as a weakness that should be exploited to the fullest. They're kind like ISIS that way.

Blogger James Dixon February 14, 2015 12:55 PM  

> Maybe, rights come from the barrel of a gun? That seems to be what the Left is saying. He who holds the gun, determines the rights.

That's exactly what they're saying. Some of them even recognize it. Almost none of them will admit it though. TGM being a perfect example. He's more than intelligent enough to recognize where that argument leads.

> If rights come from the barrel of a gun... WHO has the guns?

Why do you think the modern left has been trying to ban the private ownership of guns?

Blogger bob k. mando February 14, 2015 12:59 PM  

Hd Hammer February 14, 2015 8:08 AM
wreck havoc


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/wreak?s=t

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/wreck?s=t

Anonymous paleopaleo February 14, 2015 1:17 PM  

The DOI was written by men, at a time when slavery was legal. Don't you think it's a bit ironic that a group of slave owners sat down and wrote a list of human rights that come from God?

"All *MEN*" is key to understanding this; not "human rights". I would explain "Men" to mean "Freemen", and Freemen to mean the kind of man who is *capable* of living responsibly. Most humans are not capable of living freely, making their own decisions, planning for their future, deferring gratification, investment, etc. etc.

The Founding Fathers were all supremely capable and they were talking about men like themselves. God's law has always included childlike slaves.

Anonymous Jonathan February 14, 2015 1:26 PM  

@ TGM

Only 14 of the 56 delegates had significant slave holdings. Some had "house slaves", better known as domestic servants and basically considered members of the household - technically slaves but not what people think when they hear that term.

Blogger Maple Curtain February 14, 2015 1:27 PM  

"The Founding Fathers were all supremely capable and they were talking about men like themselves. God's law has always included childlike slaves."

Sounds pretty self-serving to me.

More like Hinduism than Christianity, I reckon.

A belief system that conveniently provides a rationalization for why those at the top of the social order are in that position - it's divinely ordained!

Ya, sure it is. Pull the other one, will ya.

Anonymous The other skeptic February 14, 2015 1:42 PM  

Japanese discuss apartheid.

Blogger S1AL February 14, 2015 2:03 PM  

It's a significant statement that even the signers who owned slaves either freed them or had planned to do so upon their deaths.

Also worth noting than several states banned miscegenation and only have voting rights to about 20% of the adult, male population.

Now, we could debate about whether or not it would be good to roll back some of the changes from that time, but it's good to remember that many of them probably affect one's self.

Anonymous Jack Amok February 14, 2015 2:35 PM  

Either we agree that 2+2=4, or we agree that 2+2 equals whatever suits the person currently in charge.

But even if they were, as you say, hypocrites...

The charge of hypocrisy is an exceptionally juvenile one specifically becuase it indicates a lack of experience with the world.

Everyone is a hypocrite to some degree, all of us. It is part of the human condition. That is why the concept of rights that transcend our own ingenuity is so valuable. It's a standard above us that we can be judged against.

Besides, with hypocrisy, certainly it is easy to see when someone holds contradictory positions, but if you've abandoned 2+2=4, how do you tell which contradictory position is right? Does 2+2=3, or does it equal 5? Sometimes the local lord of the manor says one, sometimes the other. How to tell which is right?

Anonymous Jack Amok February 14, 2015 2:39 PM  

I think that this was a mistake of the Christian Right. They should never of fought so hard for the government to enshrine a definition of marriage in law(s). Once they argued so vehemently for the government to take on that responsibility, that power, they should not have been surprised when the government used it in a way that they never intended (or in this case the complete opposite of what they intended).

Oh, this is yet another exmaple of the idiots walking into traps laid for them by the Left. The Left has put this one over on the Christian Right time and time again.

Start with a situation governed by voluntary civic morality. Leftists begin to openly flaunt the old morality. Once the Churchians start to grumble about it, the left - knowing the trap is properly baited - invites the Right in:

Leftist: "The government should be in charge of Such-and-such and they should declare our position the moral one!"

Idiot Response: "No! The government should uphold traditional morality!"

Leftist: (the trap springing shut) "Thank you for agreeing the government should be in charge of morality..."

Anonymous Anubis February 14, 2015 3:02 PM  

"Japanese discuss apartheid."
Looks at EU/US/Greece no thank you no hara-kiri/seppuku for me.

"Do we allow convicted felons, people in comas or five year olds to vote?"

Yes even the dead can vote. Eric Holder argued against Florida's Felon No Vote law by saying that 1/3 voting age black males are felons

"@Godfrey /snicker, and the Left won't have even seen it coming."

They believe in equalism not consequences

"How then do you know that freedom is a right of Man?"
You have free will, what you do with it is up to you, as seen in Cubans building boats.

"Why do you think the modern left has been trying to ban the private ownership of guns?"

They seem to only be against white people owning guns, as seen in London's Operation Trident shootout with a black that started the 2011 riots, and the Turner diaries. Blacks caught with guns in gun free zones are profiling but leftists don't want a grandfather to be able to give his grandson his rifle.

Anonymous j February 14, 2015 3:05 PM  

God made man, but Sam Colt made them equal. Rights come from a willingness and capacity to do violence to those that would violate them. God won't interfere to protect your rights, ergo, rights can't be derived from God.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus February 14, 2015 3:25 PM  

Jack Amok: "Oh, this is yet another exmaple of the idiots walking into traps laid for them by the Left."

I don't think so. A trap goes off if you spring it; an attack that proceeds with all vigor regardless is something else. The gay lobby was going to regulate in its own favor whatever cultural conservatives did.

Anonymous TheVillageIdiot(Ret.) February 14, 2015 3:31 PM  

John Adams in a speech to the military in 1798 warned his fellow countrymen stating, "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams is a signer of the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights and our second President.

DannyR

Blogger Joshua Sinistar February 14, 2015 3:59 PM  

I am just so sick and tired of imbeciles who take "All men are created equal" out of context and use it to support their deluded fantasies of egalitarianism. The Founding Fathers were not egalitarians. The nutcases like Robespierre and the Fraternity of Evil called the French Revolution were egalitarians or said so anyway, like the elitists like Hillary who say it and then look down their noses at you for being stupid enough to buy that garbage. I heard they found Robespierre in an insane asylum for killing his family when they found out he was homosexual.
The "All men are created equal" is a snark at the King of England and the entire premise of nobility where he and his court thought they had Divine Right to rule based on the fact of being the sons of noblemen. If you told the colonists that negroes were the equals of Whites they would have carted your ass to an insane asylum and chained you to a wall to pick bugs out of your rice.
It should be obvious to anyone with even a glimmer of sanity or more perception than Mr. Magoo that the races of Man are imbued with different characters and tendencies based on I.Q. and disposition. Ignorant naked savages living a Stone Age existence in a Hunter/Gatherer Stage of Development will never attain civilized traits by simply transplanting them to a civilized country. Go to any black neighborhood and gasp at the sight of the Urban Jungle overgrown with tall grass and savage hunting parties and behold the ignorance of The Civil Rights movement.

Anonymous A.B. Prosper February 14, 2015 4:01 PM  

I don't accept the idea of inalienable or divinely granted rights either , doesn't mean they aren't worth fighting for. Terry Pratchet got this right in Hogfather I think

All right," said Susan. "I'm not stupid. You're saying humans need... fantasies to make life bearable."
REALLY? AS IF IT WAS SOME KIND OF PINK PILL? NO. HUMANS NEED FANTASY TO BE HUMAN. TO BE THE PLACE WHERE THE FALLING ANGEL MEETS THE RISING APE.
"Tooth fairies? Hogfathers? Little—"
YES. AS PRACTICE. YOU HAVE TO START OUT LEARNING TO BELIEVE THE LITTLE LIES.
"So we can believe the big ones?"
YES. JUSTICE. MERCY. DUTY. THAT SORT OF THING.
"They're not the same at all!"
YOU THINK SO? THEN TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE AND THEN SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE OF MERCY. AND YET—Death waved a hand. AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE IS SOME...SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED.
"Yes, but people have got to believe that, or what's the point—"
MY POINT EXACTLY.”

Anonymous TheVillageIdiot(Ret.) February 14, 2015 4:10 PM  

British Englishmen,Canadian Englishmen,Australian Englishmen:
"Divine Right of Kings"
American Englishmen:
"Divine Rights of Men”

DannyR

Anonymous redsash February 14, 2015 4:28 PM  

Locke had it correct when he penned the phrase the Right to Life, Liberty, and Property. TJ' s the pursuit of happiness is clearly a subset of Liberty and shows TJ' s deist and anti-Christian mindset.

These are God given rights, natural rights if you prefer, codified in the Ten Commandments, simplified by Jesus, and maintained by godly men more than willing to shed the blood of evil men as well as their own.

Anonymous GaryH February 14, 2015 4:47 PM  

I wish people would read Matthew Stewart's book, Nature's God, The Heretical Origins of American Republic.

Gary North wrote a similar book, "Conspiracy in Philadelphia" that's free for download at:

www.garynorth.com/conspiracyinphiladelphia.pdf

Blogger rumpole5 February 14, 2015 4:51 PM  

"Neither the Bible nor much in pre-1700s Christian tradition says anything against slavery, so no irony or hypocrisy exists." -- I disagree, and suggest that you very carefully read the book of Philemon in the context of Jesus' statement that his kingdom was not of this world. There is no biblically correct form of goverment in this fallen world. The best we can hope for is to live amongst a critical mass of individuals who acknowledge Christ as their sovereign. In Christ there is no slave or free because each of us have been bought and paid for with the price of His shed blood.

Anonymous TheVillageIdiot(Ret.) February 14, 2015 4:59 PM  

What the Declaration of Independence declared to be self-evident and unalienable rights, AMONG THEM BEING Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

So Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Are just a small example of the many “Divine Rights of Men”

DannyR

Anonymous 11B February 14, 2015 5:29 PM  

"Our rights" come from "Nature's God". In NO way was the American Revolution Christian.

The American Revolution would have been DOA without the Christians who filled its ranks of soldiers and militiamen.

Blogger Verne February 14, 2015 6:00 PM  

I conversion is past my point this late. But it is s fact that if rights are granted by man. Then rights do not exist at all. Only rules and laws that csn change with every election

Blogger Kenneth Anderson February 14, 2015 6:40 PM  

For what it's worth, also:

I'm an atheist, but detest the Leftist view that rights are some mere matter of subjective "agreement". Our rights emerge from our nature and the nature of the world---a person's liberty and self-ownership are based upon the unique human needs for independence, social peace and productivity.

Or to put it another way, whether God is our creator or not, the facts inherent in our creation determine our natural rights. If there were a God, then He would have determined what rights we have at the moment of our creation and by means of that very creation, rather than subjectively afterward. A God who decreed right and wrong in a manner destructive of his own creation would be a perverse and evil deity.

All the above fits into the Founders' sense of things. Those who were Deists saw our rights as natural rights. Those Founders who were more firmly religious (believing in a more personal and interested God, but still very much people of the Enlightenment) saw things nearly same way, with God's endowment of our rights as co-emergent with our creation.

The idea of a subjective morality is not necessary to atheism. And unfortunately, subjective morality is intrinsic to some religious views which posit that that moral values are merely the subjective whim of a deity.



Blogger Mr.MantraMan February 14, 2015 6:45 PM  

Next time a leftoid uses some imaginary authority in rhetoric respond, "In your opinion . . . . "

Blogger Kenneth Anderson February 14, 2015 6:47 PM  

And I just bought my first Vox Day novel!

Thank you Vox for the blog and the publishing.

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler February 14, 2015 7:11 PM  

True, 11b. Heretic Christians filled the ranks while Deists based on the ideology of Spinoza and Giordano Bruno constructed the ideology of America. As Matthew Stewart points out in Boston and other places, the intellectual class was deist/atheist. Thomas Paine, the core motivator of the Revolution with his book Commonsense was an atheist.

Many of the intelligent turned their back on "priestcraft", superstition and the made up charade of a Triune God, a divine Jesus, original sin, creation ex nihilo. The Presbyterians, arch radical Protestants, were fighting the Anglicans with their remaining vestiges of Popery.

What formed the basis of the American Revolution was "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." Radical Protestants joined with Freethinkers, atheists and Deists to change the world. It was all based on hate; hatred of the Popery of Anglicanism and the Monarchy. It was a combination of European liberal, European heretics, European atheists/Deists who formed the basis of the American Revolution which they hoped would spread across the world, which it has.

And this project is failing right before our very eyes.

Blogger James Dixon February 14, 2015 8:40 PM  

> And this project is failing right before our very eyes.

All governments fall eventually, Wheeler. The US is not different than any other in that regard.

Blogger dfordoom February 14, 2015 9:31 PM  

The big problem is that Americans got this crazy idea that democracy equals freedom. Nothing could be further from the truth. England was a free country before it was a democracy. It was a free country because of the common law, backed up by Magna Carta. The whole point of the common law was that it was independent of the government. It was a protection against the government. As soon as England got democracy politicians began the process of dismantling the common law and overturning Magna Carta, a process which was largely completed by Tony Blair.

Freedom is actually incompatible with democracy. Democracy says that a government elected by 51 percent of the voters can take my freedoms away from me. The common law and Magna Carta were specifically designed to stop that from happening. They were intended to enshrine ETERNAL freedoms, safe from the whims of governments.

Anonymous TheVillageIdiot(Ret.) February 14, 2015 9:32 PM  

When asked what type of government the American people were going to participate in, by a well-meaning woman, a stern Benjamin Franklin warned that our new government was going to be
“A Republic, madam, if you can keep it.”


Just how long did we keep our Constitutional Republic before it deteriorated into a failed Democracy?

DannyR

Anonymous . February 14, 2015 9:37 PM  

British Englishmen,Canadian Englishmen,Australian Englishmen:
"Divine Right of Kings"
American Englishmen:
"Divine Rights of Men”


The English were over the whole "divine right of kings" thing long before the American revolution.

You don't generally acknowledge the divine right of kings when you execute them, as the English did in 1649.

Blogger dfordoom February 14, 2015 9:49 PM  

Most people have to be socialized OUT of the normal reluctance to kill other humans (e.g., by military training) before they willingly engage in slaughter.

This shows that the norm is innate respect for others' right to life. The Left seems to openly embrace a brutal standard, that any individual who stands in the way of making an Eden of Earth is legitimately destroyed, thus freeing those in power to exercise at will the highest such action, that of tuning a person into a thing (a corpse.)


You've missed the point of the last 50 years of western history. The Left doesn't kill people any longer. If they did they would be easy to oppose, and they would have faced a horrific backlash by now. The Left simply turns its enemies into unpersons. They lose their jobs, they lose their homes, they lose their families. But they aren't killed, so nobody complains. There are no martyrs created.

The huge advantage of this for the Left is that it removes the option of violent opposition, because any opposition that resorts to violence automatically loses the high moral ground.

You have to employ the same tactics as the Left. Be utterly ruthless but in a non-violent way. Use things like civil disobedience (it worked for Gandhi). Pick a few random leftists and then work on ways to destroy their careers. Use their own weapons. Accuse them of hate speech. Turn their own laws against them. Tie up the courts with frivolous legal challenges. And never relax the pressure. Make their government unworkable.

Blogger dfordoom February 14, 2015 10:02 PM  

British Englishmen,Canadian Englishmen,Australian Englishmen:
"Divine Right of Kings"


Canadian and Australian Englishmen never believed in the divine right of kings. Nor did English Englishmen after the Glorious Revolution in 1688.

The English common law, Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights (yes Britain has a Bill of Rights, dating from 1689), the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679 - these were all designed to limit the power of kings (and governments). The Divine Right of Kings is a European idea that has always been regarded with detestation by Englishmen. That's why England was a free country until quite recently, and that's why European countries have never been truly free countries.

The American Revolution was inspired by the Glorious Revolution. The American Revolution was fundamentally an English thing, something only Englishmen would have contemplated.

Anonymous NRx February 14, 2015 10:12 PM  

America was founded by Jews and Protestants. That is why it sucks and failed.

Anonymous MxPx February 14, 2015 11:15 PM  

Are rights and laws the same thing? Or, are God given rights taken as the foundation, the starting point... and then laws should ideally build upon those, but never infringe on those?

If laws and rights aren't necessarily the same thing, was Cuomo displaying his ignorance of the fact when he made that quote?

Anonymous Didas Kalos February 15, 2015 12:40 AM  

For a few posting here, if you will continue seeking truth, I will quote Jesus, "Thou art not far from the kingdom of God."

Anonymous . February 15, 2015 12:57 AM  

America was founded by Jews and Protestants. That is why it sucks and failed.

Lay off the paint chips, retard.

Anonymous Andrew Spooner Jr. February 15, 2015 3:56 AM  

I've been arguing with atheists all day on facebook about subjective versus objective rights, and an idea occurred to me as a result. Forgive me if this is slightly off topic, but I felt it warranted sharing, and this post is somewhat on the same topic.

Hypothesis: If these two conditions are met; a) inflation theory is shown to be correct, and b) a mechanism is demonstrated by which information can be exchanged between areas of the proposed multiverse which are separated by light-speed horizons; this will be sufficient inferential evidence of the existence of a multiverse-wide supreme being in the form of a Boltzmann Brain of infinite capacity.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts