Garland

Jason Arvak : But at the point that socially-unpopular opinions should have “repercussions”, Garland, where do you draw a clear line between what you are willing to endorse and what you would oppose as a “vendetta”? The repercussion here was a passive result of the environment produced. No one petitioned for her being out of the running. No one actively sought her out, targeted her etc. She just found herself behind the general curve expected of that event, of that crowd. Or let's put it this way - would you have approved of her winning the pageant after standing up for stating her personal belief that mixed-race marriages shouldn't be possible? Because, she might have gotten away with that decades ago, but now that is not accepted at those kind of events. What people are free to say without negative reactions/repercussions change depending on setting, context, time and place. This wasn't political, but rather a social situation and reaction that I approve of. Not because she was a christian, but because she used christianity in a self-entitled way that deteriorates both the faith and the issue. It seems to me that if freedom of conscience and freedom of speech (supposedly liberal principles, by the way) are to have any real meaning whatsoever, that people should almost NEVER face “repercussions” other than opposing speech. Once we start leveling actual sanctions (especially with the use of government power, as in college campus speech codes), we are essentially destroying basic rights for no other purpose than preventing a majority from hearing opinions they disagree with.

Freedom of speech has never been a left- or right-wing thing. " if freedom of conscience and freedom of speech are to have any real meaning ... people should almost NEVER face “repercussions” other than opposing speech." The thing is that that is probably not how society works. You won't rise in the ranks of a political party if you say this or that even if you fulfill more relevant criteria, because it is up to another person to select you. You can get away with some jokes in a military barracks, especially if there aren't any female soldiers around. Also, if you make a committed, conscious effort to impose your political program on others, even across state lines, you've definitely approved of a certain degree of committed protests leveled against you by those you sought to imposition. It was perfectly legal for the LDS to sponsor Prop 8, and it was equally legal of gay protesters to demonstrate back in response (not vandalize or steal newspapers or anything of the sort) and ask the LDS what their beef was. Demonstrating outside of premises and mentioning the LDS in politically charged terms is definitely serious, but the LDS drew first blood - the aspect of the backlash that was legal was not an escalation, but self-defense (however, I can't side with any protesters that used consciously escalating or generalizing rhetoric). Likewise, the fact that Prejean found herself amiss doesn't seem like the result of active petitioning to have her out of the running - it was merely the pageant holders' response to the immediately negative reaction to her decision to use her religiously motivated views on the legal rights of others when asked a question. Then it all turned into a "PC-liberal-thought-crime-the-lions-are-entering-the-colloseum" debate with the usual suspects on both sides, and now Prejean has gladly let herself be a spokesperson for a bunch of "our outdated idea of the family first" organizations and things escalate again. I blame the fact that the damned question was asked in the first place.

Jason Arvak

her decision to use her religiously motivated views on the legal rights of others when asked a question

I'm sorry, but I can't allow this dishonest characterization of what happened to stand unchallenged. SHE WAS ASKED HER OPINION. HER ONLY CRIME WAS THAT SHE DIDN'T LIE. And what has happened in reaction goes FAR beyond merely downing her score in the pageant. I have no problem with people writing editorials and blog posts condemning her opinion. I have no problem with protests and even picketing, providing it does not cross the line into vandalism and intimidation. Speech is legitimately countered by speech. But she has been targeted for total personal destruction by a dedicated crew of researchers. This is a price being imposed that is FAR beyond a mere spoken reaction of disagreement to her words. This is being prosecuted not as a debate or a discussion, but as a THOUGHT CRIME -- an Orwellian concept with extremely dangerous implications for the future, especially as the government claims more and more leverage over individual lives. I have total confidence that if the partisan tables were reversed, this "politics of personal destruction" would be condemned by liberals. How do I have total confidence? Because condemnation was EXACTLY their reaction to the Clinton impeachment. The term "politics of personal destruction" was coined by Bill Clinton. But now liberals try to find ways to endorse what they once complained about. And I call "hypocrite" on that. P.S. I notice you completely evaded my question by changing the subject again. Just didn't want you to think you got away with it without being noticed. P.P.S. Unfortunately, your claim that "free speech is not a left or right issue" is just not true any more. Free speech is under concerted attack from the left on college campuses all across America for over a decade now. The liberal movement that was born as the "free speech movement" at Berkeley in the 1960s has completely betrayed its supposed principles and become the very image of that it once protested. And the refusal of most liberals to face up to that problem with intellectually honesty makes them individual complicit as far as I am concerned. That is definitely the standard they would apply to conservatives (e.g. your frequent tainting of all conservatives with the Coulter brush), so they have to live with reciprocity.

c3 Jason; I do appreciate your patience and perseverance but you can't get blood from a turnip. Here's one Christian's present take on the Prejean affair. First the aftermath. I expected photos to be found and other dirt to be found. Haven't we had enough examples of beauty queens who later are embarrassed by previous activities to guess that many have done such things in the past. Certainly the idea of a woman parading in scanty clothes is "at the edge" of biblically-supported/biblically condemned behavior. There has been, in fact, discussion in the "Christian blogosphere" about her questionable behavior. Having said that, I was not at all surprised that certain conservative Christian groups latched onto her as the new cause celebre. (Didn't we go through this with Joe the Plumber). But what is surprising and at the core of this controversy is that someone was asked publically how she viewed gay marriage. That person answered what they believed a marriage was between a man and a women (explaining that was how she was raised) but also expresses that that is only her view and that other disagree with her. And for that answer she received much public retribution. Frankly, I would feel the same way if she had said nothing about any religious background and made the same statement. I would have been happy if Mr. Hilton had stated he was upset and disturbed at her comments and left it at that. He did not. He called her a "stupid b**ch" and proceeded from there. I would hope those on both sides of the gay marriage debate would agree that this would/should be no different than if she stated "I have a sister who is gay and is in a stong committed relationship and I support her" and the conservative judge went on his website and called her a "sinful harlot going to hell" and then proceeded to encourage other dirt be found. But according to Garland,I guess I don't understand the Zietgest

Jason Arvak Only people that throw around pretentious and self-reifying terms like "Zeitgeist" can ever really have enough arrogance to claim to speak for it. :) All it is underneath is a naturalistic fallacy -- the claim that because the self-righteous mob believes something, it must therefore be valid social truth. Liberals used to object to things like that and used to seek to protect minorities against mob action. Now they are the mob.

I would hope those on both sides of the gay marriage debate would agree that this would/should be no different than if she stated “I have a sister who is gay and is in a stong committed relationship and I support her” and the conservative judge went on his website and called her a “sinful harlot going to hell” and then proceeded to encourage other dirt be found.

I can absolutely guarantee that the reaction would not have been the same, either from Garland or from the rest of the liberal and faux moderate blogosphere. The double standards in play are particularly blatant here. But have you noticed that every single time anyone tries to point that out, Garland (or someone like him) immediately changes the subject?

Garland "I’m sorry, but I can’t allow this dishonest characterization of what happened to stand unchallenged. SHE WAS ASKED HER OPINION. HER ONLY CRIME WAS THAT SHE DIDN’T LIE." And her opinion is philosophically untenable. A system of beliefs that you really don't expect anyone to uphold in the fullest, yet you seek to use it to make decisions and endorse a political position in an issue that will affect the lives of others? Why does the US have a jury of peers? Because you should be judged and subjected to loss of freedom by people who share your mundane situation. Prejean saw fit to tell gay people what they can't do based on a biblical notion of homosexuals and marriage that apparently takes precedence over the basic matter of equality. If the bible was indeed seen as an impeccable ruler of all society she wouldn't even participate in a beauty pageant. That is not "conservative" or a "thought crime" - that is plain nightmarish. It can't go unchallenged either. The question shouldn't have been asked. The answer was unfortunate and didn't meet the expectations of the situation and the people involved. We are a species that treat people differently depending on their explicit views and positions. Seeing as her position is essentially untenable, self-righteous, divisive and hypocritical, I see this as a case where a person was -at first- slighted in the right way (once, in the context of her explicit position-taking) for the right reason. I still consider it a sign of respect of christianity in general that the irrational and self-righteous implications of her utterance were not excused by their religious origin. " But she has been targeted for total personal destruction by a dedicated crew of researchers." Yes, the images are uncalled for, as is the focusing of attention on her. She made her views explicit once, that doesn't make her a threat to anyone or a committed pursuer of a certain policy. Further scrutiny has troubling implications for all, not just Prejean. Now, however, she has decided to take the opportunity to become a spokesperson for her cherry-picked idea of faith. One could say that it wasn't she that took things to a larger level of politics, and I think one would be right. "P.S. I notice you completely evaded my question by changing the subject again. Just didn’t want you to think you got away with it without being noticed." Wanted to illustrate the notion of quid pro quo in the social sphere with an issue that is dear to me. Notice away. "I would hope those on both sides of the gay marriage debate would agree that this would/should be no different than if she stated “I have a sister who is gay and is in a stong committed relationship and I support her” and the conservative judge went on his website and called her a “sinful harlot going to hell” and then proceeded to encourage other dirt be found." I distinguish between religiously motivated views and non-religiously motivated views. Seeing as the former leads to shaping society based on what you can not possibly know, I think it is dangerous and self-righteous to mix religion and politics. Gay humans are provenly real and that has serious metaphysical implications. What one believes they can do based on a supposedly holy text (that no one lives up to to its fullest) is irrelevant. Prejean's position is not the problem - it's the very dangerous notion that a world we can not possibly prove exists should have sway over the world we actually have to live in that is the problem. And yes, Hilton should have made verbal his understandable ire in another way. Humans should govern themselves and others based on axiomatic morality first and empirical experience second. If the decision-making Prejean espouses actually made sense then I could hypothetically start my own religion were I get to have all the money, and endorse that people vote for such a result, while not losing any credibility or suffering any repercussions in any context. I wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell, but should the success and spread of a religion really decide whether it is rational to shape ones political and legal surroundings according to it? "Only people that throw around pretentious and self-reifying terms like “Zeitgeist” can ever really have enough arrogance to claim to speak for it." It's not a reification for anything - it is an inescapable part of human interaction, and so we have to consider it case by case. Hilton was wrong to use uncivil language, and Prejean being out of the running in the beauty contest should have been the end of it for all involved. "All it is underneath is a naturalistic fallacy — the claim that because the self-righteous mob believes something, it must therefore be valid social truth." The "mob" will always believe something, and what it believes (and when, where, how and why) is a sign of the times and the state of society. In this case it believed the right thing, but then the matter became an issue, blogs got involved and now we have another spokesperson against recognizing legitimate expressions of love.

Jason Arvak

And her opinion is philosophically untenable.

And the entire question was irrelevant to a beauty contest. The question never should have been asked in the first place. Prejean had no reasonable expectation that she would be asked about her opinion on gay marriage and she was given no notice that there was a right and a wrong answer to the question and no similar political trap was laid for the other contestants. No matter how much you try to spin, cover up, inflame, change the subject, etc, Garland, this was a purely unethical ambush that you would be objected to in a heartbeat if the partisan tables were reversed.

The “mob” will always believe something, and what it believes (and when, where, how and why) is a sign of the times and the state of society.

Sure. But the problem with you is that you endorse the mob when it suits you but object to mob tactics when it doesn't. That is hypocrisy by any definition.

Garland "Prejean had no reasonable expectation that she would be asked about her opinion on gay marriage and she was given no notice that there was a right and a wrong answer to the question and no similar political trap was laid for the other contestants." No one knows whether the concept of right and wrong even went into the reasoning for having the question in the first place. "No matter how much you try to spin, cover up, inflame, change the subject, etc, Garland, this was a purely unethical ambush that you would be objected to in a heartbeat if the partisan tables were reversed." Yes, because I believe I can judge when a person is the receiver of due or undue reactions/repercussions for what s/he has said. Here, Prejean was at fault, but the sponsors'/pageant holders' decision to not consider her a candidate for a winner should have been the end of it - they don't want to be associated with her. The sponsors behind the beauty pageant can be boycotted in return by those who feel Prejean's example is an attack on them. I would not think the boycott was good. I think it is right to boycott a corporation for one reason, and wrong to boycott a corporation for some other reason - if boycotts have to take place to begin with, and I believe that is a given in human society. This was not a partisan table to reverse, it is a philosophical one. In the future, another case of repercussions leveled at a person will be discussed with respect to the context. These things will happen and the parameters can vary immensely. "But the problem with you is that you endorse the mob when it suits you but object to mob tactics when it doesn’t." Mob tactics/repercussions/hijinks - these things will happen and not all of them will be warranted. One has to argue for which repercussions are acceptable or not. It is acceptable to not want Prejean to be the most prominent face following a pageant you've organized. Scanning the internet for photos of her after the fact in order to "incriminate" her probably says more about the investigator than the subject of investigation.

Doomed This entire debate can be summed up in a few words. The USA is rapidly becoming a secular humanist nation. God is dead. man is god. No conscience is a good thing. No conscience means we can do what we please without repercussions. It is the Secular humanists intent to destroy Christianity within the borders of this nation because it offends them. The war has been raging for 2000 years. Nothing is changed. These attacks are to be expected. They have unrelented for 2 millenia. No thought at stopping them now.

Garland Yeah, thanks for making everything clear, well-represented and nuanced for us.

Sarah Getty Now Doomed, take another look and I think you will see that the "Christians" are destroying Christianity. Christians look insensitive and hypocritical. Why? Take our new soft-porno queen, Miss Prejean; her religious convictions guided the now famous answer, but where were those convictions when she lied to the pageant officials about her naughty pictures? Oh, wait, SHE wanted the crown. Oops. People can't talk out of both sides of their mouth and be authentic. The Christian Extremest insist on vilifying gay folks in a non-stop drum beat, year after year. The Christian Extremest are simply intolerant of gay people. If it was really a religious-marriage issue, no church would allow marriages after the first one. Two, three, four marriages would not be tolerated. But then again, they would find the Church empty (and without money). So today, it's "okay" to marry as many people as you want, one at a time, unless you are gay. They constantly play the victim card, when they are more than happy that a gay person can be fired, just for being gay. Or denied housing. Or denied basic civil rights. The issue has nothing to do with Christianity or marriage, so let's not pretend. It's simple hate. That hate, will in fact, destroy Christianity. There is no reason to think that the destruction of Christianity will be the results of others. It very well could be done with their own arrogance. They seem pretty far down that road to me. :-)

Garland "Take our new soft-porno queen, Miss Prejean; her religious convictions guided the now famous answer, but where were those convictions when she lied to the pageant officials about her naughty pictures? Oh, wait, SHE wanted the crown." Did she actually lie in order to enter? Also, I don't think you have to make her out as a soft-porn anything - it doesn't help anyone to somehow use that aspect of her life in a mocking manner. It makes her a hypocrite, but it's nothing to hold against her in general. "They constantly play the victim card, when they are more than happy that a gay person can be fired, just for being gay. Or denied housing. Or denied basic civil rights." Well, yes, but I don't think Prejean is sinister enough to be an extremist. She is being religious in a pretty clueless way, it would seem, but I don't think she can be associated with the hypocritical strain of christians who call for marginalization of gay people and then scream about oppression and a war on (their selective application of) christianity when people start to react adversely. "There is no reason to think that the destruction of Christianity will be the results of others. It very well could be done with their own arrogance. They seem pretty far down that road to me." Be careful - it could seem to a person that you are no longer talking about the provenly paranoid and self-indulgent christian extremists but rather about christians in general, which I most definitely hope you are not implying.

Sarah Getty Garland -- you are correct, I am not talking about your run of the mill Christians. I'm referring to James Dobson that bunch.

c3 "I think it is dangerous and self-righteous to mix religion and politics." I mean how dare Martin Luther King suggest that in God's eyes all men are created equal. How dare Mother Theresa chose to live her life following Jesus's call to love the unlovable, to "do unto the least of these" How could John Brown suggest that slavery if wrong and ungodly (We won't talk about William Wilberforce and the terrible injustice he imposed on England). Here's an outrageous example of the dangerous self-righteous mix of religion and politics: "We do what we do because God is with us. When Moses was first called to lead people to the promised land he said 'I don't think I can do it Lord, I don't feel brave and courageous'" How dare our President use such words. (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/images/2008-01-21_obama_faith_2.jpg)

Garland "I mean how dare Martin Luther King suggest that in God’s eyes all men are created equal." If that argument has to be used, then something is sprained in the world. I derive the worth of my fellow man from my own need for self-preservation. Empathy in all cases is perfectly possible to be derived from one's own existence. God may have been available to King as an important factor in his important political struggle. God also slew millions in the course of the bible and has been exploited by people who prioritize the happiness and societal worth of gay people *below* their own capacity to shape society according to their beliefs. The bible is a fickle factor in society - I am ready to accept a King who has to fight without the religious aspect of his campaign if that means that homosexualiyt becomes a completely irrelevant and integrated fact in society. "How dare Mother Theresa chose to live her life following Jesus’s call to love the unlovable, to “do unto the least of these" Mother Theresa? That sweet old girl who converted the dying to catholicism and left people to die in agony because "Christ loves suffering"? Yeah, no. All the sweet things your religious figures have said have already been said by philosophers, and their work is strong, lasting and axiomatic while being independent from a book that contains dangerous and archaic decrees for man. The bible is a tainted fount of ideas and values. It cannot protect us from nihilism and the challenges our imperfectly evolved inner nature pose. Humanity deserves better.

Doomed Secularly Humanist where man depends upon man without thought or concern for those who depend upon Christ and in fact find it necessary to marginalize their faith in order to achieve your agendas. I do not want any citizen to have their rights trampled upon. Christians have failed many times in the course of human history in divining the true will of God. God does not butcher man. Man does. God has said that my kingdom is NOT of this world yet man has made this world the defacto kingdom of God. When and if Religions who follow God realize that God only says render to Caesar that which is Caesar's and render to God that which is Gods then we will all be better off. It is the right of Christians to make their feelings known but I believe that it is not what God wills for them to tear down and destroy another human or group of humans "In the name of God." So when you point to people like James Dobson you do not point to the mainstream Christians. When a rally is held 250 million Christians in this nation do not march in the streets opposing Gay marriage. When these same people Who do NOT march in the streets are asked at the privacy of the polling station if Gay Marriage should be allowed....they vote with their constitutional rights.....NO. Do not blame Christianity. Blame America because it gave us the right to exercise our opinion in Private. Ms. Prejean shows us what happens if we all had to walk up on a stage and vote in the open.

Garland "Secularly Humanist where man depends upon man without thought or concern for those who depend upon Christ and in fact find it necessary to marginalize their faith in order to achieve your agendas." Our agenda has the strict explicit goal of being designed according to the world. Our agenda stems and can be logically derived from the consciousness within all of us. Our agenda is therefore intrinsically dependent on truth and love of thinking well. A religious agenda presumes and proselytizes in order to survive, and has to make the real empirical world submitted to a higher order that is by definition impossible to ascertain and empirically experience. A religious, non-secular agenda is by definition incompatible with the real world, by definition false in its assessment of mankind and by definition exclusive - it requires submission to teaching (or indoctrination) from a source not available to everyone rather than the hard work actual philosophy involves. Humanism can err. Religion is intrinsically erroneous. "I do not want any citizen to have their rights trampled upon. Christians have failed many times in the course of human history in divining the true will of God." Yet the christianity of the past (and a significant part of christianity today) is responsible for making the average gay person who outs himself outside of his own havens and circuits subject to more heckling and prejudice than Prejean has experienced. If there is a true will of god, humanity cannot possibly divine it anyway. The horrors of the inquisition are no more incompatible with the bible than the bravery of MLK. The bible is a man-made text that threatens those who treat it as such with hellfire, cheating skepticism and the scrutiny we normally subject any man-made theory to. Religion is nothing but ideology that has taken a shortcut. "God does not butcher man. Man does." Tell that to the first-borns in Egypt or the innocent in Gehenna. The savagery of past christian kingdoms and institutions simply read from the same book that MLK saw differently. It is christianity's context that made impossible the excesses of the inquisition and the witch-hunts - christianity itself would not have evolved left only to its own devices. If it weren't for the demands and limitations of the mundane world christianity would not have been the mostly harmless force it is today. "When and if Religions who follow God realize that God only says render to Caesar that which is Caesar’s and render to God that which is Gods then we will all be better off." Yet christianity today has not even matured to the point where the pope can explain why divorcees may marry in god's house while homosexuals may not. Yet catholicism can not explain why women may not join the ranks of the vatican's far-reaching institutions. Yet christinaity does not make it a divine mission to ease the pain and otherness of gays and transvestites worldwide while gladly posing christians of different ethnicities together, using MLK as an example of the intrinsic power and goodness of christian faith. I can see through all this abject hypocrisy and petty, self-righteous cherry-picking from the supposedly impeccable book, and I rely solely on my own mind and thought. All the complexity and obfuscation in religion falls apart in front of the eyes of a beginner in elementary epistemology. "When these same people Who do NOT march in the streets are asked at the privacy of the polling station if Gay Marriage should be allowed….they vote with their constitutional rights…..NO." As long as divorcees and other sinners are allowed to marry in church, this right should not be extended to christians, or anyone for that matter.

CStanley Yet christianity today has not even matured to the point where the pope can explain why divorcees may marry in god’s house while homosexuals may not. Yet catholicism can not explain why women may not join the ranks of the vatican’s far-reaching institutions. All of these things have been given ample explanation. Whether or not you agree with the explanation is your own choice, but your claims are either blatant lies or based on ignorance of Catholic theology. If you'd like to educate yourself, I'll refer you to some sources.

Garland "but your claims are either blatant lies or based on ignorance of Catholic theology. If you’d like to educate yourself, I’ll refer you to some sources." I'm not interested in educating myself on this subject, but I'll gladly be corrected regarding the catholic view of women's participation in the many different posts and offices. As for the explanations of what parts of the bible can be used to dictate who gets married to whom, I'm honestly not interested and will gladly be called ignorant for it. To me the bible is all or nothing - if you aren't ready to consider every word divine truth then none of the words can be considered divine truth. I appreciate the extensive work christian scholars have done to detail and assess the evolution of the bible, but I still must consider the book itself to be a poisoned fount.

Jason Arvak

I’m not interested in educating myself on this subject

Ah. The signature line of prejudice.

CStanley I’m not interested in educating myself on this subject OK, that's your prerogative- but thanks for clarifying for readers exactly how much weight to put on your discussions of the topic- zippo.

Garland All I was saying was that I wasn't interested in being given links to a larger corpus of knowledge regarding the issue, but I was willing to have CStanley make clear where I was being misinformed/ignorant of that of which I spoke. That is, I'm only interested in being corrected on the errors I made regarding the choices for women in the ranks of catholic institutions - I don't want to pursue further. If that is prejudiced or makes my words redundant, so be it. As for how catholicism/some other denomination can explain how only parts of the bible are usable for christians (gays can't marry in church) but some are not (men with long hair and previously divorced heterosexuals are hunky-dory), I'd like to see that explained in the same sense that I would like to see someone trying to turn a sphere inside out.

Jason Arvak All I am saying is that if a conservative ever said that they had no interested in being educated on an issue relevant to their condemnation of another group, they would be immediately and loudly condemned for bigotry. But apparently, when a liberal is hostile towards a group (like your frequently hostile and pejorative comments indicate that you are towards Christians), that requires a more charitable standard (at least in the opinion of other liberals). Because everyone knows that liberals could never be bigoted about Christians and, even if they were, that Christians deserve it.

CStanley Garland, Catholic theology has a very detailed understanding of gender roles, so without a willingness to understand any particular teaching in that context, I can't explain to you where you are misunderstanding the details. I imagine that if you did take the time to read it, you'd come away basically feeling that the separate roles of men and women in the Church amount to a 'separate but equal' argument, which you'd most likely reject. And again, that's your prerogative. But it's still not OK to claim that there is no thought behind it, while also admitting that you can't be bothered to read what certainly has been thought out and written to explain the topic. Same with the relative literalness of Scripture. If you really did respect the scholars who've studied the Bible, you'd know for instance that Jewish writers almost always used certain forms of allegory (this is illustrated, for instance, in the two different and conflicting versions of the creation story that appear in Genesis, as each version explains the story in a different metaphorical way.) Since the Bible pretty much opens with this style, it's not unusual to take the idea then that literalness was not intended (since it's clearly not possible for the creation to have happened in two different, conflicting orders.) So, Catholic theology looks at the greater truth of the text when taken in its entirety, and that's how individual passages are interpreted (in light of the broader ideas presented, not each passage taken out of context.)

Garland "All I am saying is that if a conservative ever said that they had no interested in being educated on an issue relevant to their condemnation of another group, they would be immediately and loudly condemned for bigotry." What I gathered CStanley was only quoting what she felt was a result of ignorance. I have no problem being corrected, but unless someone explains to me why I am wrong I can't assume I am - otherwise I wouldn't have written it. I may have spoken out of line regarding women in catholicism - then by all means I may be corrected. If she objects to anything else on the grounds that I haven't done my homework, then she has to show how I haven't done my homework. I can say that religion is inherently erroneous and dangerous without being a theological scholar. I still haven't heard a single explanation for how the bible can be impeccable and true in some of its text and outdated in others, how it can be considered a better inspiration for humankind than actual philosophy when it is riddled with decrees all its believers consider archaic and impossible to live by. Therefore I say that christianity and catholicism has not supplied a coherent answer to this day. I'm not saying that all christians are contaminated with the inarguably obsolete and violent sentences of the bible - far from it - but invariably those sentences are still there and are transitively given more credibility when the book itself is called god's word or the more humane and graceful parts of the bible are given such import and trust. "I imagine that if you did take the time to read it, you’d come away basically feeling that the separate roles of men and women in the Church amount to a ’separate but equal’ argument, which you’d most likely reject. " Yes, because basic logic shows that men and women are constructed concepts that no philosophical system can credibly base anything on. There are only human males and females, and I am not interested in any discussion of gender roles no matter how exhaustive it is. "Separate but equal roles" is obvious crock, and the situation for women in catholic parts of South America is an example of how assigning a supposed metaphysical equality to a role doesn't make the role any less constricting and a cornerstone of inequality in every sense of the word. Either women can become the pope or they aren't actually equal in the empirical world. "So, Catholic theology looks at the greater truth of the text when taken in its entirety, and that’s how individual passages are interpreted (in light of the broader ideas presented, not each passage taken out of context.)" As much as the painstaking work has been done, the contradictions and the possibility of the more extreme passages taking hold will always remain. This is why the idea of the divine and religious must be discredited and considered inherently problematic considering the unyielding carnal, dangerous and strictly empirical nature of the universe. I hear plenty about the power of the spiritual and unexplained, even from avowed atheists, but this still doesn't hide the fact that if something can't be understood, then it doesn't exist but is simply imagined. If there isn't a possibility of an answer, it's not even a question.

Jason Arvak

Therefore I say that christianity and catholicism has not supplied a coherent answer to this day.

This is, of course, a much easier statement to stand with when one has already announced in advance that one is uninterested in listening to the various alternative answers or criticisms of the question. And none of your deeply-felt grievances against Christians and Christianity change the fact that you are once again using a self-serving double standard.

Garland "This is, of course, a much easier statement to stand with when one has already announced in advance that one is uninterested in listening to the various alternative answers or criticisms of the question." I said I wasn't interested in pursuing an investigation at some URL as to why women can't hold certain positions in catholicism but would rather be corrected with direct information. Of course, CStanley later explained that gender roles in catholicism are seen as separate but equal, which is of course as credible as the adage from "Animal Farm". I said explicitly that I wasn't interested in "educating *myself*" but would rather be educated. The idea that there is a credible explanation as to why one set of "immoral" people can marry but another set can not is ludicrous. The bible may have been written in stages, but there it is today, all the text bound in the same corporeal jacket (that also functions as a delineation between the mundane and the divine origin of the text), and with some parts viable for guidance of life and society and some apparently not being viable. That doesn't compute over here.

c3 "This is why the idea of the divine and religious must be discredited " I seem to recall an earlier discussion regarding militant atheism. I'm beginning the think that Garland had more of a problem with Ms. Prejean's allusions to her Christian faith than her personal feelings about gay marriage.

Garland "I seem to recall an earlier discussion regarding militant atheism." Putting "militant" in front of words is about as inane as it gets. It is rarely used with any consideration for what words actually mean. "I’m beginning the think that Garland had more of a problem with Ms. Prejean’s allusions to her Christian faith than her personal feelings about gay marriage." I explicitly said that I intensely disapproved of her having and then espousing a position to a real-world issue, with consequences for people and their situation in society, based on a faith that she and any other of her fellow believers can't even live up to. Real-world problems approached with a philosophical and moral system that claims truth but ultimately hinges on that which cannot even be included in the set "everything" - that has to be discredited. I do have a problem with religious faith (it's actually the other way around in the longer run - my hostility to religion amounts to self-defense), so you can stop insinuating that I do, as if that was something extreme that I was trying to conceal. Regarding her position on gay marriage I am more serious in my desire to discredit.

Jason Arvak

I’m beginning the think that Garland had more of a problem with Ms. Prejean’s allusions to her Christian faith than her personal feelings about gay marriage.

Based on what he has said calling for "repercussions" against anyone that disagrees with him on any issue he finds important and other anti-free-speech positions he has taken, I would conclude that Garland pretty much has a problem whenever anyone is allowed to express publicly an opinion that disagrees with his proclamations of Required Thought. Garland is providing a very useful showcase of the current state of latent authoritarianism that rules the so-called "new left" and has resulted in things like speech codes on college campuses and other efforts to declare dissent from liberal orthodoxy illegal or at least subject to punishment, either by the government or the mob, whichever is most convenient at the moment of induglence. :) But of course, we're only allowed to talk about authoritarianism and other sins from Republicans. Discussing the flaws of Democrats and liberals is a Thought Crime.

Garland "Based on what he has said calling for “repercussions” against anyone that disagrees with him on any issue he finds important and other anti-free-speech positions he has taken, I would conclude that Garland pretty much has a problem whenever anyone is allowed to express publicly an opinion that disagrees with his proclamations of Required Thought." A sentence as truthful as it is short. Quotation marks aren't necessary. I've already defined these repercussions and related issues, how these repercussions are part of society and when they are fair. You can well bring up these examples of taking anti-free-speech positions now that you have made the accusation - I wish to defend myself or retract accordingly. I have a problem with opinions that are stupid, irrational or immoral - and I will decide for myself what is immoral, irrational or stupid even if it is seen as vehement or arrogant - but the fact that people are allowed to have them is not a problem to me. Fighting back against thoroughly false or malignant speech isn't the same as fighting back against the speech itself. It's merely a way of using my freedom to shape society so that no one *wants* to spread false or malignant speech. The market of ideas is malleable. "Garland is providing a very useful showcase of the current state of latent authoritarianism that rules the so-called “new left”" I'm providing nothing that could fit in your theorizing. Just because I don't play according to your rules doesn't make me an authoritarian, and I have no affiliation with any political entity/movement other than myself as an individual. I reject speech codes on campus unless they very strictly and curtly limits certain hateful or inflammatory verbiage or imagery - speech codes should only serve to silence those who would tear apart the basic premises of any social/academic environment. "other efforts to declare dissent from liberal orthodoxy illegal or at least subject to punishment, either by the government or the mob, whichever is most convenient at the moment of induglence." Which I don't support either. I merely like the idea of living in a society where a politician is immediately devoid of credibility if he or she has undeniably stupid or irrational conceptions. That can be accomplished without resorting to legal or violent limitations to speech. It can be accomplished by making the market/culture of ideas hostile to stupid, thoughtless, sociopathic and irrational opinions and ambitions. Some opinions will always be grounds for repercussions in any society, but the sieve can be modeled better. "But of course, we’re only allowed to talk about authoritarianism and other sins from Republicans." It might be wise to do so considering the fact that war crimes - cheered on by the usual ring of puppies protecting their "alpha" - might have happened in the last administration, but I am willing to investigate the problem of speech codes as well while we are at it. "Discussing the flaws of Democrats and liberals is a Thought Crime." Said discussing isn't always linked with a mental process that could be described as "thought", but this blog is certainly capable of discussing said flaws in an intelligent way.

Jason Arvak

I’ve already defined these repercussions

Actually, no. Your clarifications were vague and, at the point you endorsed whatever the mob might want (as long as you agree with it), your clarifications were also meaningless and unreliable because the limitations on action vary according to the ideology that motivates them.

I have a problem with opinions that are stupid, irrational or immoral - and I will decide for myself what is immoral, irrational or stupid

Yes. And once you have decided, you declare debate over and you blindly endorse any mob action that might agree with your decision, even if it has the effect of punishing the speech of people who disagree with you. And that is authoritarian at its core.

I reject speech codes on campus unless they very strictly and curtly limits certain hateful or inflammatory verbiage

Since you declare that anything you disagree with is, by definition, hateful and inflammatory, the limitations on repression that you claim to hold are not in fact limitations at all.

It might be wise to do so considering the fact that war crimes

And off you go trying to change the subject again. Pathetic as it was predictable. :P

Said discussing isn’t always linked with a mental process that could be described as “thought”

And, of course, the obligatory personal insult -- anyone that disagrees with you is automatically stupid.

Garland "Your clarifications were vague and, at the point you endorsed whatever the mob might want (as long as you agree with it), your clarifications were also meaningless." I said that "the mob" should only respond with the same commitment that the offending entity in question had in its actions against "the mob's" interests. Say something once at a farcical contest - lose out in the contest and that's that. Make a political, organized effort against the interests of a group, see yourself facing a political organized effort. However, "the mob" must be subject to an irrational attack and not step down to the offending entity's level etc. It depends case by case - I am willing to say there are times when I will support "the mob" and times when I will not, but that beyond a few basic guidelines I am not willing to say anything until I can look at the case and its context. "And once you have decided, you declare debate over and you blindly endorse any mob action that might agree with your decision, even if it has the effect of punishing the speech of people who disagree with you." If the slight or injury inflicted by the speech is minor and off-hand, the response should be reciprocal and never illegal. Skinheads can't get employed everywhere, people who got arrested setting Minks free have some doors closed for them - why should hypocritical christians get away with using their faith as a basis for what others can legally do just because they were asked and they were honest? Speech is always punished somehow - sincerely homophobic jokes gets you reproachful looks (but no unwarranted or committed repercussions) in my previous school (I never heard a single one), and that was good for all involved. Another important factor in society and how it chooses to make certain speech/ideation inappropriate/unattractive is the idea of proportionality (in the same sense that security personnel must respond appropriately to a threating situation). Digging up the photos was not proportional. "Since you declare that anything you disagree with is, by definition, hateful and inflammatory, the limitations on repression that you claim to hold are not in fact limitations at all." Prejean wasn't hateful, just arrogant and naive in her deference to her faith. It was inflammatory in a philosophical perspective and was essentially a declaration of irrelevance of gay people's equality weighed against a "higher level of consciousness" but the response was in kind to the context. She should still be able to make her opinion explicit because she wasn't saying anything that really deteriorates the fabric of society, but the opinion is still political, stupid and self-satisfied enough to be discredited and subject to appropriate repercussions/punishments/whateveeerrrrr.

Jason Arvak

“Since you declare that anything you disagree with is, by definition, hateful and inflammatory, the limitations on repression that you claim to hold are not in fact limitations at all.” Prejean wasn’t hateful, just arrogant and naive in her deference to her faith. It was inflammatory in a philosophical perspective and was essentially a declaration of irrelevance of gay people’s equality weighed against a “higher level of consciousness” but the response was in kind to the context. She should still be able to make her opinion explicit because she wasn’t saying anything that really deteriorates the fabric of society, but the opinion is still political, stupid and self-satisfied enough to be discredited and subject to appropriate repercussions/punishments/whateveeerrrrr.

Thank you for proving my point. The ONLY necessary condition for something to be declared "inflammatory" and therefore legitimately eligible for censorship and punishment in your view is that you disagree with it. That is exactly the same method used by the enforcers of very broad speech codes on college campuses. They say that they are only trying to limit speech that is "hateful" or "inflammatory", but surprise-surprise it just happens that every single political view that they disagree with winds up getting classified as "hateful" or "inflammatory" in some way. Your method of interpreting what is and is not subject to "repercussions" is exactly the same as that used in Maoist China during the "Great Leap Forward", by the way. We have seen where your preferred path leads -- insane asylums for political dissenters who deviate from Required Thought with their "inflammatory" opinions. Don't expect me to back down from pointing it out as long as you stay on the path to ruin that so many idealists before you have trod with exactly the same self-righteous certainty in their own moral and intellectual superiority that you embrace. Prejean may have been naive, but you're doing no better than she did. Your presumption of moral and intellectual superiority isn't based on much more than just your blind faith in liberal dogma that matches her blind faith in Biblical dogma. As least Christians admit that their faith lies outside of the empirically provable. Your delusions of intellectual grandeur arguably make you even worse off, especially in light of your ignorance about the fate of people and societies that have previously walked the authoritarian path you have set yourself upon. It is worth remembering that all totalitarian movements have featured noble rhetoric about honor, equality, and dignity. The fact that you claim to hold to noble principles about gay rights or other important human rights does not validate the intolerant, abusive, and repressive methods you are endorsing. Liberals' words almost always feature paeans of fealty to exalted principles of tolerance and diversity. But unfortunately, their actual political behavior seems often to directly oppose those principles. Your comments repeatedly display that fatal flaw.

c3 Garland; I hate to say this but the more I read of your responses the scarier it gets. And how appropriate that the captcha words for this comment are "Crusades" and "Pavlov"

Garland "The ONLY necessary condition for something to be declared “inflammatory” and therefore legitimately eligible for censorship and punishment in your view is that you disagree with it." There you come with that "censorship" again, a word I have not uttered or implied. Telling people to stop being damnably stupid isn't censorship - they're still allowed to come back and say the same stupid thing but they may not be so inclined if one reacts properly. As long as I make a good case for what I consider inflammatory and disagreeable, why can't I argue for a well-argued and measured negative reaction to some speech? "That is exactly the same method used by the enforcers of very broad speech codes on college campuses." Then they are apparently doing a worse job than I would. Limiting some speech on one's premises is arguably OK, but it takes fingerspitzgefühl and awareness. "They say that they are only trying to limit speech that is “hateful” or “inflammatory”, but surprise-surprise it just happens that every single political view that they disagree with winds up getting classified as “hateful” or “inflammatory” in some way." They could be so enlightened that this could actually be the case, of course, but it isn't. There should be more strictness and stringency as to who can limit what speech and why. The sieve/zeitgeist/yaaaawwwwn will always be a necessity, the matter at hand is to figure out when it should be wielded, who can wield it and in which circumstances. "Your method of interpreting what is and is not subject to “repercussions” is exactly the same as that used in Maoist China during the “Great Leap Forward”, by the way." A cop who appropriately detains a person could think along the same lines as a cop who is found guilty of excessive violence. Just because Lmao had the same ruler as me doesn't mean I will stab people with it like him. The sieve will always be a presence in society and while its use is arbitrary we can do it with rigorous care in design and application. "We have seen where your preferred path leads — insane asylums for political dissenters who deviate from Required Thought with their “inflammatory” opinions. " We share roads and sliding scales with some pretty horrible people. Doesn't mean we will graze their shoulders as long as we start using our brains for once. "Don’t expect me to back down from pointing it out as long as you stay on the path to ruin that so many idealists before you have trod with exactly the same self-righteous certainty in their own moral and intellectual superiority that you embrace." You're pointing out humanity here. My desire to actively figure out which opinions are moronic and then spread the notion that they should be subject to ridicule and discrediting when they pop up isn't idealistic - it's an intellectual affair. There cannot be a perfect decision outside of moral conundrums, and so while there is no human that can dictate perfectly which speech should be lauded and which should be lambasted, there is a possibility to attain a superior capacity of judging in such matters. Think of the entire corpus of information in a society as a great body of water. We all spread pigments around us. The prospect of halting the spread of a certain pigment or discouraging its addition to the water is difficult but should be pursued with more and more certainty the further one has scrutinized and criticized oneself to the point where one can call oneself morally and intellectually superior. Since philosophy is pure criticism, that's how you go about figuring out which anti-pigments to spread and if you are fit to spread them. I argue that I can be safe in the knowledge that combating the pigment of racism is good, the same for the pigment of bullying tendencies or that of self-serving and inconsistent application of a book that is given importance because it is a supposedly impeccable *whole*. "Your presumption of moral and intellectual superiority isn’t based on much more than just your blind faith in liberal dogma that matches her blind faith in Biblical dogma." I think I argued as to why spreading pigments that combat positions obtained through "reasoning" like Prejean's is OK, as long as the measurements are arguably appropriate. I fail to see how my reasoning regarding the folly of sitting idle while religion is mixed with politics included any liberal tropes. I think arguing for stringent secularism comes from skepticism and pessimism, which are seen as conservative guidelines. "As least Christians admit that their faith lies outside of the empirically provable. " Your definition makes it clear that their faith is a product of the imagination. Yet many see it fit to proclaim as valuable for decision-making in the empirical world. For themselves and sometimes others. "Your delusions of intellectual grandeur arguably make you even worse off, especially in light of your ignorance about the fate of people and societies that have previously walked the authoritarian path you have set yourself upon." By your definition every human being is on that path you talk about. I just think it is a good idea to figure out how to use the "authoritarian" notion of not abiding idiocy and malignant thinking without going down the wrong direction of the path. "It is worth remembering that all totalitarian movements have featured noble rhetoric about honor, equality, and dignity." And people believed it, because they didn't have a strong enough tradition of laughing at poseurs and people who can't argue and reason as strongly and impressively that they can orate. In the same sense that the catholic church gets away with promising equality between sexes but can't argue diddly as to why men and women should have separate roles. Or why the concept of "men" and "women" shouldn't be a source of debilitating laughter of derision in the first place. "The fact that you claim to hold to noble principles about gay rights or other important human rights does not validate the intolerant, abusive, and repressive methods you are endorsing." Tolerance of intolerance, an open palm offered to abusers of truth and information, lifting the pressure on repressing speech and decrees - that's what happens if all the measures/repercussions I've considered appropriate given the circumstances are considered invalid. The methods Prejean and the LDS church faced can be seen everywhere in society - what must be done is to make people realize that they have a duty to use these methods as an extension of their own consciousness and mind at all times. Laugh at that joke or not? React like so to that person with the megaphone, or like this? "Liberals’ words almost always feature paeans of fealty to exalted principles of tolerance and diversity. But unfortunately, their actual political behavior seems often to directly oppose those principles." Diversity doesn't mean treating all the colors of the rainbow as equally tolerable or deserving of prominence and luster. Of course, if a person can argue capably and philosophically as to why s/he should be able to dictate which colors should feature more or less, I don't give a flip about his or her politics. The problem here wasn't necessarily liberalism but the fact that liberalism was applied by fallible people.

Garland "I hate to say this but the more I read of your responses the scarier it gets." I love to say this but: BOO! I once got the captcha words "poknutser" and "hammock". Captcha is a real scamp sometimes.

Jason Arvak

There you come with that “censorship” again, a word I have not uttered or implied.

At the point you endorse speech codes that target anything deemed to be "hateful" or "inflammatory", you are endorsing censorship.

There should be more strictness and stringency as to who can limit what speech and why. The sieve/zeitgeist/yaaaawwwwn will always be a necessity, the matter at hand is to figure out when it should be wielded, who can wield it and in which circumstances

The belief that any person can be relied upon to wield power to interpret terms that allow them to censor another person or to punish them by stripping them of their employment or by authorizing the mob to harass and threaten them intrinsically leads to authoritarianism, since such redefinitions will always be subjective and therefore subjectively applied according to the biases of the person doing the interpretation. Liberals realized this during the Bush administration, but have a suspiciously self-serving blind spot with regards to the exact same principle when the scope is college campuses or when a Democrat happens to occupy the White House.

Diversity doesn’t mean treating all the colors of the rainbow as equally tolerable or deserving of prominence and luster.

No one is suggesting you should treat all views as equal. I am only objecting to your endorsement of using coercion (either by the government or the mob) to shut down views instead of just arguing against them.

Garland "At the point you endorse speech codes that target anything deemed to be “hateful” or “inflammatory”, you are endorsing censorship." No - the hateful or inflammatory things can be said, even printed, they just won't be welcomed or encouraged. "The belief that any person can be relied upon to wield power to interpret terms that allow them to censor another person or to punish them by stripping them of their employment or by authorizing the mob to harass and threaten them intrinsically leads to authoritarianism" What I endorse can't be censorship because nothing is forbidden or made legally hindered by any power-wielding entity. The stripping of employment happens everywhere because the employer or customers took offense or something to that effect - we could possibly make legal fail-safes here, but that too is tricky. No one authorizes the mob either except in the personal sense - you see clearly defined entities, but I talk about fluids. I don'w want to order a mob around - I want to spread the notion that a relevant group of people can react relevantly and appropriately in a given situation. "such redefinitions will always be subjective and therefore subjectively applied according to the biases of the person doing the interpretation." Exactly. The thing is that I see this as unavoidable and try to work and think from there instead. "Liberals realized this during the Bush administration, but have a suspiciously self-serving blind spot with regards to the exact same principle when the scope is college campuses or when a Democrat happens to occupy the White House." Self-improvement and love of thinking well is just as human as erring. "I am only objecting to your endorsement of using coercion (either by the government or the mob) to shut down views instead of just arguing against them." The government is only authorized to censor or discourage in cases of national security, abject espousing of violence etc. As for the mob, I see the act of telling Prejean that we don't want poliligion in beauty pageants or elsewhere amounts to discouraging rather than shutting down. Boycotting a company on moral grounds because the CEO was caught with a sizable part of Colombia's covert GDP in his nose is something I would not endorse - let the shareholders deal with him.

Garland I'll go to bed after saying this - what you and I are doing when we disapprove of the speech codes on campuses is that we are actively telling those affected to actively discredit and criticize the idea of speech codes on their own. If enough people do this we can make the very idea of extensive speech codes a source of mirth and those that laud it will not be likely heads of student bodies. I see this as comparable to making the mixing of religion and politics at beauty pageants inappropriate to the point that it disqualifies.

Jason Arvak

No - the hateful or inflammatory things can be said, even printed, they just won’t be welcomed or encouraged.

Well, that is a welcome shift from your position as previously stated above. No one is suggesting that dissenting views be welcomed with social acclaim or that counter-protest is invalid. But what I think you still don't get is how quickly counter-protest can cross the line into coercion and repression when the mob is armed with transcendent self-righteousness that manifests itself as a complete lack of scruples. This becomes especially dangerous if the mob is tacitly backed by the government, a possibility that liberals were concerned about a great deal from 2001-2009, but which they seem to have completely forgotten about (or at least agreed not to discuss) since last January 20.

The stripping of employment happens everywhere because the employer or customers took offense or something to that effect - we could possibly make legal fail-safes here, but that too is tricky.

At the point that the U.S. government is claiming control over industry to the point of dictating who the CEO of GM is allowed to be, I think the line between government coercion and employer coercion might eventually become unsustainable. And shouldn't employers only be allowed to hire and fire based on factors relevant to job performance? Or do you endorse making every political dissenter unemployed?

a relevant group of people can react relevantly and appropriately in a given situation.

The problem is that I don't think you realize that what is "relevant" or "appropriate" is subjective. Without some legal limits on how far a mob can push their subjective determinations of what is "relevant" or "appropriate", we lose the rule of law and any meaningful concept of free expression.

Self-improvement and love of thinking well is just as human as erring.

Pretentious arrogance and the presumption that all who disagree are stupid may be a typical liberal failing, but it is still a failing.

Jason Arvak

I’ll go to bed after saying this - what you and I are doing when we disapprove of the speech codes on campuses is that we are actively telling those affected to actively discredit and criticize the idea of speech codes on their own. If enough people do this we can make the very idea of extensive speech codes a source of mirth and those that laud it will not be likely heads of student bodies.

That process has not worked well so far. In spite of over a decade of exposure and opposition from the folks at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, speech codes continue to proliferate on college campuses all across America. One major cause of this is liberals' failure to oppose them. Because liberals control academia (surveys reveal upwards of 95% liberal predominance in the largest and most powerful departments, and administrators are overwhelmingly liberal as well), there is no way to effectively counter speech codes without getting opposition to them inside the liberal echo chamber. Yet thus far, liberals in academia seem to be the ones initiating and enforcing the speech codes, using rationalizations and excuses remarkably similar to those you articulated above about the supposed need to shut down anything and everything deemed "hateful" or "inflammatory". So if your position has really changed from that and you really want to join the fight, reassuring me should be last on your list. First on your list should be confronting your fellow liberals over their behavior.