The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
NYT: "Some Worry About Judicial Nominee’s Ties to a Religious Group"
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From the New York Times:

Some Worry About Judicial Nominee’s Ties to a Religious Group
By LAURIE GOODSTEIN SEPT. 28, 2017

One of President Trump’s judicial nominees became something of a hero to religious conservatives after she was grilled at a Senate hearing this month over whether her Roman Catholic faith would influence her decisions on the bench.

The nominee, Amy Coney Barrett, a law professor up for an appeals court seat, had raised the issue herself in articles and speeches over the years. The Democratic senators on the Judiciary Committee zeroed in on her writings, and in the process prompted accusations that they were engaged in religious bigotry.

“The dogma lives loudly within you,” declared Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, in what has become an infamous phrase. …

Ms. Barrett told the senators that she was a faithful Catholic, and that her religious beliefs would not affect her decisions as an appellate judge. But her membership in a small, tightly knit Christian group called People of Praise never came up at the hearing, and might have led to even more intense questioning.

Some of the group’s practices would surprise many faithful Catholics. Members of the group swear a lifelong oath of loyalty, called a covenant, to one another, and are assigned and are accountable to a personal adviser, called a “head” for men and a “handmaid” for women. The group teaches that husbands are the heads of their wives and should take authority over the family.

Current and former members say that the heads and handmaids give direction on important decisions, including whom to date or marry, where to live, whether to take a job or buy a home, and how to raise children.

Legal scholars said that such loyalty oaths could raise legitimate questions about a judicial nominee’s independence and impartiality. …

Ms. Barrett was questioned in particular about a 1998 scholarly article in which she and her co-author argued that sometimes Catholic trial judges should recuse themselves from the sentencing phase of death penalty cases.

Obviously, Senator Feinstein’s concerns about Professor Barrett’s biases are completely different from even any hypothetical skepticism about long-time U.S. State Department honcho Dennis Ross’s unquestionable right to serve as “Israel’s lawyer” during Middle Eastern negotiations at American taxpayers’ expense.

 
Hide 161 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. “The dogma lives loudly within you,” declared Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, in what has become an infamous phrase. …

    This is a genuine compliment to any Christian.

    But her membership in a small, tightly knit Christian group called People of Praise never came up at the hearing, and might have led to even more intense questioning.

    She’s a charismatic Catholic, given what’s on the website. Not my cup of tea but it’s not cultish (kinda). I’m sure the movement has prevented many Catholics from becoming Pentecostal, for what that’s worth.

    http://peopleofpraise.org/about/who-we-are/charismatic/

    I note the NYT makes a very careful point not to actually use the phrase “charismatic Catholic” because that sounds vaguely normal or merely a modification/subgroup of Catholic.

    Some of the group’s practices would surprise many faithful Catholics.

    I appreciate the concern from the NYT, that solid bastion of Catholic thought. It is true that they might attend Mass regularly and believe in the fundamental teachings of the Catholic Church. There many “faithful Catholics” for whom that would be surprising.

    Members of the group swear a lifelong oath of loyalty, called a covenant, to one another, and are assigned and are accountable to a personal adviser, called a “head” for men and a “handmaid” for women. The group teaches that husbands are the heads of their wives and should take authority over the family.

    The horror! Can you believe they are organizing their families just like St. Paul suggests? They may want to brush up on the guy’s responsibilities, which is loving his wife like Christ loved His Church, ie suffer and die for her. It makes the “let him take the lead” passage worth a second look. To my eye, the women appear to have gotten the better end of the deal.

    Current and former members say that the heads and handmaids give direction on important decisions, including whom to date or marry, where to live, whether to take a job or buy a home, and how to raise children.

    Can you imagine getting advise from someone who shares your religious beliefs and might care about you personally? Normal people get their advise from Facebook and the opinion columns of the NYT.

    I have no idea how this writer got through this article without literally shaking.

    • Agree: Twinkie
    • Replies: @Paul Murphy
    I share your concerns. We cannot have people taking Catholicism too seriously. The results can be shocking. For instance, I am told some "faithful" Catholics attend Mass not just every Sunday, but EVERY day. During the workweek! Do they think we live in medeival times?
    , @Forbes

    I have no idea how this writer got through this article without literally shaking.
     
    Or getting physically ill, or worse...
    , @Anon

    I’m sure the movement has prevented many Catholics from becoming Pentecostal, for what that’s worth.
     
    I hope so. I've heard rumours of outreach efforts between them and Pentecostals that sound excessive, but they may very well be untrue. I don't actually know any Catholic charismatics (though I do know some Pentecostals).

    I have no idea how this writer got through this article without literally shaking.
     
    Maybe she's a Pentecostal and reserves her shaking for other occasions.
    , @Charles Erwin Wilson
    The anti-Catholic bigotry among writers such as LAURIE GOODSTEIN, is the norm for a secularist/scientismist. For LAURIE GOODSTEIN there is no God but the great god Science, unless we note that the god LAURIE GOODSTEIN has been elevated to divinity.

    And yes, eternity will suck for LAURIE GOODSTEIN.
  2. What if you don’t want anyone who prays to invisible sky fairies judging you? Facts, evidence, and logic only for me please!

    • Replies: @AM
    "What if you don’t want anyone who prays to invisible sky fairies judging you? Facts, evidence, and logic only for me please!"

    I can't tell from your comment history if you're serious or not. If you are, I'd start by reading up on real Christian theology, which is exactly nothing like praying to invisible sky fairies.

    Christianity is the religion of facts, evidence, and logic. The NYT, Richard Dawkins, and the media at large has zero interest in presenting it that way.
    , @Tracy
    Christians don't believe in "sky fairies"; they believe in God -- you know, the Uncaused Cause, the Prime Mover, the Creator, and so on. Unless you can think of how the universe came from nothing that became something and then exploded and then was able to produce life, I'll stick with the God story.
    , @Pat Casey
    Oh we got plenty of evidence. Lourdes, Fatima, Padre Pio, the Shroud of Turin, Eucharistic miracles etc. That you don't now about the evidence is maybe because atheists are naive. Maybe youu think if there was real evidence there would be some sort of official pronouncement from science that there is evidence and it wouldn't be a question anymore and everyone would believe in the evidence. But that hasn't happened--and its naive to think it would. My experience is that most atheists who are exposed to the evidence shrug it off and go about like it didn't exist.
    , @Craig
    I love the way that materialists think they have "facts, evidence and logic" on their side. What a bunch of boobs. Aristotle outlined the proof for the existence of God in the 4th century BC. Thomas Aquinas extended and perfected that proof in the 13th century.
    , @TomSchmidt

    What if you don’t want anyone who prays to invisible sky fairies judging you? Facts, evidence, and logic only for me please!
     
    Assuming you want human judges, not computers, which suffer from the limitations of the Church-Turing thesis, you've got a problem: the judges who consider only facts, logic, and evidence are as prevalent as fairies.

    https://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/14/time-and-judgment/


    A new paper finds that experienced parole judges in Israel granted freedom about 65 percent of the time to the first prisoner who appeared before them on a given day. By the end of a morning session, the chance of release had dropped almost to zero.

    After the same judge returned from a lunch break, the first prisoner once again had about a 65 percent chance at freedom. And once again the odds declined steadily.
     

    , @Anodynymous
    "What if you don’t want anyone who prays to invisible sky fairies judging you? Facts, evidence, and logic only for me please!"

    You go get 'em, Tiger! I prefer to be governed by atheist liberals who believe in solid science - like the fact that human (and only human) evolution came to a complete halt 50,000 years ago, or that a person can choose which gender he/she/xe belongs to.
    , @whorefinder
    lol. You're a poor quality atheist troll. Up your game. 2/10; would've been 1/10, but at least you managed to tie your hatred of truth to the topic at hand.
    , @guest
    "invisible sky fairies"

    Like Tyr? Are you thinking of ancient Indo-Europeans? Yeah, who needs them!

    "judging you"

    Us moderns get hung up on this part. Though we judge up a storm upon eachother. Probably because we fear more than anything a Sky God taking away the base pleasures that form our entire purpose for being.
  3. I thought we outlawed religious tests.

    • LOL: The Anti-Gnostic
    • Replies: @AM
    "I thought we outlawed religious tests."

    We did. But appears some people still insist on taking Christianity seriously in a nation founded on Christian principles. That's scary and feels bad.

    Welcome to the current year.
    , @Anodynymous
    "I thought we outlawed religious tests."

    That clause was eaten by an emanation of a penumbra. It's no longer in there, except as it applies to Muslim immigration, which it says absolutely nothing about.
    , @AnotherDad

    I thought we outlawed religious tests.
     
    That's the dead constitution.

    In the living constitution, it's "We shall have no judges who believe in any religion, but tenets of contemporary Progressivism**".

    (**Whatever they are this week.)

  4. I’ve often wondered what would happen if nominees just refused to dance. Basically came out and said, yes I’m a Catholic and yes I believe in the faith, and yes you can damned well vote against me if you don’t like that. Good, I can feel your anger. The filibuster is done and buried, it’d be nice if we could get some straightforward slugfests going instead of enduring the simpering sanctimony of scolds who lack even a real faith.

    • Replies: @Bill

    I’ve often wondered what would happen if nominees just refused to dance.
     
    Read about Robert Bork. He pretty much refused to dance. He was then painted as an extremist and not confirmed. So, that's what would happen. There is not, for example, a pro-life majority in the senate. If you want to be confirmed, people like Collins have to vote for you. I don't know if she exactly minds voting for sane judges, but she definitely wants plausible deniability.

    That doesn't settle the question of whether appointees should occasionally admit they are sane. Maybe it is useful for stimulating the drooling army of somnambulists who vote GOP on cultural issues. Martyrs are important for movement-building.
     
     

  5. @AM

    “The dogma lives loudly within you,” declared Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, in what has become an infamous phrase. …
     
    This is a genuine compliment to any Christian.

    But her membership in a small, tightly knit Christian group called People of Praise never came up at the hearing, and might have led to even more intense questioning.
     
    She's a charismatic Catholic, given what's on the website. Not my cup of tea but it's not cultish (kinda). I'm sure the movement has prevented many Catholics from becoming Pentecostal, for what that's worth.

    http://peopleofpraise.org/about/who-we-are/charismatic/

    I note the NYT makes a very careful point not to actually use the phrase "charismatic Catholic" because that sounds vaguely normal or merely a modification/subgroup of Catholic.


    Some of the group’s practices would surprise many faithful Catholics.
     
    I appreciate the concern from the NYT, that solid bastion of Catholic thought. It is true that they might attend Mass regularly and believe in the fundamental teachings of the Catholic Church. There many "faithful Catholics" for whom that would be surprising.

    Members of the group swear a lifelong oath of loyalty, called a covenant, to one another, and are assigned and are accountable to a personal adviser, called a “head” for men and a “handmaid” for women. The group teaches that husbands are the heads of their wives and should take authority over the family.
     
    The horror! Can you believe they are organizing their families just like St. Paul suggests? They may want to brush up on the guy's responsibilities, which is loving his wife like Christ loved His Church, ie suffer and die for her. It makes the "let him take the lead" passage worth a second look. To my eye, the women appear to have gotten the better end of the deal.

    Current and former members say that the heads and handmaids give direction on important decisions, including whom to date or marry, where to live, whether to take a job or buy a home, and how to raise children.
     
    Can you imagine getting advise from someone who shares your religious beliefs and might care about you personally? Normal people get their advise from Facebook and the opinion columns of the NYT.

    I have no idea how this writer got through this article without literally shaking.

    I share your concerns. We cannot have people taking Catholicism too seriously. The results can be shocking. For instance, I am told some “faithful” Catholics attend Mass not just every Sunday, but EVERY day. During the workweek! Do they think we live in medeival times?

    • LOL: AM
    • Replies: @Anon
    I wish this was possible in my parish but they time daily masses to correspond with the work day.
    , @Neuday
    Yeah! Who does this God guy think who he is? What has he ever done for us? Talk about privilege . . .
  6. Now this is iSteve operating as a well-oiled machine. Post an excerpt and let the commenters provide the punchline.

  7. Wonder if Goodstein would care to list those legal scholars? You can’t ask as that would be out of bounds.

  8. There is only one religious group to which nominees are permitted ties without question.

    • Replies: @Stan d Mute
    You mean Zoroastrians? Buddhists? Shintos? Hindus? Cargo Cultists? Wiccans? Mormons? Come on, the suspense is just killing me!

    Wait, it’s Scientologists right?
    , @Barnard
    I don't know about that. If a Democrat had the chance to nominate the first Muslim Supreme Court Justice any questions about his religion influencing court decisions would be considered beyond the pale.
    , @bored identity
    There is only one religious group to which nominees are permitted ties without question...Every.Single.Time.


    BTW, where's Jack D to tinyduck Sailer on reprllent character of his hypothetical skepticism?
    , @Rosamond Vincy
    I'd these days there at least two. Of course, they thoroughly hate each other.
  9. This should end doubt that we lost WWII. The backstabbers won. As they would put it: never again.

  10. @AM

    “The dogma lives loudly within you,” declared Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, in what has become an infamous phrase. …
     
    This is a genuine compliment to any Christian.

    But her membership in a small, tightly knit Christian group called People of Praise never came up at the hearing, and might have led to even more intense questioning.
     
    She's a charismatic Catholic, given what's on the website. Not my cup of tea but it's not cultish (kinda). I'm sure the movement has prevented many Catholics from becoming Pentecostal, for what that's worth.

    http://peopleofpraise.org/about/who-we-are/charismatic/

    I note the NYT makes a very careful point not to actually use the phrase "charismatic Catholic" because that sounds vaguely normal or merely a modification/subgroup of Catholic.


    Some of the group’s practices would surprise many faithful Catholics.
     
    I appreciate the concern from the NYT, that solid bastion of Catholic thought. It is true that they might attend Mass regularly and believe in the fundamental teachings of the Catholic Church. There many "faithful Catholics" for whom that would be surprising.

    Members of the group swear a lifelong oath of loyalty, called a covenant, to one another, and are assigned and are accountable to a personal adviser, called a “head” for men and a “handmaid” for women. The group teaches that husbands are the heads of their wives and should take authority over the family.
     
    The horror! Can you believe they are organizing their families just like St. Paul suggests? They may want to brush up on the guy's responsibilities, which is loving his wife like Christ loved His Church, ie suffer and die for her. It makes the "let him take the lead" passage worth a second look. To my eye, the women appear to have gotten the better end of the deal.

    Current and former members say that the heads and handmaids give direction on important decisions, including whom to date or marry, where to live, whether to take a job or buy a home, and how to raise children.
     
    Can you imagine getting advise from someone who shares your religious beliefs and might care about you personally? Normal people get their advise from Facebook and the opinion columns of the NYT.

    I have no idea how this writer got through this article without literally shaking.

    I have no idea how this writer got through this article without literally shaking.

    Or getting physically ill, or worse…

  11. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @AM

    “The dogma lives loudly within you,” declared Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, in what has become an infamous phrase. …
     
    This is a genuine compliment to any Christian.

    But her membership in a small, tightly knit Christian group called People of Praise never came up at the hearing, and might have led to even more intense questioning.
     
    She's a charismatic Catholic, given what's on the website. Not my cup of tea but it's not cultish (kinda). I'm sure the movement has prevented many Catholics from becoming Pentecostal, for what that's worth.

    http://peopleofpraise.org/about/who-we-are/charismatic/

    I note the NYT makes a very careful point not to actually use the phrase "charismatic Catholic" because that sounds vaguely normal or merely a modification/subgroup of Catholic.


    Some of the group’s practices would surprise many faithful Catholics.
     
    I appreciate the concern from the NYT, that solid bastion of Catholic thought. It is true that they might attend Mass regularly and believe in the fundamental teachings of the Catholic Church. There many "faithful Catholics" for whom that would be surprising.

    Members of the group swear a lifelong oath of loyalty, called a covenant, to one another, and are assigned and are accountable to a personal adviser, called a “head” for men and a “handmaid” for women. The group teaches that husbands are the heads of their wives and should take authority over the family.
     
    The horror! Can you believe they are organizing their families just like St. Paul suggests? They may want to brush up on the guy's responsibilities, which is loving his wife like Christ loved His Church, ie suffer and die for her. It makes the "let him take the lead" passage worth a second look. To my eye, the women appear to have gotten the better end of the deal.

    Current and former members say that the heads and handmaids give direction on important decisions, including whom to date or marry, where to live, whether to take a job or buy a home, and how to raise children.
     
    Can you imagine getting advise from someone who shares your religious beliefs and might care about you personally? Normal people get their advise from Facebook and the opinion columns of the NYT.

    I have no idea how this writer got through this article without literally shaking.

    I’m sure the movement has prevented many Catholics from becoming Pentecostal, for what that’s worth.

    I hope so. I’ve heard rumours of outreach efforts between them and Pentecostals that sound excessive, but they may very well be untrue. I don’t actually know any Catholic charismatics (though I do know some Pentecostals).

    I have no idea how this writer got through this article without literally shaking.

    Maybe she’s a Pentecostal and reserves her shaking for other occasions.

  12. @Paul Murphy
    I share your concerns. We cannot have people taking Catholicism too seriously. The results can be shocking. For instance, I am told some "faithful" Catholics attend Mass not just every Sunday, but EVERY day. During the workweek! Do they think we live in medeival times?

    I wish this was possible in my parish but they time daily masses to correspond with the work day.

    • Replies: @Paul Murphy
    It is difficult. I am lucky to have multiple choices near me. Nonetheless, I sometimes go to Anglican or Lutheran services in order to have a service that fits my life.
  13. a “handmaid” for women.

    A handmaid? A handmaid??

    Like one of those women that they, you know, tell tales about?!

    Connect the dots, people!!!

    • LOL: TomSchmidt
  14. @Stan d Mute
    What if you don’t want anyone who prays to invisible sky fairies judging you? Facts, evidence, and logic only for me please!

    “What if you don’t want anyone who prays to invisible sky fairies judging you? Facts, evidence, and logic only for me please!”

    I can’t tell from your comment history if you’re serious or not. If you are, I’d start by reading up on real Christian theology, which is exactly nothing like praying to invisible sky fairies.

    Christianity is the religion of facts, evidence, and logic. The NYT, Richard Dawkins, and the media at large has zero interest in presenting it that way.

    • Disagree: Roderick Spode
    • Replies: @AndrewR
    Their lack of interest in presenting Christianity as The Religion of Facts, Evidence and Logic obviously doesn't mean that Christianity can be truthfully described as such.

    http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/02/10/darwin-day/ft_16-02-12_darwinday_640px/
    , @Stan d Mute

    Christianity is the religion of facts, evidence, and logic.

     

    Except for that time when Greek and Roman gods were “the religion of facts, evidence, and logic.” Or that few hundred years when YHWH (the Mohamster version, not your Yeshua version) was that god. Etc. Ad nauseum.

    Wait, do you deny the existence of an invisible sky fairy? Can you prove the sky fairy doesn’t exist?

    https://youtu.be/8nAos1M-_Ts

    Your simple assertion that Dawkins is wrong isn’t an argument. He makes the rather obvious point that science is based on testing hypotheses - your hypothesis is that “invisible sky fairy” doesn’t exist. Can you prove that? Because you sure failed pretty badly on your “the religion of facts, evidence, and logic” claim.
  15. @TWS
    I thought we outlawed religious tests.

    “I thought we outlawed religious tests.”

    We did. But appears some people still insist on taking Christianity seriously in a nation founded on Christian principles. That’s scary and feels bad.

    Welcome to the current year.

    • Replies: @guest
    To be fair plenty of the founding stock would look askance at papist judges. You might have seen some more explicit insinuations than found in senatorial questioning or the NYT. It would be published in anonymous broadsides.

    The Pointy-Hatted Menace Picks Up His Gavel, Dons Robes...is an American inquisition soon to follow?

    by Latinicus Romulan Concernedcitizenismo
  16. @Buzz Mohawk
    There is only one religious group to which nominees are permitted ties without question.

    You mean Zoroastrians? Buddhists? Shintos? Hindus? Cargo Cultists? Wiccans? Mormons? Come on, the suspense is just killing me!

    Wait, it’s Scientologists right?

    • LOL: Buzz Mohawk
    • Replies: @Father O'Hara
    Methodists!
    , @anon
    The Yazidis.. every...single...time.
  17. “Their ringer spotted our ringer.”

  18. I wonder how much of this criticism is motivated by jealousy. This woman is beautiful, in good shape, and a law professor at a prestigious university. All this while raising 7 children.

    I’m in awe. If I was an unmarried, underpaid female reporter I’d be jealous.

    • Agree: Desiderius
  19. Some Worry About Judicial Nominee’s Ties to a Religious Group

    Oddly enough, I never saw (((Laurie Goodstein))) or anyone else at the NYT express such concerns when Kagan, Ginsberg and Breyer were confirmed to the Supreme Court, or when Garland was nominated…

    • Agree: AndrewR
    • Replies: @AndrewR
    Total cohencidence
    , @kaganovitch
    That's because Kagan,Ginsberg and Breyer are about as religious as the late Hugh Hefner. If a practicing Orthodox jew was nominated you can bet Goodstien's "legal scholars" would express "concerns" . Anything that threatens the holy sacrament of abortion is dangerous to these people.
  20. So is anyone else wondering how many times Dianne Feinstein has watched the Star Wars movies?

    • Replies: @StillCARealist
    Good eye.

    DF is Darth Vader getting ready to blast our hero out of the sky when suddenly the swashbuckling and brash counter-hero shows up with some common sense and straight talking. And he wins!

    DJT is Han Solo.
  21. And then there is that religion where the adherents have to kneel in front of an altar and drink the blood and eat the body of the founder. We have to make sure none of them ever get onto the Supreme Court or they will have us all drinking blood and practicing cannibalism.

  22. Best thing that could happen is to let this issue hit prime time and potentially vote her down. Get Trump riled up and tweeting about bias and calling out other ethnicities and religions.

    • Replies: @whorefinder
    Trump picked a fight with the NFL because he knew it was a winning issue---he knew the Kneelers were in the wrong, and knew the majority of people thought they were wrong, even though many might think there is massive police brutality against blacks.

    In contrast, I'm not so sure this is a "winning" issue for Trump--meaning I'm not so sure Trump would be in the majority. Many people don't want religious zealots in office (not that this woman is one, but would be painted as such), and many Leftist Catholics are quite fearful (in a rabbit sort of way) of traditional Catholics, and many anti-Catholics still exist among Trump's protestant fans.

    For example, Jack Chick (who only died last year) was very famous for his anti-Catholic comics, which earned him fame and money. Catholics who blog online are often surprised at the volume of comments from Protestants who decry them as not "real" Christians and the Church as the Whore of Babylon.

    Trump jumped on the immigration issue because it was the $100 bill lying on the floor no one had picked up yet. Trump's position was the immensely popular winning side, and every other politician was on the other side or was being quiet. Similarly, the NFL issue was one were no politician had staked a side or else were on the opposite side; thus Trump could be seen as the standard-bearer.
  23. @Stan d Mute
    What if you don’t want anyone who prays to invisible sky fairies judging you? Facts, evidence, and logic only for me please!

    Christians don’t believe in “sky fairies”; they believe in God — you know, the Uncaused Cause, the Prime Mover, the Creator, and so on. Unless you can think of how the universe came from nothing that became something and then exploded and then was able to produce life, I’ll stick with the God story.

    • Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson
    Agree.
    , @guest
    No, you don't get it. Jesus is the Son, but he's also the Sun. Literally a Sun God, like Apollo. Because "son" is close to "sun."

    In English.

    Which the Ancient Judeans totally spoke, right?

    , @Anon
    "Unless you can think of how the universe came from nothing that became something and then exploded and then was able to produce life, I’ll stick with the God story."

    So right. It's much more obvious that some otherwise unknown X did it, and the best part is the revelation identifying X as YHVH, and that he loves the Jews and we should too!
    , @Stan d Mute

    Christians don’t believe in “sky fairies”; they believe in God — you know, the Uncaused Cause, the Prime Mover, the Creator, and so on.
     
    How do you know this “uncaused cause” isn’t a “sky fairy”? What proof do you assert?

    And where do I find this “Church of the Uncaused Cause” anyway?
  24. @AM

    “The dogma lives loudly within you,” declared Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, in what has become an infamous phrase. …
     
    This is a genuine compliment to any Christian.

    But her membership in a small, tightly knit Christian group called People of Praise never came up at the hearing, and might have led to even more intense questioning.
     
    She's a charismatic Catholic, given what's on the website. Not my cup of tea but it's not cultish (kinda). I'm sure the movement has prevented many Catholics from becoming Pentecostal, for what that's worth.

    http://peopleofpraise.org/about/who-we-are/charismatic/

    I note the NYT makes a very careful point not to actually use the phrase "charismatic Catholic" because that sounds vaguely normal or merely a modification/subgroup of Catholic.


    Some of the group’s practices would surprise many faithful Catholics.
     
    I appreciate the concern from the NYT, that solid bastion of Catholic thought. It is true that they might attend Mass regularly and believe in the fundamental teachings of the Catholic Church. There many "faithful Catholics" for whom that would be surprising.

    Members of the group swear a lifelong oath of loyalty, called a covenant, to one another, and are assigned and are accountable to a personal adviser, called a “head” for men and a “handmaid” for women. The group teaches that husbands are the heads of their wives and should take authority over the family.
     
    The horror! Can you believe they are organizing their families just like St. Paul suggests? They may want to brush up on the guy's responsibilities, which is loving his wife like Christ loved His Church, ie suffer and die for her. It makes the "let him take the lead" passage worth a second look. To my eye, the women appear to have gotten the better end of the deal.

    Current and former members say that the heads and handmaids give direction on important decisions, including whom to date or marry, where to live, whether to take a job or buy a home, and how to raise children.
     
    Can you imagine getting advise from someone who shares your religious beliefs and might care about you personally? Normal people get their advise from Facebook and the opinion columns of the NYT.

    I have no idea how this writer got through this article without literally shaking.

    The anti-Catholic bigotry among writers such as LAURIE GOODSTEIN, is the norm for a secularist/scientismist. For LAURIE GOODSTEIN there is no God but the great god Science, unless we note that the god LAURIE GOODSTEIN has been elevated to divinity.

    And yes, eternity will suck for LAURIE GOODSTEIN.

  25. You better be careful with all this Jew-baiting or John Podhoretz will call you a bad name again — and this time he might even run his insult thru spellchecker first.

    Here he is being witty again: Democrats’ best hope for 2020: Oprah

  26. @Tracy
    Christians don't believe in "sky fairies"; they believe in God -- you know, the Uncaused Cause, the Prime Mover, the Creator, and so on. Unless you can think of how the universe came from nothing that became something and then exploded and then was able to produce life, I'll stick with the God story.

    Agree.

  27. @Stan d Mute
    What if you don’t want anyone who prays to invisible sky fairies judging you? Facts, evidence, and logic only for me please!

    Oh we got plenty of evidence. Lourdes, Fatima, Padre Pio, the Shroud of Turin, Eucharistic miracles etc. That you don’t now about the evidence is maybe because atheists are naive. Maybe youu think if there was real evidence there would be some sort of official pronouncement from science that there is evidence and it wouldn’t be a question anymore and everyone would believe in the evidence. But that hasn’t happened–and its naive to think it would. My experience is that most atheists who are exposed to the evidence shrug it off and go about like it didn’t exist.

    • Replies: @Rosamond Vincy
    How about the genuine repentance of Alessandro Serenelli, the murderer of Maria Goretti, which not only lasted after he was released from prison but also tranformed the remainder of his life?
    Serenelli was a certifiable psychopath. He had blamed everyone but himself and changed stories regularly: 12-year-old Maria led him on; if she hadn't turned him down he wouldn't have killed her; it was the priests' fault she had rejected his advances; she had been willing, etc. He boasted of his crimes in prison for years and jeered at any priest who visited him...until he had a dream in which Maria appeared and offered forgiveness. At that point, he woke sobbing and pleading for a priest.

    Unlike the usual jailhouse conversion which is often followed by returning to the ex-con's old ways as soon as he is free, Serenelli's conversion led him to become a lay brother with the Capuchin Franciscans, where he remained until his death decades later. He not only cleared Maria's name of all the false accusations he had made, but testified on her behalf when she was a candidate for sainthood.

    This is not a pious legend from the Middle Ages, but a well-documented case from the early 20th century. Many miracles have been attributed to St. Maria, but to me, the most impressive is winning the soul of a man who, to all appearances, had no soul. Even clinical psychologists admit they can't do much with psychopaths, but with the help of God, little Maria did what they could not.
  28. @Buzz Mohawk
    There is only one religious group to which nominees are permitted ties without question.

    I don’t know about that. If a Democrat had the chance to nominate the first Muslim Supreme Court Justice any questions about his religion influencing court decisions would be considered beyond the pale.

    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk

    If a Democrat had the chance to nominate the first Muslim Supreme Court Justice any questions about his religion influencing court decisions would be considered beyond the pale.

     

    But you can bet they would be asked.

    There is only one religious group to which nominees for virtually any position are permitted ties without question.

    , @guest
    One Republican, at least, might bring up Sharia, etc.
    , @Bill

    If a Democrat had the chance to nominate the first Muslim
     
    What you say is true, but the word "Democrat" is doing all the work there. If a Democrat appointed a "Muslim," you can feel certain that the scare quotes would belong around "Muslim." Is a Democrat seriously going to appoint a pro-life, anti-gay, "anti-semitic," anti-usury, anti-porn kind of person to the SC? Seriously?
  29. Worry

    We should all still be worried about those devious Russians.

    • Replies: @newrouter
    ben sasse is an ass: proggs luv blue on red
    , @guest
    Commies helped fund and organize the civil rights movement. Is that what he meant?
  30. Isn’t it amazing? A country whose origins were rooted in Christianity has now become populated by people like Feinstein who 1) don’t know this basic historical fact, and 2) regard it as a threat when they hear about an influential Christian.

    • Replies: @whorefinder
    To be fair, it was founded a majority Protestant population, with but 1/13th of the states being a colony to Catholics (Maryland), and most of the others having few Catholics, other many tolerated them.

    Feinstein is protesting the woman's traditional Catholic faith; undoubtedly, Feinstein would be praising the woman if she went to a "Progessive" (i.e. heretical) Catholic Church or was a Unitarian ("Unitarianism---Where God is Literally Just a Suggestion").
  31. To even ask a nominee what their religion is, much less this degree of belittling harassment, is a violation of Article 6 of The Constitution.

    “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

    If a hearing involving questions attempting to ascertain qualification is not a “test”, then I don’t know what is.

    The correct response the line of inquiry is “my religious beliefs are none of your f-cking business”

    • Replies: @Antlitz Grollheim
    The reason conservatives lose is because they continually fall for the illusion that the left responds to logic or principles. It's all about power, the ideology is a smokescreen.

    Even Alt Right gets ensnared in ideology.

    Newsflash: only power matters.

    Next time you want to engage in outprincipling a leftist, do something useful and make a black twitter account and attack antifa as too white.
    , @whorefinder
    It would be nice for Trump's nominees to take a page from Trump's campaign and quit playing by Washington's rules and say something like that.

    The problem is Trump had a big enough stage (running for the Presidency + his own notoriety) so that his bull-in-the-china-shop messaging and flouting of convention was seen by the people it appealed to (Trump voters) and they outnumbered those who were appalled by it.

    Few people pay attention to Senate hearings, even if they are juicy. The only people watching are those who get the vapors if you don't genuflect before diversity, tolerance, and Congressional power. Thus I don't think it would work, unless there was a mass agreement among ALL of Trump's nominees to do the same, and they murder boarded their way through it, preparing for all the different ways the Senators would try to ask religious questions without asking religious questions. It would also be helpful if Trump friendly R's in the Senate---who aren't that numerous---made noise about censuring Senators who tried to sneak religious questions in.

    Like free speech, I would expect that even if all this happened, the Left would start arguing that the religious-freedom-for-office-clause was far too broad and should be narrowed and bigoted "Nazis" should have their "hate-filled religion" subject to scrutiny.
    , @Rosamond Vincy
    Well, she couldn't use your wording exactly; that's being guilty of using Impure Language.
  32. Islam preaches murder for those who leave the faith, draw pictures of Mohammed, profane the messenger, etc…

    Are leftists just going to let that slide?

    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    Not only are they going to let Islam slide, leftists aspire to exercise their own brand of terror and control over us for what we say and do in our own countries.
    , @Lurker
    I'm sure they'll want those who voted for Trump included in the list.
  33. It is perfectly reasonable for Jews to be concerned about Christians taking their faith seriously and completely unreasonable for Christians to be concerned about Jews taking their faith seriously.

    Why? Because, well, just because. That’s why.

    • Replies: @guest
    Not "just because " Because gas chambers, that's why.

    From the other side, because pedophile priests, various other sex things, the inquisition, and Hitler's Pope.
    , @Joe Magarac
    A really religious Orthodox Jew would not be any more acceptable than a Roman Catholic.
  34. @Barnard
    I don't know about that. If a Democrat had the chance to nominate the first Muslim Supreme Court Justice any questions about his religion influencing court decisions would be considered beyond the pale.

    If a Democrat had the chance to nominate the first Muslim Supreme Court Justice any questions about his religion influencing court decisions would be considered beyond the pale.

    But you can bet they would be asked.

    There is only one religious group to which nominees for virtually any position are permitted ties without question.

  35. @eah
    Worry

    We should all still be worried about those devious Russians.

    https://twitter.com/RichardBSpencer/status/913379619583221761

    ben sasse is an ass: proggs luv blue on red

    • Replies: @eah
    https://twitter.com/RichardBSpencer/status/913624650319527936
  36. Legal scholars said that such loyalty oaths could raise legitimate questions about a judicial nominee’s independence and impartiality. …

    “Legal scholars” say it “raises questions.” And “legitimate” ones too.

    This is right off page one of the leftist style sheet when they want to shut down debate or censor someone but don’t really have the goods. “…but many experts warn.” This “raises questions.”

  37. @Yak-15
    Islam preaches murder for those who leave the faith, draw pictures of Mohammed, profane the messenger, etc...

    Are leftists just going to let that slide?

    Not only are they going to let Islam slide, leftists aspire to exercise their own brand of terror and control over us for what we say and do in our own countries.

    • Replies: @JerseyJeffersonian
    And regarding the terror and control, well the current goal is ONLINE ORTHODOXY, attained through controlling information flows via Facebook, Google, and Amazon.

    Here's a guy with some insightful things to say about the Long Night Ahead, John Robb, over at his site, Global Guerillas:

    http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/

    The main thrust is in the banner currently at the head of the site, but further details, along with many thought-provoking side jaunts, can be found as you peruse the posts on his site. Recommended.
  38. @Stan d Mute
    What if you don’t want anyone who prays to invisible sky fairies judging you? Facts, evidence, and logic only for me please!

    I love the way that materialists think they have “facts, evidence and logic” on their side. What a bunch of boobs. Aristotle outlined the proof for the existence of God in the 4th century BC. Thomas Aquinas extended and perfected that proof in the 13th century.

    • Replies: @Buffalo Joe
    Craig, good response. The nuns' answers to all my youthful questions about God and faith was, " You have to believe and you will if you have faith.' A great Jesuit prof in college and his patient teaching of St Thomas actually established my faith, logically.
    , @silviosilver

    I love the way that materialists think they have “facts, evidence and logic” on their side. What a bunch of boobs. Aristotle outlined the proof for the existence of God in the 4th century BC. Thomas Aquinas extended and perfected that proof in the 13th century.
     
    Dude, why do you have to do this? I'm happy to let Christians have their faith, so long as they don't try to impose it on me. Live and let live, what's so bad about that? But when people like you come and insult my intelligence by telling me I'm living in denial of the basic facts of reality, it really gets up my nose. I can't be the only one who feels this way.
  39. Would Ross’s alleged bias be more troubling, inasmuch as it would skew toward a rival foreign country?

  40. @Stan d Mute
    What if you don’t want anyone who prays to invisible sky fairies judging you? Facts, evidence, and logic only for me please!

    What if you don’t want anyone who prays to invisible sky fairies judging you? Facts, evidence, and logic only for me please!

    Assuming you want human judges, not computers, which suffer from the limitations of the Church-Turing thesis, you’ve got a problem: the judges who consider only facts, logic, and evidence are as prevalent as fairies.

    https://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/14/time-and-judgment/

    A new paper finds that experienced parole judges in Israel granted freedom about 65 percent of the time to the first prisoner who appeared before them on a given day. By the end of a morning session, the chance of release had dropped almost to zero.

    After the same judge returned from a lunch break, the first prisoner once again had about a 65 percent chance at freedom. And once again the odds declined steadily.

    • Replies: @oddsbodkins
    That paper is part of the tide of studies that have failed to replicate.
    , @Stan d Mute
    I agree 100% that you’ll find an infinitesimally small number of judges who consider only facts, evidence, and logic in Israel where approximately 100% of judges are head-bangers for YHWH. What exactly was your point?

    I’m bored with all the mythology crap. All the moronic replies that assert the existence and supremacy of their version of an invisible sky fairy without a single testable hypothesis - just idiotic appeals to authority (ie Aquinas). The bottom line is that there is zero proof of any sky fairy’s existence and that all mythology rests on faith. And I don’t wish to be judged by someone, anyone, who holds non-falsifiable faith in sky fairies or in my guilt. Nor do I wish to kill or be killed based on someone else’s mythology!
  41. This is a bit random, but I’m watching 300 and there’s a great scene where Leonidas says he can’t take a knee (i know, totally appropriate). But, it reminded me..

    I once read something about someone (Greeks?) who had some invaders at their gates and the invaders said something like “submit to us, we are god” and the (Greeks?) responded “if you were gods, you wouldn’t have to ask, and if you are not gods, then piss off”.

    Does anyone know what I’m (mis)remembering?

    • Replies: @Dr Hook
    One prominent example involves Philip II of Macedon, who after invading southern Greece and receiving the submission of other key city-states, sent a message to Sparta:

    You are advised to submit without further delay, for if I bring my army into your land, I will destroy your farms, slay your people, and raze your city.[3]

    The Spartan ephors replied with a single word:

    If.[4]

    Subsequently, neither Philip nor his son Alexander the Great attempted to capture the city. Philip is also recorded as approaching Sparta on another (?) occasion and asking whether he should come as friend or foe; the reply was "Neither".[
  42. We should disqualify all liberal Jewish judicial nominees who are shown to be members of the Lazarene Cult, founded in 1883 by some woman named Emma.

  43. @Stan d Mute
    What if you don’t want anyone who prays to invisible sky fairies judging you? Facts, evidence, and logic only for me please!

    “What if you don’t want anyone who prays to invisible sky fairies judging you? Facts, evidence, and logic only for me please!”

    You go get ’em, Tiger! I prefer to be governed by atheist liberals who believe in solid science – like the fact that human (and only human) evolution came to a complete halt 50,000 years ago, or that a person can choose which gender he/she/xe belongs to.

    • Replies: @Roderick Spode
    Or one can reject both liberal and Abrahamic nonsense.
    , @Nico

    I prefer to be governed by atheist liberals who believe in solid science – like the fact that human (and only human) evolution came to a complete halt 50,000 years ago, or that a person can choose which gender he/she/xe belongs to.
     
    S/h/it is more like it.
    , @Stan d Mute

    You go get ‘em, Tiger! I prefer to be governed by atheist liberals who believe in solid science – like the fact that human (and only human) evolution came to a complete halt 50,000 years ago, or that a person can choose which gender he/she/xe belongs to.
     
    Nice Strawman. You build him yourself? Or in a church study group?

    Your “liberals” are mainly, in my opinion, Lysenko Communists. They’re exactly like YHWH worshippers except their faith IS falsifiable and indeed has been falsified. It’s pretty astonishing really to find so many YHWH fanatics on a site like Unz where genetics and evolution are routinely discussed. I’d ask how you reconcile your mythology with HBD, but I really don’t care. Mostly this exercise has just given me a good new crop of commenters to add to my “ignore” list (praise be to Ron Unz for granting my prayers for an “ignore” button!)
  44. @TWS
    I thought we outlawed religious tests.

    “I thought we outlawed religious tests.”

    That clause was eaten by an emanation of a penumbra. It’s no longer in there, except as it applies to Muslim immigration, which it says absolutely nothing about.

  45. @Stan d Mute
    You mean Zoroastrians? Buddhists? Shintos? Hindus? Cargo Cultists? Wiccans? Mormons? Come on, the suspense is just killing me!

    Wait, it’s Scientologists right?

    Methodists!

    • Replies: @Buffalo Joe
    Bless me Father, but I think it is Crystal Methodists.
  46. I remember (((Al Franken))) bragging in one of his books about how he got his wife (a Catholic) to “turn away from the Pope” to marry him. (note: Catholics are allowed to marry non-Catholics, even ((certain non-catholics)), under Catholic laws). I think he also implied she abandoned her faith post-marriage. He was smugly happy about it.

    And now this from ((Feinstein)).

    And of course, many (((Hollywood executives))) love to portray Catholic priests as child molesters, or hypocrites, or twisted sexual deviants deviating from Jesus, who was all about gay marriage, abortion, free love, doing whatever you wanted, equality of all religions, feminims, and anti-racism, don’t you get it, man?

    The Papacy triggers a lot of people’s conspiracy paranoia, but a ((certain group)) has a continuous hatred of those goyim in Rome who managed to organize themselves pretty well for 2000 years.

    But I will point out this is again the WASP/Jewish coalition turning on those dang papists who took over much of the North and Midwest through numbers.

    • Replies: @Hibernian
    "...those dang papists who took over much of the North and Midwest through numbers."

    Yea, electing pols like the Daleys and Kennedys was a great accomplishment. Not to mention acting as precinct captains for WASPs Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman, Johnson, Carter, and Clinton.
  47. @Stan d Mute
    What if you don’t want anyone who prays to invisible sky fairies judging you? Facts, evidence, and logic only for me please!

    lol. You’re a poor quality atheist troll. Up your game. 2/10; would’ve been 1/10, but at least you managed to tie your hatred of truth to the topic at hand.

    • Replies: @Bill
    No, he's as good as they come. When they send Dick the Dolt, they really are sending their best.
  48. @Polynikes
    Best thing that could happen is to let this issue hit prime time and potentially vote her down. Get Trump riled up and tweeting about bias and calling out other ethnicities and religions.

    Trump picked a fight with the NFL because he knew it was a winning issue—he knew the Kneelers were in the wrong, and knew the majority of people thought they were wrong, even though many might think there is massive police brutality against blacks.

    In contrast, I’m not so sure this is a “winning” issue for Trump–meaning I’m not so sure Trump would be in the majority. Many people don’t want religious zealots in office (not that this woman is one, but would be painted as such), and many Leftist Catholics are quite fearful (in a rabbit sort of way) of traditional Catholics, and many anti-Catholics still exist among Trump’s protestant fans.

    For example, Jack Chick (who only died last year) was very famous for his anti-Catholic comics, which earned him fame and money. Catholics who blog online are often surprised at the volume of comments from Protestants who decry them as not “real” Christians and the Church as the Whore of Babylon.

    Trump jumped on the immigration issue because it was the $100 bill lying on the floor no one had picked up yet. Trump’s position was the immensely popular winning side, and every other politician was on the other side or was being quiet. Similarly, the NFL issue was one were no politician had staked a side or else were on the opposite side; thus Trump could be seen as the standard-bearer.

    • Agree: AM
    • Replies: @Lagertha
    I also think he had to stir patriotism because there is a need for private citizens to pay bigtime, and for months to come: the Hurricanes will require philanthropy from everyone. And, perhaps, dumb people who are millionaires, will be the last to understand, that, duh, you should help the Caribbean, Virgin Islands, not to mention Florida, Texas with the money you can help with. Fighting over issues last year, and, now, still the anthem/flag stuff, this year, is maudlin while people in Puerto Rico or the Caribbean and Islands in general, have no electricity. Man, these players, owners are tone-deaf! If I could adjust, I would flog them all; or at least, have an axe to their balls!
    , @Prof. Woland
    The Pittsburgh Kneelers.
    , @David Davenport
    For example, Jack Chick (who only died last year) was very famous for his anti-Catholic comics, which earned him fame and money. Catholics who blog online are often surprised at the volume of comments from Protestants who decry them as not “real” Christians and the Church as the Whore of Babylon.

    The current Pope should be replaced, yes or no?
    , @Prof. Woland
    Actually, this might be a winner. The Kneelers are cut out of the same cloth as the people pulling down confederate statues, anti-fag, Ferguson, etc. and everyone instinctively recognizes it. By singling out the least attractive, least defensible anti-white group, it allows Trump to use them as a whipping boy for the rest of the lot. This is asymmetrical warfare. They pull down a statue, we ridicule their heroes.
    , @Polynikes
    Depends on how he frames it. Pointing out that leftist judges are never attacked for their religion (largely Jewish or a minority sect of Christianity) or lack of religion might be eye opening to some and likely largely popular.

    On the whole though, I tend to agree with you.
    , @Nico
    I'm not a fundamentalist or even a Protestant, but my father dragged us to Southern Baptist churches in the 1990s and here's my two cents. You do have a point, but it should be tempered by the fundamentalists' latent fear of imminent religious persecution, which surged up high after the incidents in Montana and Texas in the early 1990s. (On that note, Timothy McVeigh really did a huge favor for the Bob Dole GOP cucks and ultimately for Bill Clinton.) Although fundamentalists were hardly sympathetic towards the Branch Davidians' theology or cultic stance, they understood perfectly they might very well be next.

    There will, to be sure, be lots of "qualifications" of the legitimacy of candidate's "belief in Christ" in Sunday Schools but also lots of warnings about the truth of persecution coming their way, in those same congregations.
  49. Steve and Taki’s was my gateway drug to NRx and the Alt Right several years ago. I’ve just come to realize that he is the most hardcore n***a around, in the depth of his catalog, and the persistence and interrelatedness of his themes. The understated delivery is really the secret weapon.

  50. @JeremiahJohnbalaya
    To even ask a nominee what their religion is, much less this degree of belittling harassment, is a violation of Article 6 of The Constitution.

    "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

    If a hearing involving questions attempting to ascertain qualification is not a "test", then I don't know what is.

    The correct response the line of inquiry is "my religious beliefs are none of your f-cking business"

    The reason conservatives lose is because they continually fall for the illusion that the left responds to logic or principles. It’s all about power, the ideology is a smokescreen.

    Even Alt Right gets ensnared in ideology.

    Newsflash: only power matters.

    Next time you want to engage in outprincipling a leftist, do something useful and make a black twitter account and attack antifa as too white.

    • Replies: @Lagertha
    whaaa? a non person finds our non-land/argumentative-disagreeable land. Only solution: compost bin. I can take this home: plastic or paper?
    , @JeremiahJohnbalaya
    I'm not sure whether your post is meant to be at odds with mine. I would consider my proffered response to the line of inquiry as an exercise in maintaining power. To submit to the line of questioning is, well, submission.

    But, I don't disagree with anything you've said. I don't have an illusions that the left cares about the law, or rules, or consistency, or honesty.
  51. at some point, someone must write about this, nationally, that people who are religious should not have to hide their faith…or if they choose to hide their faith, well, so what! boring.

    I am so sick and so tired of atheists/SJWs and Jewish “mean girls” who constantly squawk about Christian faith. Shut about faith! You, yourselves, are still so glued to your own, particular faith, daddy & mommy’s faith. And, Muslims don’t give a rat’s ass about any faith but Islam – so don’t be all goody-good stupid waiting for affirmation. Ever. Boom. I always think it is funny that that Mormon chicks are not so into SJW crusades…they are way prettier with good manners, btw. Utah is in.

  52. @whorefinder
    Trump picked a fight with the NFL because he knew it was a winning issue---he knew the Kneelers were in the wrong, and knew the majority of people thought they were wrong, even though many might think there is massive police brutality against blacks.

    In contrast, I'm not so sure this is a "winning" issue for Trump--meaning I'm not so sure Trump would be in the majority. Many people don't want religious zealots in office (not that this woman is one, but would be painted as such), and many Leftist Catholics are quite fearful (in a rabbit sort of way) of traditional Catholics, and many anti-Catholics still exist among Trump's protestant fans.

    For example, Jack Chick (who only died last year) was very famous for his anti-Catholic comics, which earned him fame and money. Catholics who blog online are often surprised at the volume of comments from Protestants who decry them as not "real" Christians and the Church as the Whore of Babylon.

    Trump jumped on the immigration issue because it was the $100 bill lying on the floor no one had picked up yet. Trump's position was the immensely popular winning side, and every other politician was on the other side or was being quiet. Similarly, the NFL issue was one were no politician had staked a side or else were on the opposite side; thus Trump could be seen as the standard-bearer.

    I also think he had to stir patriotism because there is a need for private citizens to pay bigtime, and for months to come: the Hurricanes will require philanthropy from everyone. And, perhaps, dumb people who are millionaires, will be the last to understand, that, duh, you should help the Caribbean, Virgin Islands, not to mention Florida, Texas with the money you can help with. Fighting over issues last year, and, now, still the anthem/flag stuff, this year, is maudlin while people in Puerto Rico or the Caribbean and Islands in general, have no electricity. Man, these players, owners are tone-deaf! If I could adjust, I would flog them all; or at least, have an axe to their balls!

  53. @The Grate Deign
    Isn't it amazing? A country whose origins were rooted in Christianity has now become populated by people like Feinstein who 1) don't know this basic historical fact, and 2) regard it as a threat when they hear about an influential Christian.

    To be fair, it was founded a majority Protestant population, with but 1/13th of the states being a colony to Catholics (Maryland), and most of the others having few Catholics, other many tolerated them.

    Feinstein is protesting the woman’s traditional Catholic faith; undoubtedly, Feinstein would be praising the woman if she went to a “Progessive” (i.e. heretical) Catholic Church or was a Unitarian (“Unitarianism—Where God is Literally Just a Suggestion”).

    • Replies: @Bill

    the woman’s traditional Catholic faith;
     
    Traditional? No.
    , @AM

    To be fair, it was founded a majority Protestant population, with but 1/13th of the states being a colony to Catholics (Maryland), and most of the others having few Catholics, other many tolerated them.
     
    Fun facts: The US was so Protestant at the time that Maryland would become overrun with Protestants and Catholics would lose the vote there for a short time. At founding Georgia wanted everyone but criminals..and Catholics. Most colonies decided to take a chance on German Protestants, rather than accept English Catholics.

    But in the end, Catholics weren't killed, they accepted impressively large waves of Catholics with mostly grumbles, and Catholics don't worry about building churches right next to Baptists, even to this day. I'll take a few random insults. In the whole scheme of the world, it's not that bad.
  54. @JeremiahJohnbalaya
    To even ask a nominee what their religion is, much less this degree of belittling harassment, is a violation of Article 6 of The Constitution.

    "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

    If a hearing involving questions attempting to ascertain qualification is not a "test", then I don't know what is.

    The correct response the line of inquiry is "my religious beliefs are none of your f-cking business"

    It would be nice for Trump’s nominees to take a page from Trump’s campaign and quit playing by Washington’s rules and say something like that.

    The problem is Trump had a big enough stage (running for the Presidency + his own notoriety) so that his bull-in-the-china-shop messaging and flouting of convention was seen by the people it appealed to (Trump voters) and they outnumbered those who were appalled by it.

    Few people pay attention to Senate hearings, even if they are juicy. The only people watching are those who get the vapors if you don’t genuflect before diversity, tolerance, and Congressional power. Thus I don’t think it would work, unless there was a mass agreement among ALL of Trump’s nominees to do the same, and they murder boarded their way through it, preparing for all the different ways the Senators would try to ask religious questions without asking religious questions. It would also be helpful if Trump friendly R’s in the Senate—who aren’t that numerous—made noise about censuring Senators who tried to sneak religious questions in.

    Like free speech, I would expect that even if all this happened, the Left would start arguing that the religious-freedom-for-office-clause was far too broad and should be narrowed and bigoted “Nazis” should have their “hate-filled religion” subject to scrutiny.

    • Replies: @JeremiahJohnbalaya
    I generally really like your posts, but i zoned out after the first sentence.

    There is a very important principle at play here. It shouldn't take that much to express it.

    And i realize that I'm one of few lonely voices over the last 15-20 years that periodically try to remind people of this principle on (sorry, Steve) obscure forums. But, we persist. Another recommends smashing a chair over the interrogators head.
  55. @Antlitz Grollheim
    The reason conservatives lose is because they continually fall for the illusion that the left responds to logic or principles. It's all about power, the ideology is a smokescreen.

    Even Alt Right gets ensnared in ideology.

    Newsflash: only power matters.

    Next time you want to engage in outprincipling a leftist, do something useful and make a black twitter account and attack antifa as too white.

    whaaa? a non person finds our non-land/argumentative-disagreeable land. Only solution: compost bin. I can take this home: plastic or paper?

  56. @Paul Murphy
    I share your concerns. We cannot have people taking Catholicism too seriously. The results can be shocking. For instance, I am told some "faithful" Catholics attend Mass not just every Sunday, but EVERY day. During the workweek! Do they think we live in medeival times?

    Yeah! Who does this God guy think who he is? What has he ever done for us? Talk about privilege . . .

  57. @Craig
    I love the way that materialists think they have "facts, evidence and logic" on their side. What a bunch of boobs. Aristotle outlined the proof for the existence of God in the 4th century BC. Thomas Aquinas extended and perfected that proof in the 13th century.

    Craig, good response. The nuns’ answers to all my youthful questions about God and faith was, ” You have to believe and you will if you have faith.’ A great Jesuit prof in college and his patient teaching of St Thomas actually established my faith, logically.

    • Replies: @AM

    Craig, good response. The nuns’ answers to all my youthful questions about God and faith was, ” You have to believe and you will if you have faith.’ A great Jesuit prof in college and his patient teaching of St Thomas actually established my faith, logically.
     
    Your experience highlights the typical breakdown of religious education in the West. For whatever reason, Christianity (and Catholicism in particular) got to point of being got passed on as, "You just have to believe".

    Well, no, and especially not in Catholicism. Good grief, not just St. Thomas, but there's a 2000 years of apologetics, in more or less technical terms. People are still producing good stuff, now in video form as well.

    Catholicism explained requires a whole less "You just have to believe" than most molecular science.
  58. @Father O'Hara
    Methodists!

    Bless me Father, but I think it is Crystal Methodists.

  59. And Sotomayor’s membership in La Raza, no problemo.

  60. @whorefinder
    Trump picked a fight with the NFL because he knew it was a winning issue---he knew the Kneelers were in the wrong, and knew the majority of people thought they were wrong, even though many might think there is massive police brutality against blacks.

    In contrast, I'm not so sure this is a "winning" issue for Trump--meaning I'm not so sure Trump would be in the majority. Many people don't want religious zealots in office (not that this woman is one, but would be painted as such), and many Leftist Catholics are quite fearful (in a rabbit sort of way) of traditional Catholics, and many anti-Catholics still exist among Trump's protestant fans.

    For example, Jack Chick (who only died last year) was very famous for his anti-Catholic comics, which earned him fame and money. Catholics who blog online are often surprised at the volume of comments from Protestants who decry them as not "real" Christians and the Church as the Whore of Babylon.

    Trump jumped on the immigration issue because it was the $100 bill lying on the floor no one had picked up yet. Trump's position was the immensely popular winning side, and every other politician was on the other side or was being quiet. Similarly, the NFL issue was one were no politician had staked a side or else were on the opposite side; thus Trump could be seen as the standard-bearer.

    The Pittsburgh Kneelers.

  61. @whorefinder
    Trump picked a fight with the NFL because he knew it was a winning issue---he knew the Kneelers were in the wrong, and knew the majority of people thought they were wrong, even though many might think there is massive police brutality against blacks.

    In contrast, I'm not so sure this is a "winning" issue for Trump--meaning I'm not so sure Trump would be in the majority. Many people don't want religious zealots in office (not that this woman is one, but would be painted as such), and many Leftist Catholics are quite fearful (in a rabbit sort of way) of traditional Catholics, and many anti-Catholics still exist among Trump's protestant fans.

    For example, Jack Chick (who only died last year) was very famous for his anti-Catholic comics, which earned him fame and money. Catholics who blog online are often surprised at the volume of comments from Protestants who decry them as not "real" Christians and the Church as the Whore of Babylon.

    Trump jumped on the immigration issue because it was the $100 bill lying on the floor no one had picked up yet. Trump's position was the immensely popular winning side, and every other politician was on the other side or was being quiet. Similarly, the NFL issue was one were no politician had staked a side or else were on the opposite side; thus Trump could be seen as the standard-bearer.

    For example, Jack Chick (who only died last year) was very famous for his anti-Catholic comics, which earned him fame and money. Catholics who blog online are often surprised at the volume of comments from Protestants who decry them as not “real” Christians and the Church as the Whore of Babylon.

    The current Pope should be replaced, yes or no?

    • Replies: @Nico

    The current Pope should be replaced, yes or no?
     
    As a Catholic and a fan of medieval (as opposed to neo-) Thomson, I say:

    Yes, but be careful about who is on the college of cardinals to ensure removal will not result in worse.
    , @Bill
    We can hope and pray he will be removed via God calling him away from this veil of tears.
  62. @whorefinder
    Trump picked a fight with the NFL because he knew it was a winning issue---he knew the Kneelers were in the wrong, and knew the majority of people thought they were wrong, even though many might think there is massive police brutality against blacks.

    In contrast, I'm not so sure this is a "winning" issue for Trump--meaning I'm not so sure Trump would be in the majority. Many people don't want religious zealots in office (not that this woman is one, but would be painted as such), and many Leftist Catholics are quite fearful (in a rabbit sort of way) of traditional Catholics, and many anti-Catholics still exist among Trump's protestant fans.

    For example, Jack Chick (who only died last year) was very famous for his anti-Catholic comics, which earned him fame and money. Catholics who blog online are often surprised at the volume of comments from Protestants who decry them as not "real" Christians and the Church as the Whore of Babylon.

    Trump jumped on the immigration issue because it was the $100 bill lying on the floor no one had picked up yet. Trump's position was the immensely popular winning side, and every other politician was on the other side or was being quiet. Similarly, the NFL issue was one were no politician had staked a side or else were on the opposite side; thus Trump could be seen as the standard-bearer.

    Actually, this might be a winner. The Kneelers are cut out of the same cloth as the people pulling down confederate statues, anti-fag, Ferguson, etc. and everyone instinctively recognizes it. By singling out the least attractive, least defensible anti-white group, it allows Trump to use them as a whipping boy for the rest of the lot. This is asymmetrical warfare. They pull down a statue, we ridicule their heroes.

  63. @Yak-15
    Islam preaches murder for those who leave the faith, draw pictures of Mohammed, profane the messenger, etc...

    Are leftists just going to let that slide?

    I’m sure they’ll want those who voted for Trump included in the list.

  64. Would Israel’s two chief rabbis find senator Feinstein’s Judaism heterodox?

    • Replies: @HFR
    They might if they knew that for high school she attended, and graduated from, The Convent of the Sacred Heart in San Francisco.
  65. @newrouter
    ben sasse is an ass: proggs luv blue on red

  66. @Anon
    I wish this was possible in my parish but they time daily masses to correspond with the work day.

    It is difficult. I am lucky to have multiple choices near me. Nonetheless, I sometimes go to Anglican or Lutheran services in order to have a service that fits my life.

  67. The US has had around 15 freemasons as president.
    Freemasonry is cultish. They also believe in some “god” (in the Anglo Freemason tradition).

    The US has had 1 Catholic president (Knights of Columbus) and he was murdered.

    I already know that Judeo-Christians dont like Catholic-Christians.
    Some Catholics have been brainwashed to become Judeo-Christians themselves.

    I wonder why the US elite (Clinton for example) have no problem with another certain ethnoreligion.

  68. @TomSchmidt

    What if you don’t want anyone who prays to invisible sky fairies judging you? Facts, evidence, and logic only for me please!
     
    Assuming you want human judges, not computers, which suffer from the limitations of the Church-Turing thesis, you've got a problem: the judges who consider only facts, logic, and evidence are as prevalent as fairies.

    https://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/14/time-and-judgment/


    A new paper finds that experienced parole judges in Israel granted freedom about 65 percent of the time to the first prisoner who appeared before them on a given day. By the end of a morning session, the chance of release had dropped almost to zero.

    After the same judge returned from a lunch break, the first prisoner once again had about a 65 percent chance at freedom. And once again the odds declined steadily.
     

    That paper is part of the tide of studies that have failed to replicate.

    • Replies: @TomSchmidt
    Aw, nuts. It's one of my all-time favorite papers. I gotta look that up.
  69. @Buzz Mohawk
    There is only one religious group to which nominees are permitted ties without question.

    There is only one religious group to which nominees are permitted ties without question…Every.Single.Time.

    BTW, where’s Jack D to tinyduck Sailer on reprllent character of his hypothetical skepticism?

  70. “The group teaches that husbands are the heads of their wives and should take authority over the family.”

    Sounds kinda like that one book. What’s it called? The Bubble? The Bibble? Something like that.

  71. How can some weird Catholic cult (even normal Catholics have a kiddie-diddling problem, have you heard?) instruct wives to follow husbands? If sitcoms have taught us anything, it’s that husbands are idiots who need to be henpecked by their hotter wives and openly mocked by their children.

  72. @AM
    "I thought we outlawed religious tests."

    We did. But appears some people still insist on taking Christianity seriously in a nation founded on Christian principles. That's scary and feels bad.

    Welcome to the current year.

    To be fair plenty of the founding stock would look askance at papist judges. You might have seen some more explicit insinuations than found in senatorial questioning or the NYT. It would be published in anonymous broadsides.

    The Pointy-Hatted Menace Picks Up His Gavel, Dons Robes…is an American inquisition soon to follow?

    by Latinicus Romulan Concernedcitizenismo

  73. “Legal scholars said that such loyalty oaths could raise legitimate questions about a judicial nominee’s independence and impartiality”

    Her loyalty oath conflicts with the vow required of all law students to serve Baphomet.

    Seriously, though, are they worried her “handmaiden” will dictate her decisions? Just like St. John XXIII told Kennedy what to do?*

    Impartiality hardly mattered when Elena Kagan presided over the Obamacare case after preparing the government’s defense as Solicitor General. Why should it matter for cult-Catholic robots?

    *Technically, God told the pope what he wanted done. The pope told a cardinal, who told an archbishop, who told a bishop, who told Jack’s parish priest, who told Jack. You can blame the Bay of Pigs on the vicissitudes of the telephone game.)

    • Replies: @Pericles

    Her loyalty oath conflicts with the vow required of all law students to serve Baphomet.

     

    http://s3-origin-images.politico.com/2013/05/06/130506_baderginsburg3_ap.jpg
  74. @Barnard
    I don't know about that. If a Democrat had the chance to nominate the first Muslim Supreme Court Justice any questions about his religion influencing court decisions would be considered beyond the pale.

    One Republican, at least, might bring up Sharia, etc.

  75. @Tracy
    Christians don't believe in "sky fairies"; they believe in God -- you know, the Uncaused Cause, the Prime Mover, the Creator, and so on. Unless you can think of how the universe came from nothing that became something and then exploded and then was able to produce life, I'll stick with the God story.

    No, you don’t get it. Jesus is the Son, but he’s also the Sun. Literally a Sun God, like Apollo. Because “son” is close to “sun.”

    In English.

    Which the Ancient Judeans totally spoke, right?

  76. @Stan d Mute
    What if you don’t want anyone who prays to invisible sky fairies judging you? Facts, evidence, and logic only for me please!

    “invisible sky fairies”

    Like Tyr? Are you thinking of ancient Indo-Europeans? Yeah, who needs them!

    “judging you”

    Us moderns get hung up on this part. Though we judge up a storm upon eachother. Probably because we fear more than anything a Sky God taking away the base pleasures that form our entire purpose for being.

    • Replies: @Stan d Mute

    Like Tyr? Are you thinking of ancient Indo-Europeans? Yeah, who needs them!
     
    I kinda like Dionysus.
  77. @eah
    Worry

    We should all still be worried about those devious Russians.

    https://twitter.com/RichardBSpencer/status/913379619583221761

    Commies helped fund and organize the civil rights movement. Is that what he meant?

  78. @Mis(ter)Anthrope
    It is perfectly reasonable for Jews to be concerned about Christians taking their faith seriously and completely unreasonable for Christians to be concerned about Jews taking their faith seriously.

    Why? Because, well, just because. That's why.

    Not “just because ” Because gas chambers, that’s why.

    From the other side, because pedophile priests, various other sex things, the inquisition, and Hitler’s Pope.

    • Replies: @Mis(ter)Anthrope
    Or maybe because Christians believe they are God's Chosen People and all other people are a lesser form of humanity and Jews believe God's grace is available to all people who repent from their sins and ask for forgiveness.

    It is possible I have that backwards.
    , @polskijoe
    The Catholic Church has a homosexual, pedophile, ephephobe problem in the clergy.
    (my estimate is around 20-30% combined of the above in priests in the West).

    But so do: large Protestant sects, Western governments, Boy Scouts, Jewish Rabbis, Muslims, etc.

    They all need to get rid of the problem people.

    , @AnotherDad

    Not “just because ” Because gas chambers, that’s why.

    From the other side, because pedophile priests, various other sex things, the inquisition, and Hitler’s Pope.
     
    Huh?

    Gas chambers have what to do with Christianity? Note, they definitely have something to do with Gentiles as Gentiles. But the gas chambers didn't exactly spring out of the Christian quarter.

    Pedophile priests? You mean homosexual priests grooming/abusing/raping teenaged boys? Yes, it is bad that the Catholic Church has so many homosexuals in the hierarchy making excuses for homo-scum. What that has to do with married Catholics being judges? And when did Jewish progressives start to take a big interest in suppressing typical homosexual behavior?

    "Various sex things"? You mean Catholics might not actually believe in this unwritten "Constitutional" principle that all legal questions around (deviant) sexual behavior should be judicially settled according to the latest Progressive dogma ... instead of by elected legislatures as the Constitution actually suggests?

    The inquistition? Ok you got me there ... I guess that settles it.
  79. @whorefinder
    Trump picked a fight with the NFL because he knew it was a winning issue---he knew the Kneelers were in the wrong, and knew the majority of people thought they were wrong, even though many might think there is massive police brutality against blacks.

    In contrast, I'm not so sure this is a "winning" issue for Trump--meaning I'm not so sure Trump would be in the majority. Many people don't want religious zealots in office (not that this woman is one, but would be painted as such), and many Leftist Catholics are quite fearful (in a rabbit sort of way) of traditional Catholics, and many anti-Catholics still exist among Trump's protestant fans.

    For example, Jack Chick (who only died last year) was very famous for his anti-Catholic comics, which earned him fame and money. Catholics who blog online are often surprised at the volume of comments from Protestants who decry them as not "real" Christians and the Church as the Whore of Babylon.

    Trump jumped on the immigration issue because it was the $100 bill lying on the floor no one had picked up yet. Trump's position was the immensely popular winning side, and every other politician was on the other side or was being quiet. Similarly, the NFL issue was one were no politician had staked a side or else were on the opposite side; thus Trump could be seen as the standard-bearer.

    Depends on how he frames it. Pointing out that leftist judges are never attacked for their religion (largely Jewish or a minority sect of Christianity) or lack of religion might be eye opening to some and likely largely popular.

    On the whole though, I tend to agree with you.

  80. @Anodynymous
    "What if you don’t want anyone who prays to invisible sky fairies judging you? Facts, evidence, and logic only for me please!"

    You go get 'em, Tiger! I prefer to be governed by atheist liberals who believe in solid science - like the fact that human (and only human) evolution came to a complete halt 50,000 years ago, or that a person can choose which gender he/she/xe belongs to.

    Or one can reject both liberal and Abrahamic nonsense.

    • Replies: @AM

    Or one can reject both liberal and Abrahamic nonsense.
     
    No you can't. Straight materialism leads, like water flowing downhill, to certain places. Communism actually is a quite logical conclusion of atheism, as is modern socialism. We are here, in this world of craziness in part because it's the logical conclusion to the idea there is no God, when spread among the masses.

    Once you inject God (of any sort, not just the Christian), more ideas about the world are possible. Atheism is very restrictive in terms of how someone could logically view the world.
  81. @Anodynymous
    "What if you don’t want anyone who prays to invisible sky fairies judging you? Facts, evidence, and logic only for me please!"

    You go get 'em, Tiger! I prefer to be governed by atheist liberals who believe in solid science - like the fact that human (and only human) evolution came to a complete halt 50,000 years ago, or that a person can choose which gender he/she/xe belongs to.

    I prefer to be governed by atheist liberals who believe in solid science – like the fact that human (and only human) evolution came to a complete halt 50,000 years ago, or that a person can choose which gender he/she/xe belongs to.

    S/h/it is more like it.

  82. @David Davenport
    For example, Jack Chick (who only died last year) was very famous for his anti-Catholic comics, which earned him fame and money. Catholics who blog online are often surprised at the volume of comments from Protestants who decry them as not “real” Christians and the Church as the Whore of Babylon.

    The current Pope should be replaced, yes or no?

    The current Pope should be replaced, yes or no?

    As a Catholic and a fan of medieval (as opposed to neo-) Thomson, I say:

    Yes, but be careful about who is on the college of cardinals to ensure removal will not result in worse.

    • Replies: @AM

    Yes, but be careful about who is on the college of cardinals to ensure removal will not result in worse.
     
    We might have gotten the "good" Pope out of the lot. It's a scary thought, but it's a distinct possibility.
    , @Anon
    Query: Thomson?
  83. @whorefinder
    Trump picked a fight with the NFL because he knew it was a winning issue---he knew the Kneelers were in the wrong, and knew the majority of people thought they were wrong, even though many might think there is massive police brutality against blacks.

    In contrast, I'm not so sure this is a "winning" issue for Trump--meaning I'm not so sure Trump would be in the majority. Many people don't want religious zealots in office (not that this woman is one, but would be painted as such), and many Leftist Catholics are quite fearful (in a rabbit sort of way) of traditional Catholics, and many anti-Catholics still exist among Trump's protestant fans.

    For example, Jack Chick (who only died last year) was very famous for his anti-Catholic comics, which earned him fame and money. Catholics who blog online are often surprised at the volume of comments from Protestants who decry them as not "real" Christians and the Church as the Whore of Babylon.

    Trump jumped on the immigration issue because it was the $100 bill lying on the floor no one had picked up yet. Trump's position was the immensely popular winning side, and every other politician was on the other side or was being quiet. Similarly, the NFL issue was one were no politician had staked a side or else were on the opposite side; thus Trump could be seen as the standard-bearer.

    I’m not a fundamentalist or even a Protestant, but my father dragged us to Southern Baptist churches in the 1990s and here’s my two cents. You do have a point, but it should be tempered by the fundamentalists’ latent fear of imminent religious persecution, which surged up high after the incidents in Montana and Texas in the early 1990s. (On that note, Timothy McVeigh really did a huge favor for the Bob Dole GOP cucks and ultimately for Bill Clinton.) Although fundamentalists were hardly sympathetic towards the Branch Davidians’ theology or cultic stance, they understood perfectly they might very well be next.

    There will, to be sure, be lots of “qualifications” of the legitimacy of candidate’s “belief in Christ” in Sunday Schools but also lots of warnings about the truth of persecution coming their way, in those same congregations.

  84. @guest
    "Legal scholars said that such loyalty oaths could raise legitimate questions about a judicial nominee's independence and impartiality"

    Her loyalty oath conflicts with the vow required of all law students to serve Baphomet.

    Seriously, though, are they worried her "handmaiden" will dictate her decisions? Just like St. John XXIII told Kennedy what to do?*

    Impartiality hardly mattered when Elena Kagan presided over the Obamacare case after preparing the government's defense as Solicitor General. Why should it matter for cult-Catholic robots?

    *Technically, God told the pope what he wanted done. The pope told a cardinal, who told an archbishop, who told a bishop, who told Jack's parish priest, who told Jack. You can blame the Bay of Pigs on the vicissitudes of the telephone game.)

    Her loyalty oath conflicts with the vow required of all law students to serve Baphomet.

  85. @AM
    "What if you don’t want anyone who prays to invisible sky fairies judging you? Facts, evidence, and logic only for me please!"

    I can't tell from your comment history if you're serious or not. If you are, I'd start by reading up on real Christian theology, which is exactly nothing like praying to invisible sky fairies.

    Christianity is the religion of facts, evidence, and logic. The NYT, Richard Dawkins, and the media at large has zero interest in presenting it that way.

    Their lack of interest in presenting Christianity as The Religion of Facts, Evidence and Logic obviously doesn’t mean that Christianity can be truthfully described as such.

    http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/02/10/darwin-day/ft_16-02-12_darwinday_640px/

    • Replies: @Samuel Skinner
    Huh. Buddhists 67, Unaffiliated 63, Hindus 62 and Jews 58 have the most accurate beliefs regarding evolution.
    , @AM

    Their lack of interest in presenting Christianity as The Religion of Facts, Evidence and Logic obviously doesn’t mean that Christianity can be truthfully described as such.
     
    LOL! Anyone who wants to start a "science" debate at evolution, a theory that can never be tested, has failed the facts, evidence, and logic test.

    There's no actual divide between evolution (or the Big Bang, developed in part by a Catholic Priest) and religious thought. I'll leave the Bible Literalists to argue with you over evolution because it's a point of irrelevant dogma for both parties.

    Meanwhile, you probably don't want to get into a debate about history, science (testable kind, not naturalism), or philosophy with me. Literally, Christianity represents retaining the best and/or advancement in all of those areas. Any Christian who has absorbed even the basics of the Trinity and fallen humanity has a model of the world far superior to any secular liberal, no matter how educated. Those who have studied Christianity, in depth, or even shallow (me), makes Richard Dawkins look like the sad, wanna be intellectual with a chip on his should that he is.

    The average modern militant atheist has some ridiculous cartoon version of Christianity in their head and an obsession with evolution. Meanwhile, back in the 13th century AD, Thomas Aquinas wrote Summa Theologica, a lifetime of work that examined every view point someone could know on the Divine. Translated into English, it's 5 volumes.

    Have you read it? Have you even heard of it? Any interest? Or in Mere Christianity by CS Lewis (at little shorter read, modern)? Or are you going to fall back on "muh evolution"? It seems quite safer ground. You can "science", bro and nobody ever asks anything more of you than that.
  86. @Dr. X

    Some Worry About Judicial Nominee’s Ties to a Religious Group
     
    Oddly enough, I never saw (((Laurie Goodstein))) or anyone else at the NYT express such concerns when Kagan, Ginsberg and Breyer were confirmed to the Supreme Court, or when Garland was nominated...

    Total cohencidence

  87. @Craig
    I love the way that materialists think they have "facts, evidence and logic" on their side. What a bunch of boobs. Aristotle outlined the proof for the existence of God in the 4th century BC. Thomas Aquinas extended and perfected that proof in the 13th century.

    I love the way that materialists think they have “facts, evidence and logic” on their side. What a bunch of boobs. Aristotle outlined the proof for the existence of God in the 4th century BC. Thomas Aquinas extended and perfected that proof in the 13th century.

    Dude, why do you have to do this? I’m happy to let Christians have their faith, so long as they don’t try to impose it on me. Live and let live, what’s so bad about that? But when people like you come and insult my intelligence by telling me I’m living in denial of the basic facts of reality, it really gets up my nose. I can’t be the only one who feels this way.

    • Replies: @AM

    I’m happy to let Christians have their faith, so long as they don’t try to impose it on me. Live and let live, what’s so bad about that?
     
    Because nobody can organize their society this way. The society as a whole must have some values. Now, we can talk about access to porn, who should have it and who shouldn't. But in end, we must agree to impose values like murder is wrong or otherwise things fall apart, as they are beginning to do now.

    This "leave me alone" bit is crazy. It's wanting the comforts and freedom of a Christian "home" and then saying "but I don't want do anything for it or have anything even mild discomfort imposed upon me". Either we agree to values that most of the population imposes on themselves (Christianity) or some authoritarian comes along and imposes it for us.

    Looking back in history, I don't want an atheist to impose their values on everyone.

    But when people like you come and insult my intelligence by telling me I’m living in denial of the basic facts of reality, it really gets up my nose. I can’t be the only one who feels this way.
     
    Given your first 2 sentences, is that attitude all that wrong? Atheism is traditionally defined as the denial of God. If you study the question long enough, it's clear that's the correct one. Very few atheists, when you dig into it, have much more of an objection than they just really don't want to believe there's a God and will ignore all or deny evidence that vaguely suggests it.

    Nobody can force you to believe - but nobody has to respect your command of the facts either.
  88. @AndrewR
    Their lack of interest in presenting Christianity as The Religion of Facts, Evidence and Logic obviously doesn't mean that Christianity can be truthfully described as such.

    http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/02/10/darwin-day/ft_16-02-12_darwinday_640px/

    Huh. Buddhists 67, Unaffiliated 63, Hindus 62 and Jews 58 have the most accurate beliefs regarding evolution.

  89. @Dr. X

    Some Worry About Judicial Nominee’s Ties to a Religious Group
     
    Oddly enough, I never saw (((Laurie Goodstein))) or anyone else at the NYT express such concerns when Kagan, Ginsberg and Breyer were confirmed to the Supreme Court, or when Garland was nominated...

    That’s because Kagan,Ginsberg and Breyer are about as religious as the late Hugh Hefner. If a practicing Orthodox jew was nominated you can bet Goodstien’s “legal scholars” would express “concerns” . Anything that threatens the holy sacrament of abortion is dangerous to these people.

  90. @whorefinder
    lol. You're a poor quality atheist troll. Up your game. 2/10; would've been 1/10, but at least you managed to tie your hatred of truth to the topic at hand.

    No, he’s as good as they come. When they send Dick the Dolt, they really are sending their best.

  91. @oddsbodkins
    That paper is part of the tide of studies that have failed to replicate.

    Aw, nuts. It’s one of my all-time favorite papers. I gotta look that up.

  92. @Jehu
    I've often wondered what would happen if nominees just refused to dance. Basically came out and said, yes I'm a Catholic and yes I believe in the faith, and yes you can damned well vote against me if you don't like that. Good, I can feel your anger. The filibuster is done and buried, it'd be nice if we could get some straightforward slugfests going instead of enduring the simpering sanctimony of scolds who lack even a real faith.

    I’ve often wondered what would happen if nominees just refused to dance.

    Read about Robert Bork. He pretty much refused to dance. He was then painted as an extremist and not confirmed. So, that’s what would happen. There is not, for example, a pro-life majority in the senate. If you want to be confirmed, people like Collins have to vote for you. I don’t know if she exactly minds voting for sane judges, but she definitely wants plausible deniability.

    That doesn’t settle the question of whether appointees should occasionally admit they are sane. Maybe it is useful for stimulating the drooling army of somnambulists who vote GOP on cultural issues. Martyrs are important for movement-building.

  93. @Barnard
    I don't know about that. If a Democrat had the chance to nominate the first Muslim Supreme Court Justice any questions about his religion influencing court decisions would be considered beyond the pale.

    If a Democrat had the chance to nominate the first Muslim

    What you say is true, but the word “Democrat” is doing all the work there. If a Democrat appointed a “Muslim,” you can feel certain that the scare quotes would belong around “Muslim.” Is a Democrat seriously going to appoint a pro-life, anti-gay, “anti-semitic,” anti-usury, anti-porn kind of person to the SC? Seriously?

  94. @David Davenport
    For example, Jack Chick (who only died last year) was very famous for his anti-Catholic comics, which earned him fame and money. Catholics who blog online are often surprised at the volume of comments from Protestants who decry them as not “real” Christians and the Church as the Whore of Babylon.

    The current Pope should be replaced, yes or no?

    We can hope and pray he will be removed via God calling him away from this veil of tears.

  95. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Tracy
    Christians don't believe in "sky fairies"; they believe in God -- you know, the Uncaused Cause, the Prime Mover, the Creator, and so on. Unless you can think of how the universe came from nothing that became something and then exploded and then was able to produce life, I'll stick with the God story.

    “Unless you can think of how the universe came from nothing that became something and then exploded and then was able to produce life, I’ll stick with the God story.”

    So right. It’s much more obvious that some otherwise unknown X did it, and the best part is the revelation identifying X as YHVH, and that he loves the Jews and we should too!

  96. The People of Praise sound like the Hassidim with regard to their gender roles.

    • Replies: @Hibernian
    So what's wrong with that?
  97. @JeremiahJohnbalaya
    This is a bit random, but I'm watching 300 and there's a great scene where Leonidas says he can't take a knee (i know, totally appropriate). But, it reminded me..

    I once read something about someone (Greeks?) who had some invaders at their gates and the invaders said something like "submit to us, we are god" and the (Greeks?) responded "if you were gods, you wouldn't have to ask, and if you are not gods, then piss off".

    Does anyone know what I'm (mis)remembering?

    One prominent example involves Philip II of Macedon, who after invading southern Greece and receiving the submission of other key city-states, sent a message to Sparta:

    You are advised to submit without further delay, for if I bring my army into your land, I will destroy your farms, slay your people, and raze your city.[3]

    The Spartan ephors replied with a single word:

    If.[4]

    Subsequently, neither Philip nor his son Alexander the Great attempted to capture the city. Philip is also recorded as approaching Sparta on another (?) occasion and asking whether he should come as friend or foe; the reply was “Neither”.[

  98. @whorefinder
    To be fair, it was founded a majority Protestant population, with but 1/13th of the states being a colony to Catholics (Maryland), and most of the others having few Catholics, other many tolerated them.

    Feinstein is protesting the woman's traditional Catholic faith; undoubtedly, Feinstein would be praising the woman if she went to a "Progessive" (i.e. heretical) Catholic Church or was a Unitarian ("Unitarianism---Where God is Literally Just a Suggestion").

    the woman’s traditional Catholic faith;

    Traditional? No.

    • Replies: @Hibernian
    People of Praise seems kind of Quasi-Protestant.
  99. @Mis(ter)Anthrope
    It is perfectly reasonable for Jews to be concerned about Christians taking their faith seriously and completely unreasonable for Christians to be concerned about Jews taking their faith seriously.

    Why? Because, well, just because. That's why.

    A really religious Orthodox Jew would not be any more acceptable than a Roman Catholic.

  100. @Goatweed
    Would Israel's two chief rabbis find senator Feinstein's Judaism heterodox?

    They might if they knew that for high school she attended, and graduated from, The Convent of the Sacred Heart in San Francisco.

  101. @guest
    Not "just because " Because gas chambers, that's why.

    From the other side, because pedophile priests, various other sex things, the inquisition, and Hitler's Pope.

    Or maybe because Christians believe they are God’s Chosen People and all other people are a lesser form of humanity and Jews believe God’s grace is available to all people who repent from their sins and ask for forgiveness.

    It is possible I have that backwards.

    • Replies: @Hibernian
    There are definitely Jews who really take the "Light Unto the Nations" thing seriously and Christians, including Roman Catholics, Protestants, and others, who are more than a little Pharasaical.
  102. @Antlitz Grollheim
    The reason conservatives lose is because they continually fall for the illusion that the left responds to logic or principles. It's all about power, the ideology is a smokescreen.

    Even Alt Right gets ensnared in ideology.

    Newsflash: only power matters.

    Next time you want to engage in outprincipling a leftist, do something useful and make a black twitter account and attack antifa as too white.

    I’m not sure whether your post is meant to be at odds with mine. I would consider my proffered response to the line of inquiry as an exercise in maintaining power. To submit to the line of questioning is, well, submission.

    But, I don’t disagree with anything you’ve said. I don’t have an illusions that the left cares about the law, or rules, or consistency, or honesty.

  103. @whorefinder
    It would be nice for Trump's nominees to take a page from Trump's campaign and quit playing by Washington's rules and say something like that.

    The problem is Trump had a big enough stage (running for the Presidency + his own notoriety) so that his bull-in-the-china-shop messaging and flouting of convention was seen by the people it appealed to (Trump voters) and they outnumbered those who were appalled by it.

    Few people pay attention to Senate hearings, even if they are juicy. The only people watching are those who get the vapors if you don't genuflect before diversity, tolerance, and Congressional power. Thus I don't think it would work, unless there was a mass agreement among ALL of Trump's nominees to do the same, and they murder boarded their way through it, preparing for all the different ways the Senators would try to ask religious questions without asking religious questions. It would also be helpful if Trump friendly R's in the Senate---who aren't that numerous---made noise about censuring Senators who tried to sneak religious questions in.

    Like free speech, I would expect that even if all this happened, the Left would start arguing that the religious-freedom-for-office-clause was far too broad and should be narrowed and bigoted "Nazis" should have their "hate-filled religion" subject to scrutiny.

    I generally really like your posts, but i zoned out after the first sentence.

    There is a very important principle at play here. It shouldn’t take that much to express it.

    And i realize that I’m one of few lonely voices over the last 15-20 years that periodically try to remind people of this principle on (sorry, Steve) obscure forums. But, we persist. Another recommends smashing a chair over the interrogators head.

  104. I love the way that materialists think they have “facts, evidence and logic” on their side. What a bunch of boobs. Aristotle outlined the proof for the existence of God in the 4th century BC. Thomas Aquinas extended and perfected that proof in the 13th century.

    I’m a materialist and an agnostic (and a secular/cultural Christian). I give atheists Hell for their illogical, dogmatic certainty.

    Just sayin’.

    Lazarene Cult

    That is brilliant and I’m stealing it.

    And of course, many (((Hollywood executives))) love to portray Catholic priests as child molesters, or hypocrites, or twisted sexual deviants deviating from Jesus, who was all about gay marriage, abortion, free love, doing whatever you wanted, equality of all religions, feminims, and anti-racism, don’t you get it, man?

    The Papacy triggers a lot of people’s conspiracy paranoia, but a ((certain group)) has a continuous hatred of those goyim in Rome who managed to organize themselves pretty well for 2000 years.

    But I will point out this is again the WASP/Jewish coalition turning on those dang papists who took over much of the North and Midwest through numbers.

    In my experience, Jewish Big Media is much warmer toward Catholics than Protestants. Which works counter to the “WASP/Jew alliance” meme that seems to be trending here. The “WASP/Jew alliance” reminds me a bit of the “Judeo-Christian” thing. The latter is a way for Christians to defend Christianity by associating it with Jews (and, to a lesser degree, for rightist philosemites to defend Jews by associating them with Christianity, I suppose). The former seems to be a way to defend countersemitism by associating criticism of Jews with criticism of Anglo-Saxons.

    • Replies: @AnotherDad

    In my experience, Jewish Big Media is much warmer toward Catholics than Protestants.
     
    From the level of hysteria evoked in the Jewish commentariat, Evangelical Protestants do seem to be the folks that really press their buttons. They have become the stand in for the Russian peasantry.

    Catholics--if they seem to be not overly sincere seem to taken as a "well its the religion of his people" thing, which is how a lot of Jews view their own religion. But serious traditionalist Catholics, raise their hackles a bit more, and of course around legal issues get the Jewish seculars all excited that the Catholic won't be on board with taking all the constitutional destruction (abortion, homosexuality), that they've wreaked, as settled law.

    And yes, there does still seem to be a sort of deep Jewish folktale antipathy to the old WASP ruling class--the blond fraternity boys of Sabrina Rubin Erdely's imagination--as sort of a totem of oppression, even though I would guess that's the class of gentiles that the Jews meet in elite schools and intermarry with more than any other. I guess it's not enough to have the pitchfork peasantry out there--i.e. Evangelicals Prots with their bibles and snakes and pickups and gun racks--but the Jewish narrative requires there to be an oppressive establishment as well. Even though Jews have been the establishment for going on two generations now.
  105. @AndrewR
    Their lack of interest in presenting Christianity as The Religion of Facts, Evidence and Logic obviously doesn't mean that Christianity can be truthfully described as such.

    http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/02/10/darwin-day/ft_16-02-12_darwinday_640px/

    Their lack of interest in presenting Christianity as The Religion of Facts, Evidence and Logic obviously doesn’t mean that Christianity can be truthfully described as such.

    LOL! Anyone who wants to start a “science” debate at evolution, a theory that can never be tested, has failed the facts, evidence, and logic test.

    There’s no actual divide between evolution (or the Big Bang, developed in part by a Catholic Priest) and religious thought. I’ll leave the Bible Literalists to argue with you over evolution because it’s a point of irrelevant dogma for both parties.

    Meanwhile, you probably don’t want to get into a debate about history, science (testable kind, not naturalism), or philosophy with me. Literally, Christianity represents retaining the best and/or advancement in all of those areas. Any Christian who has absorbed even the basics of the Trinity and fallen humanity has a model of the world far superior to any secular liberal, no matter how educated. Those who have studied Christianity, in depth, or even shallow (me), makes Richard Dawkins look like the sad, wanna be intellectual with a chip on his should that he is.

    The average modern militant atheist has some ridiculous cartoon version of Christianity in their head and an obsession with evolution. Meanwhile, back in the 13th century AD, Thomas Aquinas wrote Summa Theologica, a lifetime of work that examined every view point someone could know on the Divine. Translated into English, it’s 5 volumes.

    Have you read it? Have you even heard of it? Any interest? Or in Mere Christianity by CS Lewis (at little shorter read, modern)? Or are you going to fall back on “muh evolution”? It seems quite safer ground. You can “science”, bro and nobody ever asks anything more of you than that.

    • Replies: @David Davenport
    <i.Meanwhile, you probably don’t want to get into a debate about history, science (testable kind, not naturalism), or philosophy with me. Literally, Christianity represents retaining the best and/or advancement in all of those areas. Any Christian who has absorbed even the basics of the Trinity and fallen humanity has a model of the world far superior to any secular liberal, no matter how educated. ...

    Isaac Newton considered himself to be a Christian, but he balked at Trinitarianism -- The NeoPlatonic and rather polytheistic doctrine of the Old Man, the Kid, and the Spook ... The inscrutable One in Three and Three in One.

    Newton was a scientist.

    New Testament support for the Trinity is weak.
  106. @Roderick Spode
    Or one can reject both liberal and Abrahamic nonsense.

    Or one can reject both liberal and Abrahamic nonsense.

    No you can’t. Straight materialism leads, like water flowing downhill, to certain places. Communism actually is a quite logical conclusion of atheism, as is modern socialism. We are here, in this world of craziness in part because it’s the logical conclusion to the idea there is no God, when spread among the masses.

    Once you inject God (of any sort, not just the Christian), more ideas about the world are possible. Atheism is very restrictive in terms of how someone could logically view the world.

    • Replies: @Roderick Spode
    I'm agnostic.

    But as a European man, I cannot practice a Jewish religion. It's that simple.
    , @Roderick Spode

    Communism actually is a quite logical conclusion of atheism
     
    Are you on crack? Christianity espouses exactly the same hobbling, fantastical humanist values as leftism.

    Try having some pride in yourself.
  107. @whorefinder
    To be fair, it was founded a majority Protestant population, with but 1/13th of the states being a colony to Catholics (Maryland), and most of the others having few Catholics, other many tolerated them.

    Feinstein is protesting the woman's traditional Catholic faith; undoubtedly, Feinstein would be praising the woman if she went to a "Progessive" (i.e. heretical) Catholic Church or was a Unitarian ("Unitarianism---Where God is Literally Just a Suggestion").

    To be fair, it was founded a majority Protestant population, with but 1/13th of the states being a colony to Catholics (Maryland), and most of the others having few Catholics, other many tolerated them.

    Fun facts: The US was so Protestant at the time that Maryland would become overrun with Protestants and Catholics would lose the vote there for a short time. At founding Georgia wanted everyone but criminals..and Catholics. Most colonies decided to take a chance on German Protestants, rather than accept English Catholics.

    But in the end, Catholics weren’t killed, they accepted impressively large waves of Catholics with mostly grumbles, and Catholics don’t worry about building churches right next to Baptists, even to this day. I’ll take a few random insults. In the whole scheme of the world, it’s not that bad.

    • Replies: @Flip
    Britain decided to accept German Protestants as the kings (Hanoverians) after the last Stuart (Anne) died, bypassing 50 Catholics who had a better claim.
    , @Hibernian
    Don't know about Georgia's attitude towards Catholics, but as far as criminals are concerned, they started as a penal colony like Australia.
  108. @Buffalo Joe
    Craig, good response. The nuns' answers to all my youthful questions about God and faith was, " You have to believe and you will if you have faith.' A great Jesuit prof in college and his patient teaching of St Thomas actually established my faith, logically.

    Craig, good response. The nuns’ answers to all my youthful questions about God and faith was, ” You have to believe and you will if you have faith.’ A great Jesuit prof in college and his patient teaching of St Thomas actually established my faith, logically.

    Your experience highlights the typical breakdown of religious education in the West. For whatever reason, Christianity (and Catholicism in particular) got to point of being got passed on as, “You just have to believe”.

    Well, no, and especially not in Catholicism. Good grief, not just St. Thomas, but there’s a 2000 years of apologetics, in more or less technical terms. People are still producing good stuff, now in video form as well.

    Catholicism explained requires a whole less “You just have to believe” than most molecular science.

  109. @Nico

    The current Pope should be replaced, yes or no?
     
    As a Catholic and a fan of medieval (as opposed to neo-) Thomson, I say:

    Yes, but be careful about who is on the college of cardinals to ensure removal will not result in worse.

    Yes, but be careful about who is on the college of cardinals to ensure removal will not result in worse.

    We might have gotten the “good” Pope out of the lot. It’s a scary thought, but it’s a distinct possibility.

    • Replies: @Nico
    That's exactly why justification for tyrannicide must be qualified: "If you are sure you can win and if the pushback will not result in worse tyranny" as for example would certainly have been the case had Obama been assassinated.
  110. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    “Ms. Barrett was questioned in particular about a 1998 scholarly article in which she and her co-author argued that sometimes Catholic trial judges should recuse themselves from the sentencing phase of death penalty cases.”

    Er, isn’t that what they’re SUPPOSED to do in such cases. It’s called engaging in judicial ethics in order to remain true to one’s conscience. Does Feinstein have a problem with this?

  111. @The Last Real Calvinist
    So is anyone else wondering how many times Dianne Feinstein has watched the Star Wars movies?

    Good eye.

    DF is Darth Vader getting ready to blast our hero out of the sky when suddenly the swashbuckling and brash counter-hero shows up with some common sense and straight talking. And he wins!

    DJT is Han Solo.

  112. @guest
    Not "just because " Because gas chambers, that's why.

    From the other side, because pedophile priests, various other sex things, the inquisition, and Hitler's Pope.

    The Catholic Church has a homosexual, pedophile, ephephobe problem in the clergy.
    (my estimate is around 20-30% combined of the above in priests in the West).

    But so do: large Protestant sects, Western governments, Boy Scouts, Jewish Rabbis, Muslims, etc.

    They all need to get rid of the problem people.

  113. @AM

    Or one can reject both liberal and Abrahamic nonsense.
     
    No you can't. Straight materialism leads, like water flowing downhill, to certain places. Communism actually is a quite logical conclusion of atheism, as is modern socialism. We are here, in this world of craziness in part because it's the logical conclusion to the idea there is no God, when spread among the masses.

    Once you inject God (of any sort, not just the Christian), more ideas about the world are possible. Atheism is very restrictive in terms of how someone could logically view the world.

    I’m agnostic.

    But as a European man, I cannot practice a Jewish religion. It’s that simple.

    • Replies: @AM
    "But as a European man, I cannot practice a Jewish religion. It’s that simple."

    As an atheist, you are actually practicing a Jewish religion. You've wholly absorbed the religious thoughts of Karl Marx, a Jew raised as a Lutheran.

    Pay attention- your attitudes are those of an atheistic Jew, including being smarter than all those Christian dullards, past and present.

    And cripes, what insult to your heritage. Do you really think your ancestors were that stupid? "I'm a European man, but I can't even be bothered to investigate my heritage and it's complexity? The Old Testament has Jewish stuff in it so they must be practicing a Jewish religion? " Come on, man - you have some pride in your heritage. Your ancestors sat on the high hilltops of truth and philosophy. But you've got memes. (Facepalm)

  114. @AM

    Or one can reject both liberal and Abrahamic nonsense.
     
    No you can't. Straight materialism leads, like water flowing downhill, to certain places. Communism actually is a quite logical conclusion of atheism, as is modern socialism. We are here, in this world of craziness in part because it's the logical conclusion to the idea there is no God, when spread among the masses.

    Once you inject God (of any sort, not just the Christian), more ideas about the world are possible. Atheism is very restrictive in terms of how someone could logically view the world.

    Communism actually is a quite logical conclusion of atheism

    Are you on crack? Christianity espouses exactly the same hobbling, fantastical humanist values as leftism.

    Try having some pride in yourself.

    • Replies: @AM
    "Are you on crack? Christianity espouses exactly the same hobbling, fantastical humanist values as leftism."

    Modern clergy and laity who wish to duck the responsibilities of Christianity are that. Meanwhile, there are Popes as far back as the late 1800's condemning socialism. There's a Papal encycical from the 1930's warning against atheistic Communism. John Paul the II was certainly no fan.

    If you like tinfoil hat stuff, in traditional Catholic circles there's a theory that there was an invasion of communist inflitrators in the 1920's/1930's that have decayed Catholicism since, with Vatican II the formal coming out party.

    So yes, many formal modern Christian institutions sound like pagan communist lite, because that's what they are. Orthodox Christianity (little "o") has little to do with what gets passed off as Christianity in 2017.

    If you're ever interested in the topic, I highly recommend "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Catholicism", where practically every leftist "Catholic" position is refuted using the catechism and many historical references, including past Popes. The US Bishops formal institutional statements are no longer even vaguely Catholic. It's just something that faithful Catholics have to deal with in the current year.
    , @Anon
    Number of Christian Communist countries: 0.

    Number of atheist Communist countries: (well, count 'em: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_state).
  115. @AM

    To be fair, it was founded a majority Protestant population, with but 1/13th of the states being a colony to Catholics (Maryland), and most of the others having few Catholics, other many tolerated them.
     
    Fun facts: The US was so Protestant at the time that Maryland would become overrun with Protestants and Catholics would lose the vote there for a short time. At founding Georgia wanted everyone but criminals..and Catholics. Most colonies decided to take a chance on German Protestants, rather than accept English Catholics.

    But in the end, Catholics weren't killed, they accepted impressively large waves of Catholics with mostly grumbles, and Catholics don't worry about building churches right next to Baptists, even to this day. I'll take a few random insults. In the whole scheme of the world, it's not that bad.

    Britain decided to accept German Protestants as the kings (Hanoverians) after the last Stuart (Anne) died, bypassing 50 Catholics who had a better claim.

  116. Some worry that judicial nominee is hotter and more successful than columnist.

  117. @Roderick Spode

    Communism actually is a quite logical conclusion of atheism
     
    Are you on crack? Christianity espouses exactly the same hobbling, fantastical humanist values as leftism.

    Try having some pride in yourself.

    “Are you on crack? Christianity espouses exactly the same hobbling, fantastical humanist values as leftism.”

    Modern clergy and laity who wish to duck the responsibilities of Christianity are that. Meanwhile, there are Popes as far back as the late 1800’s condemning socialism. There’s a Papal encycical from the 1930’s warning against atheistic Communism. John Paul the II was certainly no fan.

    If you like tinfoil hat stuff, in traditional Catholic circles there’s a theory that there was an invasion of communist inflitrators in the 1920’s/1930’s that have decayed Catholicism since, with Vatican II the formal coming out party.

    So yes, many formal modern Christian institutions sound like pagan communist lite, because that’s what they are. Orthodox Christianity (little “o”) has little to do with what gets passed off as Christianity in 2017.

    If you’re ever interested in the topic, I highly recommend “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Catholicism”, where practically every leftist “Catholic” position is refuted using the catechism and many historical references, including past Popes. The US Bishops formal institutional statements are no longer even vaguely Catholic. It’s just something that faithful Catholics have to deal with in the current year.

  118. @Buzz Mohawk
    Not only are they going to let Islam slide, leftists aspire to exercise their own brand of terror and control over us for what we say and do in our own countries.

    And regarding the terror and control, well the current goal is ONLINE ORTHODOXY, attained through controlling information flows via Facebook, Google, and Amazon.

    Here’s a guy with some insightful things to say about the Long Night Ahead, John Robb, over at his site, Global Guerillas:

    http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/

    The main thrust is in the banner currently at the head of the site, but further details, along with many thought-provoking side jaunts, can be found as you peruse the posts on his site. Recommended.

    • Replies: @guest
    The "Long Night" is a bit overblown, considering it would just be a less effective form of thought control than the Cathedral had before the internet existed. You remember, when they merely controlled mass media and the educational system (along with the permanent government, the NGOs, the financial system, Big Business, and so on).

    Only difference. I suppose, is they have increasingly nutso plans in store, and our civilization is less able to take the brunt of their stupidity. So we need alternatives more than ever?

    But that's probably what people thought before they eliminated the republic and threw us into world wars, wherein hundreds of thousands of people died.

  119. @Roderick Spode
    I'm agnostic.

    But as a European man, I cannot practice a Jewish religion. It's that simple.

    “But as a European man, I cannot practice a Jewish religion. It’s that simple.”

    As an atheist, you are actually practicing a Jewish religion. You’ve wholly absorbed the religious thoughts of Karl Marx, a Jew raised as a Lutheran.

    Pay attention- your attitudes are those of an atheistic Jew, including being smarter than all those Christian dullards, past and present.

    And cripes, what insult to your heritage. Do you really think your ancestors were that stupid? “I’m a European man, but I can’t even be bothered to investigate my heritage and it’s complexity? The Old Testament has Jewish stuff in it so they must be practicing a Jewish religion? ” Come on, man – you have some pride in your heritage. Your ancestors sat on the high hilltops of truth and philosophy. But you’ve got memes. (Facepalm)

    • Replies: @Yngvar

    As an atheist, you are actually practicing a Jewish religion.
     
    If you believe in a God you are gullible enough to believe in that rubbish too. Engage you brain.
  120. @Roderick Spode

    Communism actually is a quite logical conclusion of atheism
     
    Are you on crack? Christianity espouses exactly the same hobbling, fantastical humanist values as leftism.

    Try having some pride in yourself.

    Number of Christian Communist countries: 0.

    Number of atheist Communist countries: (well, count ’em: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_state).

  121. @Nico

    The current Pope should be replaced, yes or no?
     
    As a Catholic and a fan of medieval (as opposed to neo-) Thomson, I say:

    Yes, but be careful about who is on the college of cardinals to ensure removal will not result in worse.

    Query: Thomson?

    • Replies: @Hibernian
    Thomist.
  122. @JerseyJeffersonian
    And regarding the terror and control, well the current goal is ONLINE ORTHODOXY, attained through controlling information flows via Facebook, Google, and Amazon.

    Here's a guy with some insightful things to say about the Long Night Ahead, John Robb, over at his site, Global Guerillas:

    http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/

    The main thrust is in the banner currently at the head of the site, but further details, along with many thought-provoking side jaunts, can be found as you peruse the posts on his site. Recommended.

    The “Long Night” is a bit overblown, considering it would just be a less effective form of thought control than the Cathedral had before the internet existed. You remember, when they merely controlled mass media and the educational system (along with the permanent government, the NGOs, the financial system, Big Business, and so on).

    Only difference. I suppose, is they have increasingly nutso plans in store, and our civilization is less able to take the brunt of their stupidity. So we need alternatives more than ever?

    But that’s probably what people thought before they eliminated the republic and threw us into world wars, wherein hundreds of thousands of people died.

  123. @AM
    "What if you don’t want anyone who prays to invisible sky fairies judging you? Facts, evidence, and logic only for me please!"

    I can't tell from your comment history if you're serious or not. If you are, I'd start by reading up on real Christian theology, which is exactly nothing like praying to invisible sky fairies.

    Christianity is the religion of facts, evidence, and logic. The NYT, Richard Dawkins, and the media at large has zero interest in presenting it that way.

    Christianity is the religion of facts, evidence, and logic.

    Except for that time when Greek and Roman gods were “the religion of facts, evidence, and logic.” Or that few hundred years when YHWH (the Mohamster version, not your Yeshua version) was that god. Etc. Ad nauseum.

    Wait, do you deny the existence of an invisible sky fairy? Can you prove the sky fairy doesn’t exist?

    Your simple assertion that Dawkins is wrong isn’t an argument. He makes the rather obvious point that science is based on testing hypotheses – your hypothesis is that “invisible sky fairy” doesn’t exist. Can you prove that? Because you sure failed pretty badly on your “the religion of facts, evidence, and logic” claim.

    • Replies: @Anon

    Can you prove the sky fairy doesn’t exist?
     
    Yes. God exists, therefore the sky fairy doesn't.
    , @AM

    Wait, do you deny the existence of an invisible sky fairy? Can you prove the sky fairy doesn’t exist?
     
    Oh, good grief.

    When you're ready to have a serious discussion of philosophy and religion, let's do it. If you're going be atheist meme factory and persist in the stoopid, there's nothing I can do.

  124. @Tracy
    Christians don't believe in "sky fairies"; they believe in God -- you know, the Uncaused Cause, the Prime Mover, the Creator, and so on. Unless you can think of how the universe came from nothing that became something and then exploded and then was able to produce life, I'll stick with the God story.

    Christians don’t believe in “sky fairies”; they believe in God — you know, the Uncaused Cause, the Prime Mover, the Creator, and so on.

    How do you know this “uncaused cause” isn’t a “sky fairy”? What proof do you assert?

    And where do I find this “Church of the Uncaused Cause” anyway?

    • Replies: @AM

    And where do I find this “Church of the Uncaused Cause” anyway?
     
    The same place you found your other deep religious thoughts: on a meme. I'd try to convey something more, but I don't have time to Photoshop it for you.

    PS - If you want some respect as a least an open minded thinker, try at least 1 book of the thousands of years of Christian apologetics, rather an a YouTube movie preening at you that you are all the worlds brightest person for reading cherry picked pop non-fiction book. You've successfully read something here at iSteve. I know you can do it.

  125. @silviosilver

    I love the way that materialists think they have “facts, evidence and logic” on their side. What a bunch of boobs. Aristotle outlined the proof for the existence of God in the 4th century BC. Thomas Aquinas extended and perfected that proof in the 13th century.
     
    Dude, why do you have to do this? I'm happy to let Christians have their faith, so long as they don't try to impose it on me. Live and let live, what's so bad about that? But when people like you come and insult my intelligence by telling me I'm living in denial of the basic facts of reality, it really gets up my nose. I can't be the only one who feels this way.

    I’m happy to let Christians have their faith, so long as they don’t try to impose it on me. Live and let live, what’s so bad about that?

    Because nobody can organize their society this way. The society as a whole must have some values. Now, we can talk about access to porn, who should have it and who shouldn’t. But in end, we must agree to impose values like murder is wrong or otherwise things fall apart, as they are beginning to do now.

    This “leave me alone” bit is crazy. It’s wanting the comforts and freedom of a Christian “home” and then saying “but I don’t want do anything for it or have anything even mild discomfort imposed upon me”. Either we agree to values that most of the population imposes on themselves (Christianity) or some authoritarian comes along and imposes it for us.

    Looking back in history, I don’t want an atheist to impose their values on everyone.

    But when people like you come and insult my intelligence by telling me I’m living in denial of the basic facts of reality, it really gets up my nose. I can’t be the only one who feels this way.

    Given your first 2 sentences, is that attitude all that wrong? Atheism is traditionally defined as the denial of God. If you study the question long enough, it’s clear that’s the correct one. Very few atheists, when you dig into it, have much more of an objection than they just really don’t want to believe there’s a God and will ignore all or deny evidence that vaguely suggests it.

    Nobody can force you to believe – but nobody has to respect your command of the facts either.

  126. @Stan d Mute

    Christianity is the religion of facts, evidence, and logic.

     

    Except for that time when Greek and Roman gods were “the religion of facts, evidence, and logic.” Or that few hundred years when YHWH (the Mohamster version, not your Yeshua version) was that god. Etc. Ad nauseum.

    Wait, do you deny the existence of an invisible sky fairy? Can you prove the sky fairy doesn’t exist?

    https://youtu.be/8nAos1M-_Ts

    Your simple assertion that Dawkins is wrong isn’t an argument. He makes the rather obvious point that science is based on testing hypotheses - your hypothesis is that “invisible sky fairy” doesn’t exist. Can you prove that? Because you sure failed pretty badly on your “the religion of facts, evidence, and logic” claim.

    Can you prove the sky fairy doesn’t exist?

    Yes. God exists, therefore the sky fairy doesn’t.

  127. @Stan d Mute

    Christianity is the religion of facts, evidence, and logic.

     

    Except for that time when Greek and Roman gods were “the religion of facts, evidence, and logic.” Or that few hundred years when YHWH (the Mohamster version, not your Yeshua version) was that god. Etc. Ad nauseum.

    Wait, do you deny the existence of an invisible sky fairy? Can you prove the sky fairy doesn’t exist?

    https://youtu.be/8nAos1M-_Ts

    Your simple assertion that Dawkins is wrong isn’t an argument. He makes the rather obvious point that science is based on testing hypotheses - your hypothesis is that “invisible sky fairy” doesn’t exist. Can you prove that? Because you sure failed pretty badly on your “the religion of facts, evidence, and logic” claim.

    Wait, do you deny the existence of an invisible sky fairy? Can you prove the sky fairy doesn’t exist?

    Oh, good grief.

    When you’re ready to have a serious discussion of philosophy and religion, let’s do it. If you’re going be atheist meme factory and persist in the stoopid, there’s nothing I can do.

  128. @TomSchmidt

    What if you don’t want anyone who prays to invisible sky fairies judging you? Facts, evidence, and logic only for me please!
     
    Assuming you want human judges, not computers, which suffer from the limitations of the Church-Turing thesis, you've got a problem: the judges who consider only facts, logic, and evidence are as prevalent as fairies.

    https://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/14/time-and-judgment/


    A new paper finds that experienced parole judges in Israel granted freedom about 65 percent of the time to the first prisoner who appeared before them on a given day. By the end of a morning session, the chance of release had dropped almost to zero.

    After the same judge returned from a lunch break, the first prisoner once again had about a 65 percent chance at freedom. And once again the odds declined steadily.
     

    I agree 100% that you’ll find an infinitesimally small number of judges who consider only facts, evidence, and logic in Israel where approximately 100% of judges are head-bangers for YHWH. What exactly was your point?

    I’m bored with all the mythology crap. All the moronic replies that assert the existence and supremacy of their version of an invisible sky fairy without a single testable hypothesis – just idiotic appeals to authority (ie Aquinas). The bottom line is that there is zero proof of any sky fairy’s existence and that all mythology rests on faith. And I don’t wish to be judged by someone, anyone, who holds non-falsifiable faith in sky fairies or in my guilt. Nor do I wish to kill or be killed based on someone else’s mythology!

    • Replies: @TomSchmidt
    I'd guess there are as many atheists in the Israeli population as here, percentage-wise. Wait, let me google that.

    "Irreligion in Israel is common.[1] Jewish atheism is the most common form of irreligion.[2] In Israel, around 50% of Israelis who were born ethnically Jewish consider themselves 'secular' or hiloni, some of them still keep certain religious traditions for cultural reasons, but most are immersed within the secular Jewish culture. The number of atheists and agnostics is lower, and stands at 15% and 37% respectively."
    Versus
    "According to the Pew Research Center, in 2014, 22.8% of the American population does not identify with a religion, including atheists (3.1%) and agnostics (4%).[2]"

    So you're five times more likely to have an atheist judge in Israel than the USA, using a naive first guess.

    What exactly was your point?

    I’m bored with all the mythology crap. All the moronic replies that assert the existence and supremacy of their version of an invisible sky fairy
    ...you’ll find an infinitesimally small number of judges who consider only facts, evidence, and logic
     
    My point was that a) logical reasoning systems are necessarily incomplete, as they cannot produce within the system all the possible true statements (that's math, take it up with Gödel) and b) human judgment, allegedly able to "think outside the box" of the Church-Turing thesis, is far from infallible, amenable as it is to the recency bias, possibly to low blood sugar, and a few other things. So you really want to be judged by a system that doesn't exist, and that if it did exist cannot produce certain statements within it that are true (perhaps including your own innocence of a crime.)

    That's a pretty big invisible ground fairy, I would think. More importantly, worse than being unfalsified, your ground fairy has ALREADY been shown not to exist, and if it did exist it would sacrifice truth to process.

    you might want to read D C Stove on Jazz Age philosophy for a critique of the idea of falsifiability. Stove's another atheist, but a right-Atheist, not a left-Atheist anti-traditionalist.
  129. @Stan d Mute

    Christians don’t believe in “sky fairies”; they believe in God — you know, the Uncaused Cause, the Prime Mover, the Creator, and so on.
     
    How do you know this “uncaused cause” isn’t a “sky fairy”? What proof do you assert?

    And where do I find this “Church of the Uncaused Cause” anyway?

    And where do I find this “Church of the Uncaused Cause” anyway?

    The same place you found your other deep religious thoughts: on a meme. I’d try to convey something more, but I don’t have time to Photoshop it for you.

    PS – If you want some respect as a least an open minded thinker, try at least 1 book of the thousands of years of Christian apologetics, rather an a YouTube movie preening at you that you are all the worlds brightest person for reading cherry picked pop non-fiction book. You’ve successfully read something here at iSteve. I know you can do it.

  130. @Anodynymous
    "What if you don’t want anyone who prays to invisible sky fairies judging you? Facts, evidence, and logic only for me please!"

    You go get 'em, Tiger! I prefer to be governed by atheist liberals who believe in solid science - like the fact that human (and only human) evolution came to a complete halt 50,000 years ago, or that a person can choose which gender he/she/xe belongs to.

    You go get ‘em, Tiger! I prefer to be governed by atheist liberals who believe in solid science – like the fact that human (and only human) evolution came to a complete halt 50,000 years ago, or that a person can choose which gender he/she/xe belongs to.

    Nice Strawman. You build him yourself? Or in a church study group?

    Your “liberals” are mainly, in my opinion, Lysenko Communists. They’re exactly like YHWH worshippers except their faith IS falsifiable and indeed has been falsified. It’s pretty astonishing really to find so many YHWH fanatics on a site like Unz where genetics and evolution are routinely discussed. I’d ask how you reconcile your mythology with HBD, but I really don’t care. Mostly this exercise has just given me a good new crop of commenters to add to my “ignore” list (praise be to Ron Unz for granting my prayers for an “ignore” button!)

    • Replies: @AM

    Nice Strawman. You build him yourself? Or in a church study group?
     
    I assume your work and family loves discussions with you.

    Mostly this exercise has just given me a good new crop of commenters to add to my “ignore” list (praise be to Ron Unz for granting my prayers for an “ignore” button!)
     
    Very brave and open minded. All I can say (which you won't see), is your posts are an object lesson about why atheism turn can turn people into brittle, weak-minded maroons.

    It's too bad, because I know many intelligent people for whom it would actually be interesting discussion.

  131. @guest
    "invisible sky fairies"

    Like Tyr? Are you thinking of ancient Indo-Europeans? Yeah, who needs them!

    "judging you"

    Us moderns get hung up on this part. Though we judge up a storm upon eachother. Probably because we fear more than anything a Sky God taking away the base pleasures that form our entire purpose for being.

    Like Tyr? Are you thinking of ancient Indo-Europeans? Yeah, who needs them!

    I kinda like Dionysus.

  132. @Stan d Mute

    You go get ‘em, Tiger! I prefer to be governed by atheist liberals who believe in solid science – like the fact that human (and only human) evolution came to a complete halt 50,000 years ago, or that a person can choose which gender he/she/xe belongs to.
     
    Nice Strawman. You build him yourself? Or in a church study group?

    Your “liberals” are mainly, in my opinion, Lysenko Communists. They’re exactly like YHWH worshippers except their faith IS falsifiable and indeed has been falsified. It’s pretty astonishing really to find so many YHWH fanatics on a site like Unz where genetics and evolution are routinely discussed. I’d ask how you reconcile your mythology with HBD, but I really don’t care. Mostly this exercise has just given me a good new crop of commenters to add to my “ignore” list (praise be to Ron Unz for granting my prayers for an “ignore” button!)

    Nice Strawman. You build him yourself? Or in a church study group?

    I assume your work and family loves discussions with you.

    Mostly this exercise has just given me a good new crop of commenters to add to my “ignore” list (praise be to Ron Unz for granting my prayers for an “ignore” button!)

    Very brave and open minded. All I can say (which you won’t see), is your posts are an object lesson about why atheism turn can turn people into brittle, weak-minded maroons.

    It’s too bad, because I know many intelligent people for whom it would actually be interesting discussion.

  133. @whorefinder
    I remember (((Al Franken))) bragging in one of his books about how he got his wife (a Catholic) to "turn away from the Pope" to marry him. (note: Catholics are allowed to marry non-Catholics, even ((certain non-catholics)), under Catholic laws). I think he also implied she abandoned her faith post-marriage. He was smugly happy about it.

    And now this from ((Feinstein)).

    And of course, many (((Hollywood executives))) love to portray Catholic priests as child molesters, or hypocrites, or twisted sexual deviants deviating from Jesus, who was all about gay marriage, abortion, free love, doing whatever you wanted, equality of all religions, feminims, and anti-racism, don't you get it, man?

    The Papacy triggers a lot of people's conspiracy paranoia, but a ((certain group)) has a continuous hatred of those goyim in Rome who managed to organize themselves pretty well for 2000 years.

    But I will point out this is again the WASP/Jewish coalition turning on those dang papists who took over much of the North and Midwest through numbers.

    “…those dang papists who took over much of the North and Midwest through numbers.”

    Yea, electing pols like the Daleys and Kennedys was a great accomplishment. Not to mention acting as precinct captains for WASPs Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman, Johnson, Carter, and Clinton.

    • Replies: @whorefinder
    The bitterness of the WASPs of Boston at losing their city to the Irish is a drama now two centuries old. All the HUD demolition and project building and i-93 construction and, biggest of all, school busing, was the WASP revenge on the Irish, utterly decimating most of the Irish strongholds outside of South Boston, causing mass exodus to the suburbs. And the Jews gladly helped out.
  134. @Nomennovum
    The People of Praise sound like the Hassidim with regard to their gender roles.

    So what’s wrong with that?

  135. @Bill

    the woman’s traditional Catholic faith;
     
    Traditional? No.

    People of Praise seems kind of Quasi-Protestant.

  136. @Mis(ter)Anthrope
    Or maybe because Christians believe they are God's Chosen People and all other people are a lesser form of humanity and Jews believe God's grace is available to all people who repent from their sins and ask for forgiveness.

    It is possible I have that backwards.

    There are definitely Jews who really take the “Light Unto the Nations” thing seriously and Christians, including Roman Catholics, Protestants, and others, who are more than a little Pharasaical.

  137. @AM

    To be fair, it was founded a majority Protestant population, with but 1/13th of the states being a colony to Catholics (Maryland), and most of the others having few Catholics, other many tolerated them.
     
    Fun facts: The US was so Protestant at the time that Maryland would become overrun with Protestants and Catholics would lose the vote there for a short time. At founding Georgia wanted everyone but criminals..and Catholics. Most colonies decided to take a chance on German Protestants, rather than accept English Catholics.

    But in the end, Catholics weren't killed, they accepted impressively large waves of Catholics with mostly grumbles, and Catholics don't worry about building churches right next to Baptists, even to this day. I'll take a few random insults. In the whole scheme of the world, it's not that bad.

    Don’t know about Georgia’s attitude towards Catholics, but as far as criminals are concerned, they started as a penal colony like Australia.

    • Replies: @anon
    Catholics in Australia have been vocal re Irish rebels being sent to slavery in the West indies in the 17th Century.
    Also recall that while Catholics are only 7% of the population in England, they make up 30% of the prison inmates [ not counting Irishmen].

    Meanwhile, Catholics account for 75% of Australia's Cabinet, plus the Prime Minister, and the 6 State Premiers.
    But, they're still feeling oppressed by the existence of Christians.
  138. @Anon
    Query: Thomson?

    Thomist.

    • Replies: @Nico
    Thanks. Damn autocorrect.
  139. @AM

    Their lack of interest in presenting Christianity as The Religion of Facts, Evidence and Logic obviously doesn’t mean that Christianity can be truthfully described as such.
     
    LOL! Anyone who wants to start a "science" debate at evolution, a theory that can never be tested, has failed the facts, evidence, and logic test.

    There's no actual divide between evolution (or the Big Bang, developed in part by a Catholic Priest) and religious thought. I'll leave the Bible Literalists to argue with you over evolution because it's a point of irrelevant dogma for both parties.

    Meanwhile, you probably don't want to get into a debate about history, science (testable kind, not naturalism), or philosophy with me. Literally, Christianity represents retaining the best and/or advancement in all of those areas. Any Christian who has absorbed even the basics of the Trinity and fallen humanity has a model of the world far superior to any secular liberal, no matter how educated. Those who have studied Christianity, in depth, or even shallow (me), makes Richard Dawkins look like the sad, wanna be intellectual with a chip on his should that he is.

    The average modern militant atheist has some ridiculous cartoon version of Christianity in their head and an obsession with evolution. Meanwhile, back in the 13th century AD, Thomas Aquinas wrote Summa Theologica, a lifetime of work that examined every view point someone could know on the Divine. Translated into English, it's 5 volumes.

    Have you read it? Have you even heard of it? Any interest? Or in Mere Christianity by CS Lewis (at little shorter read, modern)? Or are you going to fall back on "muh evolution"? It seems quite safer ground. You can "science", bro and nobody ever asks anything more of you than that.

    <i.Meanwhile, you probably don’t want to get into a debate about history, science (testable kind, not naturalism), or philosophy with me. Literally, Christianity represents retaining the best and/or advancement in all of those areas. Any Christian who has absorbed even the basics of the Trinity and fallen humanity has a model of the world far superior to any secular liberal, no matter how educated. …

    Isaac Newton considered himself to be a Christian, but he balked at Trinitarianism — The NeoPlatonic and rather polytheistic doctrine of the Old Man, the Kid, and the Spook … The inscrutable One in Three and Three in One.

    Newton was a scientist.

    New Testament support for the Trinity is weak.

    • Replies: @whorefinder

    Isaac Newton considered himself to be a Christian, but he balked at Trinitarianism — The NeoPlatonic and rather polytheistic doctrine of the Old Man, the Kid, and the Spook … The inscrutable One in Three and Three in One.

    Newton was a scientist.

    New Testament support for the Trinity is weak.
     

    The Protestant fetishization of the text uber alles created in those cultures a weakness, which Newton imbibed.

    Start from the point that The New Testament itself makes no statement about its text being supreme, or anything close to Sola Scriptura. Then you move on to the fact that for 200-300 years (at least), there was no complete written scripture---Christianity then was oral and tradition based, with the occasional Church having some scripture from the NT. If the apostles themselves saw no need to elevate the text to supremacy, and didn't even charge their immediate successors to do so, and Jesus himself never did so, the Protestant sola scriptura is already pretty weak sauce.

    As to Trinitarian views, the Protestants excluded a bunch of Catholic books from the Bible to keep the Trinity (and Catholic supremacy) out. I would suggest you read those in light of Christ's later fulfillment of them before saying the NT doesn't support the Trinity, or does so weakly.

  140. @Hibernian
    "...those dang papists who took over much of the North and Midwest through numbers."

    Yea, electing pols like the Daleys and Kennedys was a great accomplishment. Not to mention acting as precinct captains for WASPs Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman, Johnson, Carter, and Clinton.

    The bitterness of the WASPs of Boston at losing their city to the Irish is a drama now two centuries old. All the HUD demolition and project building and i-93 construction and, biggest of all, school busing, was the WASP revenge on the Irish, utterly decimating most of the Irish strongholds outside of South Boston, causing mass exodus to the suburbs. And the Jews gladly helped out.

  141. @David Davenport
    <i.Meanwhile, you probably don’t want to get into a debate about history, science (testable kind, not naturalism), or philosophy with me. Literally, Christianity represents retaining the best and/or advancement in all of those areas. Any Christian who has absorbed even the basics of the Trinity and fallen humanity has a model of the world far superior to any secular liberal, no matter how educated. ...

    Isaac Newton considered himself to be a Christian, but he balked at Trinitarianism -- The NeoPlatonic and rather polytheistic doctrine of the Old Man, the Kid, and the Spook ... The inscrutable One in Three and Three in One.

    Newton was a scientist.

    New Testament support for the Trinity is weak.

    Isaac Newton considered himself to be a Christian, but he balked at Trinitarianism — The NeoPlatonic and rather polytheistic doctrine of the Old Man, the Kid, and the Spook … The inscrutable One in Three and Three in One.

    Newton was a scientist.

    New Testament support for the Trinity is weak.

    The Protestant fetishization of the text uber alles created in those cultures a weakness, which Newton imbibed.

    Start from the point that The New Testament itself makes no statement about its text being supreme, or anything close to Sola Scriptura. Then you move on to the fact that for 200-300 years (at least), there was no complete written scripture—Christianity then was oral and tradition based, with the occasional Church having some scripture from the NT. If the apostles themselves saw no need to elevate the text to supremacy, and didn’t even charge their immediate successors to do so, and Jesus himself never did so, the Protestant sola scriptura is already pretty weak sauce.

    As to Trinitarian views, the Protestants excluded a bunch of Catholic books from the Bible to keep the Trinity (and Catholic supremacy) out. I would suggest you read those in light of Christ’s later fulfillment of them before saying the NT doesn’t support the Trinity, or does so weakly.

    • Replies: @Anon
    The books the Prots leave out are all OT, aren't they? If one goes around "proving" things from texts the Trinity actually has pretty good NT support, but that's not really how we do theology.
  142. @TWS
    I thought we outlawed religious tests.

    I thought we outlawed religious tests.

    That’s the dead constitution.

    In the living constitution, it’s “We shall have no judges who believe in any religion, but tenets of contemporary Progressivism**”.

    (**Whatever they are this week.)

    • Agree: Desiderius
  143. @Svigor

    I love the way that materialists think they have “facts, evidence and logic” on their side. What a bunch of boobs. Aristotle outlined the proof for the existence of God in the 4th century BC. Thomas Aquinas extended and perfected that proof in the 13th century.
     
    I'm a materialist and an agnostic (and a secular/cultural Christian). I give atheists Hell for their illogical, dogmatic certainty.

    Just sayin'.

    Lazarene Cult
     
    That is brilliant and I'm stealing it.

    And of course, many (((Hollywood executives))) love to portray Catholic priests as child molesters, or hypocrites, or twisted sexual deviants deviating from Jesus, who was all about gay marriage, abortion, free love, doing whatever you wanted, equality of all religions, feminims, and anti-racism, don’t you get it, man?

    The Papacy triggers a lot of people’s conspiracy paranoia, but a ((certain group)) has a continuous hatred of those goyim in Rome who managed to organize themselves pretty well for 2000 years.

    But I will point out this is again the WASP/Jewish coalition turning on those dang papists who took over much of the North and Midwest through numbers.
     
    In my experience, Jewish Big Media is much warmer toward Catholics than Protestants. Which works counter to the "WASP/Jew alliance" meme that seems to be trending here. The "WASP/Jew alliance" reminds me a bit of the "Judeo-Christian" thing. The latter is a way for Christians to defend Christianity by associating it with Jews (and, to a lesser degree, for rightist philosemites to defend Jews by associating them with Christianity, I suppose). The former seems to be a way to defend countersemitism by associating criticism of Jews with criticism of Anglo-Saxons.

    In my experience, Jewish Big Media is much warmer toward Catholics than Protestants.

    From the level of hysteria evoked in the Jewish commentariat, Evangelical Protestants do seem to be the folks that really press their buttons. They have become the stand in for the Russian peasantry.

    Catholics–if they seem to be not overly sincere seem to taken as a “well its the religion of his people” thing, which is how a lot of Jews view their own religion. But serious traditionalist Catholics, raise their hackles a bit more, and of course around legal issues get the Jewish seculars all excited that the Catholic won’t be on board with taking all the constitutional destruction (abortion, homosexuality), that they’ve wreaked, as settled law.

    And yes, there does still seem to be a sort of deep Jewish folktale antipathy to the old WASP ruling class–the blond fraternity boys of Sabrina Rubin Erdely’s imagination–as sort of a totem of oppression, even though I would guess that’s the class of gentiles that the Jews meet in elite schools and intermarry with more than any other. I guess it’s not enough to have the pitchfork peasantry out there–i.e. Evangelicals Prots with their bibles and snakes and pickups and gun racks–but the Jewish narrative requires there to be an oppressive establishment as well. Even though Jews have been the establishment for going on two generations now.

  144. @guest
    Not "just because " Because gas chambers, that's why.

    From the other side, because pedophile priests, various other sex things, the inquisition, and Hitler's Pope.

    Not “just because ” Because gas chambers, that’s why.

    From the other side, because pedophile priests, various other sex things, the inquisition, and Hitler’s Pope.

    Huh?

    Gas chambers have what to do with Christianity? Note, they definitely have something to do with Gentiles as Gentiles. But the gas chambers didn’t exactly spring out of the Christian quarter.

    Pedophile priests? You mean homosexual priests grooming/abusing/raping teenaged boys? Yes, it is bad that the Catholic Church has so many homosexuals in the hierarchy making excuses for homo-scum. What that has to do with married Catholics being judges? And when did Jewish progressives start to take a big interest in suppressing typical homosexual behavior?

    “Various sex things”? You mean Catholics might not actually believe in this unwritten “Constitutional” principle that all legal questions around (deviant) sexual behavior should be judicially settled according to the latest Progressive dogma … instead of by elected legislatures as the Constitution actually suggests?

    The inquistition? Ok you got me there … I guess that settles it.

    • Replies: @guest
    It might help to know I was being sarcastic.

    "Gas chambers have what to do with Christianity?"

    Nothing in particular, except the holocaust happened in what used to be called Christendom. Jews are afraid of Europeans, and Christians are more European-y than other people.

    Also, it's a favorite academic pastime to trace the holocaust back to Christian roots. Martin Luther is useful here.

    Moreover, "because gas chambers" is pretty much their answer for everything they want to avoid.

    Pedophilic priests and the inquisition are stock objections to the Church.

    "Various sex things" is about the fact that I find an unusual amount of leftist objection to Christianity to be sexual in nature. The scariest question in the world for them is, "What, are we supposed to just not get off?"

  145. @AnotherDad

    Not “just because ” Because gas chambers, that’s why.

    From the other side, because pedophile priests, various other sex things, the inquisition, and Hitler’s Pope.
     
    Huh?

    Gas chambers have what to do with Christianity? Note, they definitely have something to do with Gentiles as Gentiles. But the gas chambers didn't exactly spring out of the Christian quarter.

    Pedophile priests? You mean homosexual priests grooming/abusing/raping teenaged boys? Yes, it is bad that the Catholic Church has so many homosexuals in the hierarchy making excuses for homo-scum. What that has to do with married Catholics being judges? And when did Jewish progressives start to take a big interest in suppressing typical homosexual behavior?

    "Various sex things"? You mean Catholics might not actually believe in this unwritten "Constitutional" principle that all legal questions around (deviant) sexual behavior should be judicially settled according to the latest Progressive dogma ... instead of by elected legislatures as the Constitution actually suggests?

    The inquistition? Ok you got me there ... I guess that settles it.

    It might help to know I was being sarcastic.

    “Gas chambers have what to do with Christianity?”

    Nothing in particular, except the holocaust happened in what used to be called Christendom. Jews are afraid of Europeans, and Christians are more European-y than other people.

    Also, it’s a favorite academic pastime to trace the holocaust back to Christian roots. Martin Luther is useful here.

    Moreover, “because gas chambers” is pretty much their answer for everything they want to avoid.

    Pedophilic priests and the inquisition are stock objections to the Church.

    “Various sex things” is about the fact that I find an unusual amount of leftist objection to Christianity to be sexual in nature. The scariest question in the world for them is, “What, are we supposed to just not get off?”

  146. AM:

    Recall John 14:2

    English Standard Version (ESV) – “In my Father’s house are many rooms. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you?”

    My interpretation of this passage is, Heaven has room for more than one brand of Christianity.

  147. @Stan d Mute
    You mean Zoroastrians? Buddhists? Shintos? Hindus? Cargo Cultists? Wiccans? Mormons? Come on, the suspense is just killing me!

    Wait, it’s Scientologists right?

    The Yazidis.. every…single…time.

  148. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Hibernian
    Don't know about Georgia's attitude towards Catholics, but as far as criminals are concerned, they started as a penal colony like Australia.

    Catholics in Australia have been vocal re Irish rebels being sent to slavery in the West indies in the 17th Century.
    Also recall that while Catholics are only 7% of the population in England, they make up 30% of the prison inmates [ not counting Irishmen].

    Meanwhile, Catholics account for 75% of Australia’s Cabinet, plus the Prime Minister, and the 6 State Premiers.
    But, they’re still feeling oppressed by the existence of Christians.

  149. @AM
    "But as a European man, I cannot practice a Jewish religion. It’s that simple."

    As an atheist, you are actually practicing a Jewish religion. You've wholly absorbed the religious thoughts of Karl Marx, a Jew raised as a Lutheran.

    Pay attention- your attitudes are those of an atheistic Jew, including being smarter than all those Christian dullards, past and present.

    And cripes, what insult to your heritage. Do you really think your ancestors were that stupid? "I'm a European man, but I can't even be bothered to investigate my heritage and it's complexity? The Old Testament has Jewish stuff in it so they must be practicing a Jewish religion? " Come on, man - you have some pride in your heritage. Your ancestors sat on the high hilltops of truth and philosophy. But you've got memes. (Facepalm)

    As an atheist, you are actually practicing a Jewish religion.

    If you believe in a God you are gullible enough to believe in that rubbish too. Engage you brain.

  150. @AM

    Yes, but be careful about who is on the college of cardinals to ensure removal will not result in worse.
     
    We might have gotten the "good" Pope out of the lot. It's a scary thought, but it's a distinct possibility.

    That’s exactly why justification for tyrannicide must be qualified: “If you are sure you can win and if the pushback will not result in worse tyranny” as for example would certainly have been the case had Obama been assassinated.

  151. @Hibernian
    Thomist.

    Thanks. Damn autocorrect.

  152. @Buzz Mohawk
    There is only one religious group to which nominees are permitted ties without question.

    I’d these days there at least two. Of course, they thoroughly hate each other.

  153. @Pat Casey
    Oh we got plenty of evidence. Lourdes, Fatima, Padre Pio, the Shroud of Turin, Eucharistic miracles etc. That you don't now about the evidence is maybe because atheists are naive. Maybe youu think if there was real evidence there would be some sort of official pronouncement from science that there is evidence and it wouldn't be a question anymore and everyone would believe in the evidence. But that hasn't happened--and its naive to think it would. My experience is that most atheists who are exposed to the evidence shrug it off and go about like it didn't exist.

    How about the genuine repentance of Alessandro Serenelli, the murderer of Maria Goretti, which not only lasted after he was released from prison but also tranformed the remainder of his life?
    Serenelli was a certifiable psychopath. He had blamed everyone but himself and changed stories regularly: 12-year-old Maria led him on; if she hadn’t turned him down he wouldn’t have killed her; it was the priests’ fault she had rejected his advances; she had been willing, etc. He boasted of his crimes in prison for years and jeered at any priest who visited him…until he had a dream in which Maria appeared and offered forgiveness. At that point, he woke sobbing and pleading for a priest.

    Unlike the usual jailhouse conversion which is often followed by returning to the ex-con’s old ways as soon as he is free, Serenelli’s conversion led him to become a lay brother with the Capuchin Franciscans, where he remained until his death decades later. He not only cleared Maria’s name of all the false accusations he had made, but testified on her behalf when she was a candidate for sainthood.

    This is not a pious legend from the Middle Ages, but a well-documented case from the early 20th century. Many miracles have been attributed to St. Maria, but to me, the most impressive is winning the soul of a man who, to all appearances, had no soul. Even clinical psychologists admit they can’t do much with psychopaths, but with the help of God, little Maria did what they could not.

  154. @JeremiahJohnbalaya
    To even ask a nominee what their religion is, much less this degree of belittling harassment, is a violation of Article 6 of The Constitution.

    "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

    If a hearing involving questions attempting to ascertain qualification is not a "test", then I don't know what is.

    The correct response the line of inquiry is "my religious beliefs are none of your f-cking business"

    Well, she couldn’t use your wording exactly; that’s being guilty of using Impure Language.

  155. @Stan d Mute
    I agree 100% that you’ll find an infinitesimally small number of judges who consider only facts, evidence, and logic in Israel where approximately 100% of judges are head-bangers for YHWH. What exactly was your point?

    I’m bored with all the mythology crap. All the moronic replies that assert the existence and supremacy of their version of an invisible sky fairy without a single testable hypothesis - just idiotic appeals to authority (ie Aquinas). The bottom line is that there is zero proof of any sky fairy’s existence and that all mythology rests on faith. And I don’t wish to be judged by someone, anyone, who holds non-falsifiable faith in sky fairies or in my guilt. Nor do I wish to kill or be killed based on someone else’s mythology!

    I’d guess there are as many atheists in the Israeli population as here, percentage-wise. Wait, let me google that.

    “Irreligion in Israel is common.[1] Jewish atheism is the most common form of irreligion.[2] In Israel, around 50% of Israelis who were born ethnically Jewish consider themselves ‘secular’ or hiloni, some of them still keep certain religious traditions for cultural reasons, but most are immersed within the secular Jewish culture. The number of atheists and agnostics is lower, and stands at 15% and 37% respectively.”
    Versus
    “According to the Pew Research Center, in 2014, 22.8% of the American population does not identify with a religion, including atheists (3.1%) and agnostics (4%).[2]”

    So you’re five times more likely to have an atheist judge in Israel than the USA, using a naive first guess.

    What exactly was your point?

    I’m bored with all the mythology crap. All the moronic replies that assert the existence and supremacy of their version of an invisible sky fairy
    …you’ll find an infinitesimally small number of judges who consider only facts, evidence, and logic

    My point was that a) logical reasoning systems are necessarily incomplete, as they cannot produce within the system all the possible true statements (that’s math, take it up with Gödel) and b) human judgment, allegedly able to “think outside the box” of the Church-Turing thesis, is far from infallible, amenable as it is to the recency bias, possibly to low blood sugar, and a few other things. So you really want to be judged by a system that doesn’t exist, and that if it did exist cannot produce certain statements within it that are true (perhaps including your own innocence of a crime.)

    That’s a pretty big invisible ground fairy, I would think. More importantly, worse than being unfalsified, your ground fairy has ALREADY been shown not to exist, and if it did exist it would sacrifice truth to process.

    you might want to read D C Stove on Jazz Age philosophy for a critique of the idea of falsifiability. Stove’s another atheist, but a right-Atheist, not a left-Atheist anti-traditionalist.

  156. @whorefinder

    Isaac Newton considered himself to be a Christian, but he balked at Trinitarianism — The NeoPlatonic and rather polytheistic doctrine of the Old Man, the Kid, and the Spook … The inscrutable One in Three and Three in One.

    Newton was a scientist.

    New Testament support for the Trinity is weak.
     

    The Protestant fetishization of the text uber alles created in those cultures a weakness, which Newton imbibed.

    Start from the point that The New Testament itself makes no statement about its text being supreme, or anything close to Sola Scriptura. Then you move on to the fact that for 200-300 years (at least), there was no complete written scripture---Christianity then was oral and tradition based, with the occasional Church having some scripture from the NT. If the apostles themselves saw no need to elevate the text to supremacy, and didn't even charge their immediate successors to do so, and Jesus himself never did so, the Protestant sola scriptura is already pretty weak sauce.

    As to Trinitarian views, the Protestants excluded a bunch of Catholic books from the Bible to keep the Trinity (and Catholic supremacy) out. I would suggest you read those in light of Christ's later fulfillment of them before saying the NT doesn't support the Trinity, or does so weakly.

    The books the Prots leave out are all OT, aren’t they? If one goes around “proving” things from texts the Trinity actually has pretty good NT support, but that’s not really how we do theology.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
Which superpower is more threatened by its “extractive elites”?
How a Young Syndicate Lawyer from Chicago Earned a Fortune Looting the Property of the Japanese-Americans, then Lived...
Becker update V1.3.2