I have to say that it seems that Glenn, usually reliant on data and evidence (n > 30 samples) is very reliant on anecdotes about his son here. I'm a Catholic. What our catechism is accused of saying here, it says. I stand by it and by the Church. That doesn't mean that I'm going to accost anyone, or that anyone is going to kill themselves now that the CCC says what it says, or that Catholics believing what we believe is really even wrong. It can be thought wrong here in a secular context, but that's not the end of the argument. I like the pluralistic argument put forth by Mr. Rausch, and I think many, many of us religious traditionalists were ready to make this accommodation in the culture with our LGBT fellow citizens until Big Business and Government got involved and started to make LGBT matters a moral litmus test for the people of this country. We have to dissent and disagree vehemently with each other, and that has to be OK, or this whole thing, this whole enterprise is over. Glenn Loury should take a moment and understand Christian and Catholic anthropology before simply falling back on anecdote and emotion.
The Catholic catechism is a heap of sin. But even though Catholics live in sin by worshipping their imaginary evil god, and often try to recruit others to, I believe they should face no threat to to their livihoods from their employers. I have no problem working or living alongside Catholics regardless of their sinful lifestyle, as long as they are sufficiently civilized. Catholics can be great citizens -- and they can be overall great people. And we should embrace people as citizens and neighbors from many faiths, even abominations like Catholicism.
Jehovah is an evil character. Worshipping imaginary evil characters is sinful. The CCC is grounded on obedience and faith in a monstrous fantasy. It promotes faith as a virtue, but not reason. Which isn't surprising because one needs to abandon reason to have faith in Christian mythology. Without reason as a virtue, any other potential virtue is going to be deeply susceptible to corruption, which goes along way of explaining much of the sordid history of the catholic church.
Catholics are sinners because they worship an imaginary evil deity and don't place reason as a fundamental virtue. It is shameful not to place reason as a fundamental virtue.
I didn't say faithful Catholics make great citizens, I just said Catholics can be great citizens --regardless of their faith. A faithful catholic can be a great citizen, or a fuzzy catholic can be a great citizen. People can be great citizens, despite the sin of being a catholic, that is the important part.
From that paradigm how is it possible for anyone of faith to engage in a meaningful, good faith discussion?
And from that seed of thought how could one not feel that you would then say that anyone who follows the teachings of Christ is also not evil?
And then, the $64,000 question, what do you choose to say, feel, do, and pay for so that your belief that "Jehovah is evil" will be supported and furthered?
Naturally, it is your right to believe whatever you want, but it is also the right of all others to disagree. You have a right to believe what you want, but you also have a responsibility to accept the beliefs of others in a spirit of tolerance and respect.
The Bible is filled with passages describing various people, ideas, and behavior as evil, wicked, or an abomination. Why are you so astonished when the people the main characters of the bible threaten with violence for stupid reasons don’t like the main characters?
Otherwise not evil people can worship evil characters out of foolishness and immorality. But not all immorality is at the level to categorize it as evil. Evil is a certain degree and kind of immorality. Everyone who loved Mao was not evil. Children loved Mao. They were ignorant and not old enough that their reasoning faculties had developed in any significant degree. It would be wrong to judge them as evil.
“ And then, the $64,000 question, what do you choose to say, feel, do, and pay for so that your belief that "Jehovah is evil" will be supported and furthered?”
Huh? I masturbate? I buy God Is Not Great? I comment on substack? I encourage Christians to denounce their religion?
“ You have a right to believe what you want, but you also have a responsibility to accept the beliefs of others in a spirit of tolerance and respect.”
I absolutely do not have any duty to “accept the beliefs of others in a spirit of tolerance and respect.” If “intolerance” and “disrespect” means simply expressing my contempt for a belief or ridiculing a belief, I have a right to do that. And others have a right to do that. Both morally and legally. We shouldn’t “respect” beliefs founded on irrational faith and the delusions of perverse souls. Let me be explicit: I disrespect your belief that people have a responsibility to respect all beliefs and I feel it is virtuous to disrespect some beliefs, including the one you just expressed. You should honor the previous sentence I wrote.
There is something in the US called the first amendment, which wonderfully establishes a legal right to express as much contempt and disdain a person wishes toward an idea. Some ideas are worthy of a lot of contempt. For example: the idea that humanity is so sinful it needed a crazy deity to murder its child, who is somehow itself, as a sacrifice for that sin so that same god doesn’t torture humanity due to that deities wrath for aeons is worthy of lots of contempt. And laughter.
You didn't say it, but I did, and it's true - Catholics make excellent citizens. You have some anger and I don't think Catholicism has anything to do with it. Best of luck to you.
Of course I have anger. It's righteous anger. But it's actually just a trickle in comparison to the *wrath* that flows through the Bible. And it is the wrath of lunatics. Not at all virtuous.
Does your comment to me reflect your thoughts about anger when you read about Jesus expressing it?
"Oh gee willickers he has some anger! Best of luck to him!" LOL.
There is nothing essentially wrong or shameful about anger. We *should* have anger sometimes. It's *virtuous* sometimes.
I understand this could be something very confusing, being someone who worships an evil imaginary being that disparages rationality and routinely equates love with obedience and slavery.
It would be virtuous for you to renounce the Catholic church, Jesus, and Jehovah. A trinity of wickedness.
And you are right, in some sense Catholicism has nothing to do with my anger. Anger is just is simply one part of my nature. And my reason and moral sense leads Catholicism to be one object of my anger, sometimes. I haven't actually thought of Catholicism much lately. After all, it has become relatively weak--say compared to the Church of Woke. I hear the pope is thinking of changing his pronoun.
And of course best of luck to you on your path of sin!
"There is nothing essentially wrong or shameful about anger. We *should* have anger sometimes. It's *virtuous* sometimes."
Couldn't have been said better Vladimir Illyich Lenin, when asked whether he wanted 10 million or 100 million dead to accomplish his aims and establish his belief system over man.
The Catholic church -actually most churches-would have a few things to say about my lifestyle, but I don’t feel remotely inclined to kill myself nor has anyone from the Catholic church told me I should, nor that I’m worthless. Too many pussies looking for affirmation. Why not be brave enough to live your life is what I say.
If a person doesn't need affirmation they are a sociopath. If a person does need it, but believe they dont, they are a delusional narcissist. Most humans need affirmation to thrive from the moment they are born. The minority who don't are soulless vampires. Unfortunately a disproportionate number manage to acquire power and spread evil lies about not needing love and fools believe it and spread it like ants that bring poison back to their colony believing it is food.
I can think of any number of people who never needed "affirmation" and were perfectly fine. I don't think John Roebling was looking for affirmation for a single minute as he was designing the Brooklyn Bridge. Neither was his son as he built the bridge while bedridden from Caissons disease. My grandmother drove a car until she was 92 and even then, still walked to her hair appointment every two weeks, and I know she never needed a pat on the head. Douglas Haig, leading the BEF on the Western Front in 1916? I bet affirmation was the last thing on his mind.
Such thoughts are the thoughts of late 20th Century Americans and as one, I know we are the weakest and most entitled people on the planet and these two things, our weakness and our need to be affirmed, are inextricably connected.
If you think none of these people needed affirmation and they weren’t sociopaths you are naive to how much affirmation people get without even realizing it. People generally “take for granted” the affirmation they get. The fact that your grandmother actually was *allowed to get a hair cut* and she wasn’t blocked from getting her hair cut because of her race, or her age, or her sex, or her religion, is a form of affirmation.
How often do you disgustingly pretend to eat the body of your god and drink it’s blood? How often do you kneel in front of a “holy man “ that represents in your mind the agent of an *omnipotent creator of the universe* and get a cracker stuck in your mouth? How often do you get that “pat on the head”?
You are fragile and you take for granted all the affirmation you receive. And then you express contempt toward people who express a need for affirmation. So disgraceful. And it’s ironic given how much ad nausea the New Testament goes on about how dependent and utterly powerless people supposedly are without Jesus and his divine affirmation.
Douglas Haig, without his men, without his comrades, without his friends, and without the affirmation he had received from them—without their loyalty and respect, he would not have been Douglas Haig.
Most of us, the ones who aren’t monsters, need affirmation like we need water. Unfortunately some people, to their shame, satiated with affirmation, forget they even need it, and ridicule the thirsty. Perhaps they should be exiled from civilization until they come crawling back, on their knees, begging for a “pat on their head” to humble their inflated and irrational pride.
I have to say that it seems that Glenn, usually reliant on data and evidence (n > 30 samples) is very reliant on anecdotes about his son here. I'm a Catholic. What our catechism is accused of saying here, it says. I stand by it and by the Church. That doesn't mean that I'm going to accost anyone, or that anyone is going to kill themselves now that the CCC says what it says, or that Catholics believing what we believe is really even wrong. It can be thought wrong here in a secular context, but that's not the end of the argument. I like the pluralistic argument put forth by Mr. Rausch, and I think many, many of us religious traditionalists were ready to make this accommodation in the culture with our LGBT fellow citizens until Big Business and Government got involved and started to make LGBT matters a moral litmus test for the people of this country. We have to dissent and disagree vehemently with each other, and that has to be OK, or this whole thing, this whole enterprise is over. Glenn Loury should take a moment and understand Christian and Catholic anthropology before simply falling back on anecdote and emotion.
agree completely.
The Catholic catechism is a heap of sin. But even though Catholics live in sin by worshipping their imaginary evil god, and often try to recruit others to, I believe they should face no threat to to their livihoods from their employers. I have no problem working or living alongside Catholics regardless of their sinful lifestyle, as long as they are sufficiently civilized. Catholics can be great citizens -- and they can be overall great people. And we should embrace people as citizens and neighbors from many faiths, even abominations like Catholicism.
How is the CCC a heap of sin, and how are we sinners? I agree, the faithful among us make excellent citizens.
Jehovah is an evil character. Worshipping imaginary evil characters is sinful. The CCC is grounded on obedience and faith in a monstrous fantasy. It promotes faith as a virtue, but not reason. Which isn't surprising because one needs to abandon reason to have faith in Christian mythology. Without reason as a virtue, any other potential virtue is going to be deeply susceptible to corruption, which goes along way of explaining much of the sordid history of the catholic church.
Catholics are sinners because they worship an imaginary evil deity and don't place reason as a fundamental virtue. It is shameful not to place reason as a fundamental virtue.
I didn't say faithful Catholics make great citizens, I just said Catholics can be great citizens --regardless of their faith. A faithful catholic can be a great citizen, or a fuzzy catholic can be a great citizen. People can be great citizens, despite the sin of being a catholic, that is the important part.
"Jehovah is an evil character"
From that paradigm how is it possible for anyone of faith to engage in a meaningful, good faith discussion?
And from that seed of thought how could one not feel that you would then say that anyone who follows the teachings of Christ is also not evil?
And then, the $64,000 question, what do you choose to say, feel, do, and pay for so that your belief that "Jehovah is evil" will be supported and furthered?
Naturally, it is your right to believe whatever you want, but it is also the right of all others to disagree. You have a right to believe what you want, but you also have a responsibility to accept the beliefs of others in a spirit of tolerance and respect.
Jeffrey peoples = troll
The Bible is filled with passages describing various people, ideas, and behavior as evil, wicked, or an abomination. Why are you so astonished when the people the main characters of the bible threaten with violence for stupid reasons don’t like the main characters?
Otherwise not evil people can worship evil characters out of foolishness and immorality. But not all immorality is at the level to categorize it as evil. Evil is a certain degree and kind of immorality. Everyone who loved Mao was not evil. Children loved Mao. They were ignorant and not old enough that their reasoning faculties had developed in any significant degree. It would be wrong to judge them as evil.
“ And then, the $64,000 question, what do you choose to say, feel, do, and pay for so that your belief that "Jehovah is evil" will be supported and furthered?”
Huh? I masturbate? I buy God Is Not Great? I comment on substack? I encourage Christians to denounce their religion?
“ You have a right to believe what you want, but you also have a responsibility to accept the beliefs of others in a spirit of tolerance and respect.”
I absolutely do not have any duty to “accept the beliefs of others in a spirit of tolerance and respect.” If “intolerance” and “disrespect” means simply expressing my contempt for a belief or ridiculing a belief, I have a right to do that. And others have a right to do that. Both morally and legally. We shouldn’t “respect” beliefs founded on irrational faith and the delusions of perverse souls. Let me be explicit: I disrespect your belief that people have a responsibility to respect all beliefs and I feel it is virtuous to disrespect some beliefs, including the one you just expressed. You should honor the previous sentence I wrote.
There is something in the US called the first amendment, which wonderfully establishes a legal right to express as much contempt and disdain a person wishes toward an idea. Some ideas are worthy of a lot of contempt. For example: the idea that humanity is so sinful it needed a crazy deity to murder its child, who is somehow itself, as a sacrifice for that sin so that same god doesn’t torture humanity due to that deities wrath for aeons is worthy of lots of contempt. And laughter.
You didn't say it, but I did, and it's true - Catholics make excellent citizens. You have some anger and I don't think Catholicism has anything to do with it. Best of luck to you.
Of course I have anger. It's righteous anger. But it's actually just a trickle in comparison to the *wrath* that flows through the Bible. And it is the wrath of lunatics. Not at all virtuous.
Does your comment to me reflect your thoughts about anger when you read about Jesus expressing it?
"Oh gee willickers he has some anger! Best of luck to him!" LOL.
There is nothing essentially wrong or shameful about anger. We *should* have anger sometimes. It's *virtuous* sometimes.
I understand this could be something very confusing, being someone who worships an evil imaginary being that disparages rationality and routinely equates love with obedience and slavery.
It would be virtuous for you to renounce the Catholic church, Jesus, and Jehovah. A trinity of wickedness.
And you are right, in some sense Catholicism has nothing to do with my anger. Anger is just is simply one part of my nature. And my reason and moral sense leads Catholicism to be one object of my anger, sometimes. I haven't actually thought of Catholicism much lately. After all, it has become relatively weak--say compared to the Church of Woke. I hear the pope is thinking of changing his pronoun.
And of course best of luck to you on your path of sin!
"There is nothing essentially wrong or shameful about anger. We *should* have anger sometimes. It's *virtuous* sometimes."
Couldn't have been said better Vladimir Illyich Lenin, when asked whether he wanted 10 million or 100 million dead to accomplish his aims and establish his belief system over man.
The Catholic church -actually most churches-would have a few things to say about my lifestyle, but I don’t feel remotely inclined to kill myself nor has anyone from the Catholic church told me I should, nor that I’m worthless. Too many pussies looking for affirmation. Why not be brave enough to live your life is what I say.
If a person doesn't need affirmation from anyone and can still be happy, they are probably a monster. And they should receive affirmation from no one.
Needing affirmation from others is a sign of narcissism. It's nice to have a comforting word from a loved one, but no one needs such a thing.
If a person doesn't need affirmation they are a sociopath. If a person does need it, but believe they dont, they are a delusional narcissist. Most humans need affirmation to thrive from the moment they are born. The minority who don't are soulless vampires. Unfortunately a disproportionate number manage to acquire power and spread evil lies about not needing love and fools believe it and spread it like ants that bring poison back to their colony believing it is food.
I can think of any number of people who never needed "affirmation" and were perfectly fine. I don't think John Roebling was looking for affirmation for a single minute as he was designing the Brooklyn Bridge. Neither was his son as he built the bridge while bedridden from Caissons disease. My grandmother drove a car until she was 92 and even then, still walked to her hair appointment every two weeks, and I know she never needed a pat on the head. Douglas Haig, leading the BEF on the Western Front in 1916? I bet affirmation was the last thing on his mind.
Such thoughts are the thoughts of late 20th Century Americans and as one, I know we are the weakest and most entitled people on the planet and these two things, our weakness and our need to be affirmed, are inextricably connected.
If you think none of these people needed affirmation and they weren’t sociopaths you are naive to how much affirmation people get without even realizing it. People generally “take for granted” the affirmation they get. The fact that your grandmother actually was *allowed to get a hair cut* and she wasn’t blocked from getting her hair cut because of her race, or her age, or her sex, or her religion, is a form of affirmation.
How often do you disgustingly pretend to eat the body of your god and drink it’s blood? How often do you kneel in front of a “holy man “ that represents in your mind the agent of an *omnipotent creator of the universe* and get a cracker stuck in your mouth? How often do you get that “pat on the head”?
You are fragile and you take for granted all the affirmation you receive. And then you express contempt toward people who express a need for affirmation. So disgraceful. And it’s ironic given how much ad nausea the New Testament goes on about how dependent and utterly powerless people supposedly are without Jesus and his divine affirmation.
Douglas Haig, without his men, without his comrades, without his friends, and without the affirmation he had received from them—without their loyalty and respect, he would not have been Douglas Haig.
Most of us, the ones who aren’t monsters, need affirmation like we need water. Unfortunately some people, to their shame, satiated with affirmation, forget they even need it, and ridicule the thirsty. Perhaps they should be exiled from civilization until they come crawling back, on their knees, begging for a “pat on their head” to humble their inflated and irrational pride.