I Shall Not Live by Lies

F/N: Interview with a man seen in earlier videos standing armed, with his wife at his house, in a gated community in St Louis, in the face of a Red Guard mob. He reports that he, his wife and family, house and even dog were threatened, and that he was "doxxed" and attacked online, with death threats beginning within minutes of the confrontation. KF kairosfocus

Red Guard tactics: people showing up for a prayer vigil at the statue of St Louis in the city named after the saint,, including an elderly man were beaten by members of an angry mob. The mob were smearing as racists and as alt right. Of course, this is clearly a hate crime. From Twitter posts as linked (yes, not taken down yet as violating "community standards"), the mob are proud of their persecution of people peacefully praying. This is a sign of the demonic chaos that is going on. I'll bet this will not get 24/7 wall to wall coverage. KF kairosfocus

F/N, in a related development to the OP, Minneapolis' local government has voted to abolish and replace the police with some alphabet soup department that somewhere in its bureaucratic labyrinth proposes licenced peace officers. In context, obviously, ideological enforcers. Meanwhile, on the public dollar, they are to be protected by private security. The Rubicon has been crossed and cannot be un-crossed. This will not end well. And no, I will never surrender to, "Mr Smith, what is two plus two" regardless of who backs compelled ideological lying with threat or use of force. KF kairosfocus

EG, your credibility, for cause, is nil. It's over. KF kairosfocus

KF, why would I care about who you were named after? Why should it be of any relevance? If it really matters, I was named after two friends of my father who were killed on D-Day, fighting to free Europe. And, as it turned out, the brother of one of my namesakes was charged in the 70s for pedophilia. Am I any nobler and my points more relevant because I am named after two freedom fighters, or more suspect because the brother of one was a pedophile? I have already said here that I oppose the illegal toppling of statues and monuments. Anyone who gets caught doing it should be charged. However, I do not oppose the open discussion about whether some statues should be removed, whether some should be relocated, and whether some should be appended with further context. In Ottawa we have a famous statue of Champlain on a point with an astrolabe in his outstretched arm, overlooking The river. There was discussion for several years of the native “Indian” that was on his knees at the feet of Champlain. Although the artist intended it to honour the fact that the natives provided assistance to Champlain, the native was removed because it was viewed by many as showing the indigenous people being subservient to the Europeans. I didn’t have a problem with that decision. A more humorous aspect of that statue, which adds appropriate irony, is that Champlain is holding the astrolabe upside-down. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nepean_Point Ed George

EG, your behaviour speaks for itself, especially your clinging to empty accusatory talk-points in the teeth of corrective textual evidence and discussion, relevant history and the underlying political dynamics at work. You don't realise what liberty cost, who its friends were, why and what it would cost again to rebuild it, once we have to claw our way back up out of the maw of the vortex of tyranny. By now you know that I bear the name of a man born a slave, who rose to eminence and only a generation after the Abolition of 1834 - 38, was kangaroo courted and hanged on false accusation of fomenting rebellion, a name I inherited due to family tradition. The cost of liberty and what was paid by decent -- and yes, Christian -- men and women to win it, is literally written into my name. That, is a memorial the Red Guards and their sinister backers cannot topple. And, when, today, I see the attempt to topple the statue of a French King who sincerely sought to follow St Francis of Assisi . . . even as a Protestant, I went to a school named after him and learned to deeply respect that gentle Italian's legacy . . . who was recognised by his church as a saint in his own right [something extraordinarily rare, though not unique] that stirs deep lessons. Especially when I see an ill advised city treasurer trying to smear those seeking to pray at the monument as KKK. We are in mortal peril as a civilisation and too many would throw away a heritage won at great price, paid for in blood and tears. Sadly, you have shown yourself to be one of such. You would be well advised to think again, but it is clear that you have no intention to do so. KF kairosfocus

.

Don’t hold back. Tell me what you really think of me :)

Perhaps he realizes, as a black man -- that given the explanations you've clearly provided of your worldview on these pages -- that the only reason black people in America have any human right whatsoever is because the white people in America decided to give it to them. I suspect he finds that kind of explanation repugnant. Of course, that was before you told him that you feel sorry for his wife if she is not getting laid like your wife, but it was after you lied to him about being a Christian who supports ID because of your great faith in God. All things considered, I think he's "held back" fairly well. Upright BiPed

KF

EG, you are now clearly shown to be a manipulative troll, with zero credibility. Given that what you are enabling is precisely what is undermining what buittresses sustainable liberty, you are also an enemy of liberty and ironically an enabler of ideological subjugation and enslavement.

Don’t hold back. Tell me what you really think of me. :) But frankly, I don’t understand your rancour over me stating two sets of easily confirmed facts: 1) the bible has verses that condone slavery and verses that oppose it. 2) the bible has been used to both condone slavery and to oppose it. Given your inability to discuss the subject of slavery without making it personal, maybe we should drop the subject. Might I suggest other subjects like the impacts of biblical interpretations on the subjugation of women and the persecution of homosexuals? Ed George

F/N: one consequence of discussions like these, is that they tell us a lot also about the general want of reasonableness of the sort of ideologues that back the imposition of evolutionary materialistic scientism and its fellow travellers. In that context, we can readily and freely conclude that the issue with the design inference is not its failure to make the core case that design may be properly inferred on empirical signs, but that we deal with closed minded, domineering ideologies that seek to create a colour of legitimacy for power and agendas of subjugation that go with that power. Where, as such ideologies have to take such a resort is itself a strong sign that they are enemies of reason, reasonableness and sound civilisation. On the design inference, I suggest we take a stand on the recognition of string data structures in the living cell bearing algorithmic, alphanumeric (so, goal-directed, linguistic) code. The best explanation for such is obvious, intelligently directed configuration. That such is so vehemently and too often vituperatively objected to and attacked by ideologues who have already shown themselves to be no friends of responsible reason, tells us all we need to know. KF kairosfocus

EG, you are now clearly shown to be a manipulative troll, with zero credibility. Given that what you are enabling is precisely what is undermining what buittresses sustainable liberty, you are also an enemy of liberty and ironically an enabler of ideological subjugation and enslavement. I'll bet you did not even give a good fifteen minutes of serious thought to how we got to the freedom you take for granted even as you undermine it. KF kairosfocus

Acartia Eddie does know about dancing- not the Fred Astaire type of dancing, though. More of a twerking worm, type of movement. Money clearly condoned the buying of slaves in some cases and yet freed them in others. Is there any wonder that it was used by people to both buy and free slaves? ET

All of the rationalization and dancing doesn’t take from the fact that the bible clearly condones the practice of slavery in some verses and opposes it in others. Is there any wonder that it was used by Christians to both promote and oppose slavery? Ed George

ET, Philemon shows Paul using his recently inherited money to free Onesimus. KF kairosfocus

F/N: Let me clip a pivotal text that allows us to understand the circumstance in a dictatorship -- exactly what the Imperium was -- where accusation of fomenting slave uprising could literally cost you your head:

1 Cor 7:21 Were you a bondservant[d] when called? Do not be concerned about it. (But if you can gain your freedom, avail yourself of the opportunity.) 22 For he who was called in the Lord as a bondservant is a freedman of the Lord. Likewise he who was free when called is a bondservant of Christ. 23 You were bought with a price; do not become bondservants of men.

Compare that, penned from Ephesus c 55 AD, with Philemon. The priority is on being free in God and serving God. The extension to not being slaves of men is clear but if you are in that state, do not let it eat you out from within. So, too, do not get involved in futile rebellions. The echo of 6,000 crosses lining the Appian Way is clear enough. It would take a long time before a type of polity compatible with sustainable general freedom could be built. And we are tearing down its buttresses today. Fools, we are. KF kairosfocus

There are two other incontestable facts. Some people used money to buy slaves while others used money to free slaves. This is one of the many contradictions of money. ET

youEG, you are ducking the force and twice over historic impact of Philemon, as I took time to draw out above. Your unresponsiveness tells us that you are simply trying to play taint and dismiss games. Where, as we speak this OP is about evidence that there is a live attempt to resubjugate us, which requires destabilising the cultural buttresses for sustainable freedom with order that the Christian inheritance and particularly the scriptures undergird. Your continued irresponsibility is duly noted. KF PS: I have no doubt that people tried to manipulate Bible text, whether to suit an agenda of subjugation or in forlorn hope that at least some message would get through. We know that there were efforts to frustrate or even criminalise literacy for the enslaved, a sure sign that the objectors were clearly aware of the overarching liberating effect. Indeed, your identification of the exodus narrative shows that YOU know it too. The attempts to hang dissenter missionaries after the Baptist War uprising in Jamaica showed the same. The slave testimony showed that the slaves understood the liberating trend of the text and the counsel of text and missionaries not to rise up in futile uprisings on ill informed rumours. But enough is there that out of your own mouth you know that you are trying to undermine the liberating message you know to be there. That's further reason why your credibility remains nil. kairosfocus

DS, read Philemon (it is clipped above), to get an understanding of how hard it can be to overcome ingrained facts of life. Then note my comment about how we got to freedom in general, including from being not only subjugated but enslaved. I have engaged in a fairly serious 101 above. KF kairosfocus

LoL! Just because some Christians used the Bible to do one thing and others used it for something opposite, doesn't mean there are contradictions in the Bible. The contradictions are clearly with the people using it. As for editing the Bible- that has been done many times in the past to suit someone's wants and needs. ET

There are two incontestable facts. Christians used scripture to defend the practice of slavery and other Christians used scripture to oppose slavery. This is one of the many examples of contradictions within the bible. But, one of the things that I find interesting (in an evil way) is the slave bible. When people made attempts to convert slaves to Christianity, they were often given a redacted version of the bible. Things like Moses leading the Israelites to freedom were removed. Ed George

PS: I'm guessing the answer is "yes". I just want to check my understanding. daveS

KF, Does this mean that a person who is a Christian in the sense that s/he has accepted Jesus as his/her savior (and consequently has had his/her life transformed) could also approve of slavery? That is, s/he could believe it is consistent with the transcendent code of morality? daveS

DS, strawman. You are overgeneralising in a loaded way from a situation where we have showed that general abolition of slavery, policing same and not destabilising economy and society are feasible. A situation with sustainable freedom pivoting on constitutional democracy buttressed by the impact of exactly the gospel ethics that so many clearly seek to overthrow. I doubt that they have ever studied say Plato's parable of the ship of state and the context of Athens' collapse to understand why democracy was thought to be a dangerously unstable and capricious form of government. Without buttressing, anarchy will threaten and we will see collapse into the vortex of tyranny. As the latest mini case study over in Seattle just showed. Frankly, the most prominent Montserratian in history, Evangelical former slave Olaudah Equiano, who bought his freedom here in 1766 and went to the UK, did not at first believe that overall emancipation was possible. He in fact worked with an ameliorative experiment in Central America. It is later that he became an advocate for Abolition. The real issue is not slavery, it is sustainable liberty and frankly, with Red Guards on the rampage demanding subjugation and with scheming backers of same working behind the scenes, that is under peril. Hence, the cry of the heart in the OP. KF kairosfocus

I sense that this is leading up to "no true Christian could approve of slavery". daveS

MS, you know full well that "Christian" has multiple senses, and that a culture is Christianity-influenced and has people identified as Christian is very different from life transformation and addressing what will be a contentious debate with all the blindness of polarisation at work. In that context, it is no accident that the antislavery society's motto was taken from the epistle just cited. It is further quite clear that the dynamic of freedom with sufficient order to be sustainable historically comes out of the impact of gospel ethics on civilisation. The current undermining of that buttress can have but one result if it succeeds, so undermining stability that we will again find ourselves under general subjugation, and that under fundamentally nihilistic ideologues. The ongoing attempt to abolish the police is a terrible warning sign of where that is liable to end up. KF kairosfocus

Can only stay up for a few minutes, but wanted to answer EDTA before I go to bed. EDTA: The Christian church had nothing to do with the British and American abolitionist movement? Christians were on BOTH sides of the abolitionist movement. The abolition movement was made up of Christians and the pro-slavery movement was also made up of Christians. Honestly, who else was there? Britain and America were overwhelmingly Christian countries in those days. In both countries, just about every organization, both good and bad, was Christian. MatSpirit

EG, Before I further comment on your attempted toxic side tracking, I must refocus, as the issue of freedom is very much on the table as the OP indicates right from its headline. Compelling someone to violate conscience and other first duties of reason under penalty of state power acting under colour of law is a demand for improper subjugation. Indeed, enslavement of the soul, with body to follow as states tumble into the vortex of tyranny. In short, your toxic distraction fails as it is an enablement of real enslavement through trying to taint a proved buttress of liberation and freedom through turnabout accusation pivoting on amateurish exegesis and highly selective, biased examples that are designed to polarise and cloud responsible balanced thought. Of course, to address this, I again need to make reference to the government challenge captured in my alternative political spectrum. In effect, there is a repeller pole, anarchy and/or state of nature that is so chaotic and dangerous in praxis that it pushes to imposed order. Where of course, want of effective policing means pirates will freely kidnap into slavery. (Note, such attracts a death penalty in the OT and is deemed incompatible with salvation in the NT.) This snap-back to order and safety tends to the vortex of tyranny under autocrats or oligarchies, that for most of history could only be tempered by creating a lawful state that based on a corpus of just and ameliorative laws offered some redress. That was the situation until only several centuries ago, and it is why the Common Law system and Justinian's Corpus Juris Civilis as well as the Mosaic code were such key advances. What made the difference? As already noted, the invention of printing, wide circulation of the Bible (which contains the Mosaic code and a considerable body of ethics with Divine Sanction) , the ferment of the Protestant Reformation, increasing literacy and advances in standard of living allowing creation of an increasingly aware public. By 1650 - 1700, this opened up the possibility of democratising reform, leading to the first modern Constitutional Republic of significantly democratic character. One buttressed by the social-cultural factors and forces of Evangelical awakening. Such, stabilised democracy and made it sustainable. Unsurprisingly, this is precisely the cultural buttress that today's Red Guards and their backers seek to break down. The slide into enslaving tyranny is predictable, should the long march of culture form marxism through our civilisation's institutions succeed. Which, is telling about the dirty power game that is already in play all around us. A game that, frankly, your rhetoric enables. Which is why it needs to be exposed and corrected. Bear all of this in mind, as we snap back for the moment to 61 - 62 AD as the Apostle Paul -- an appeals prisoner under threat of capital punishment literally chained to guards -- prepares to send an escaped slave and now repentant thief back to his master. In doing so, he pens the manumission letter that shattered the foundations of slavery and oppression:

Philemon Greeting 1 Paul, a prisoner for Christ Jesus, and Timothy our brother, To Philemon our beloved fellow worker 2 and Apphia our sister [--> "Am I not a woman and a sister" -- 2nd motto, Antislavery Society] and Archippus our fellow soldier, and the church in your house: 3 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Philemon's Love and Faith 4 I thank my God always when I remember you in my prayers, 5 because I hear of your love and of the faith that you have toward the Lord Jesus and for all the saints, 6 and I pray that the sharing of your faith may become effective for the full knowledge of every good thing that is in us for the sake of Christ.[a] 7 For I have derived much joy and comfort from your love, my brother, because the hearts of the saints have been refreshed through you. Paul's Plea for Onesimus 8 Accordingly, though I am bold enough in Christ to command you to do what is required, 9 yet for love's sake I prefer to appeal to you—I, Paul, an old man and now a prisoner also for Christ Jesus— 10 I appeal to you for my child, Onesimus,[b] whose father I became in my imprisonment. [--> brotherhood and fundamental equality established "en Christo"] 11 (Formerly he was useless to you [--> pun on his name, Useful, allusive to theft], but now he is indeed useful to you and to me.) 12 I am sending him back to you, sending my very heart. 13 I would have been glad to keep him with me, in order that he might serve me on your behalf during my imprisonment for the gospel, 14 but I preferred to do nothing without your consent in order that your goodness might not be by compulsion but of your own accord. 15 For this perhaps is why he was parted from you for a while, that you might have him back forever, 16 no longer as a bondservant[c] but more than a bondservant, as a beloved brother [--> am I not a man and a brother, Antislavery Society motto] —especially to me, but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord. 17 So if you consider me your partner, receive him as you would receive me. 18 If he has wronged you at all, or owes you anything, charge that to my account. 19 I, Paul, write this with my own hand: I will repay it—to say nothing of your owing me even your own self. [--> recognition of considerable capital loss, compensation . . . destabilising the economy would defeat the point] 20 Yes, brother, I want some benefit from you in the Lord. Refresh my heart in Christ. 21 Confident of your obedience, I write to you, knowing that you will do even more than I say. 22 At the same time, prepare a guest room for me, for I am hoping that through your prayers I will be graciously given to you. Final Greetings 23 Epaphras, my fellow prisoner in Christ Jesus, sends greetings to you, 24 and so do Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, and Luke, my fellow workers. 25 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.

So, why didn't this instantly effect abolition of slavery everywhere, waving a magic wand? The answer is patent, save to the utterly irresponsible, see the discussion on the rise of freedom. The only system of government that can sustainably maintain general freedom including abolition is a constitutional democracy stabilised through a sound culture. Which will invariably be rooted in ethical theism and the influence of the sort of gospel ethics just laid out in Philemon. So, as we see those who hold it in contempt and are busily undermining it, we can conclude that they are serving the cause of subjugation under a fresh tyranny, one that will create a new ideological enslavement. So, let us take due warning and rescue our civilisation before it is too late. For, you see, ideological enslavement and subjugation are far more widespread and a far more clear and present danger than the 20 - 40+ millions reckoned as in slavery today. Hundreds of millions still languish in chains and in the so-called free world powerful ideological forces of subjugation are at work. But unsurprisingly, it is what, historically, is foundational to sustainable liberty that is under concerted attack. "When a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design . . ." KF kairosfocus

EG, you try to double down on a gross error on exegesis by trying to taint and thus to hope to "disqualify." That C18 - 19 slaves had allotments and could earn some money at weekend markets has precisely nothing to do with that there is in the Bible recognition of a fact of life and amelioration c 1440 BC that will hold back the worst of what is there given hardness of our hearts; and that heart-softening, democratisation and economic advance will take many generations of transformational change to outlaw much less eliminate. Which latter is not accomplished today. Apparently, there may be 20 - 40+ million enslaved people today. The linked refusal to reckon with the implications of the organic connection between evangelical awakening and the rise of abolition is also telling. KF kairosfocus

Again Acartia Eddie ignores the economic impact of war. Would you rather be enslaved or wiped out? ET

KF, they both are attempts to rationalize slavery to make it appear less evil. It is evil today, it was evil in the 1800s, and it was evil in biblical times. I understand your wishes to make the biblical condoning of slavery less evil than the southern confinement of slavery in the 1800s But they are both the owning of human beings with the legal (and in the biblical case, God given) right to beat them and pass them on to your children. Rather than God saying that you can buy, trade and pass along slaves, that you can beat them as long as they don’t die within a few days, why didn’t he simply say that it was wrong to own people? Ed George

EG, did you even notice that I spoke to scriptural issues and contexts, esp c 1440 BC? The attempt to plug in kitchen gardens/allotments for new world chattel slaves is about 8,000 mi off in space and 2200 years off in time and cultural situation. KF kairosfocus

KF

. I simply note that there is in fact a common pattern in the scriptures of recognising and regulating a widespread pre-existing social practice as the alternative given hardness of hearts is a worse evil, especially under relevant circumstances.

John Bowles

"Most slaves, whether they lived on small farms or plantations of broad acres, were allowed to cultivate garden plots. They tended their own crops either at the twilight end of the day or on Saturday afternoon or Sundays-practically every owner gave his hands time off for at least part of the weekend. Often the planter would buy fresh vegetables and eggs from his slaves . . . because by so doing he avoided the problem of theft commonly associated with a large plantation garden worked by slaves but for the table of the owner. Many slaves on Saturday would carry their surplus produce to crossroads stores or trading communities and sell or barter their items for money or other goods."

Ed George

Human trafficking and slavery still exist, unfortunately. ET

PS: Start here: https://archives.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/repositories/2/resources/2522 >> Papers of The Anti-Slavery Society, 1757-1982. Biographical / Historical The British and Foreign Anti-Slavery and Aborigines' Protection Society was formed in 1909 through the amalgamation of the two bodies that form its name. The roots of the British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society go back to the 18th century, and the beginnings of a largely Quaker-inspired movement to abolish the slave trade. However, even after the abolition of the trade in Britain in 1807, and the emancipation of slaves in the colonies in 1834, an alternative form of slavery, the 'apprenticeship system' continued until 1838 in the West Indies. Against this background, in 1823, a number of men led by William Wilberforce and Sir Thomas Fowell Buxton began to meet regularly in London to discuss the slave trade and slavery in British possessions. The resulting organisation, the Committee on Slavery, later changed its name to The Society for the Amelioration and Gradual Abolition of Slavery, and in 1835 to the British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society, committed to ending slavery worldwide. During the 19th century, the Society campaigned on a number of related issues, including the trade in slave-cultivated sugar from Brazil and Cuba, and the East African slave trade (resulting from its close contacts with Dr. Livingstone). In the 1890s its mandate began to include the ill treatment of indigenous peoples, leading to its eventual merger with the Aborigines' Protection Society. The Aborigines' Protection Society was founded in 1837 by Dr. Thomas Hodgkin and others through a Parliamentary Select Committee set up in 1835 to investigate means of ensuring justice, spreading civilization, etc. among the indigenous peoples of the Empire. Its first president was Sir Thomas Fowell Buxton, and its early work included the establishment of correspondence with "intelligent and benevolent individuals abroad", the publication of several reports, including on the natives of Australia, Upper Canada and South Africa, and the general arousal of public opinion. For most of the 19th century it continued to lobby in the same geographical areas, as well as against encroachments on the North American Indians, the traffic in Coolie and Polynesian labour, and the sale of liquor to natives. After World War One the newly amalgamated British and Foreign Anti-Slavery and Aborigines' Protection Society attempted to work with the League of Nations to make the respect of human rights part of international law. This work culminated in 1956 with the Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, the Slave Trade and Institutions and Practices Similar to Slavery, which listed and defined all slave-related practices. In 1975 it campaigned for the setting up of a panel of experts in the United Nations, later known as the Working Group on Contemporary Forms of Slavery. In 1990 the Society changed its name to Anti-Slavery International. Its main current areas of interest include debt bondage, the trafficking of human beings and the worst forms of child labour. In terms of related organisations relevant to this collection, the Mico Charity administered funds for the education of negroes (though the legacy was not used for this purpose until after the establishment of the apprenticeship system in the West Indies and the subsequent setting up of schools for apprentices and their children); the National Freedmen's Aid Society was in close communication with an American society of the same name established after the Civil War; and the Committee for the Welfare of Africans in Europe was formed during World War One to protect the welfare of native labour contingents in France and to care for native fighting forces. Anti-Slavery International was formed in 1839 as the British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society. Over the years the organisation's name has changed several times: 1839-1909: The British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society 1909-1947: The Anti-Slavery Society and Aborigines Protection Society 1947-1956: The Anti-Slavery Society 1956-1990: The Anti-Slavery Society for the Protection of Human Rights 1990-1995: Anti-Slavery International for the Protection of Human Rights 1995-present: Anti-Slavery International >> I note, this is to significant degree a side tracking of a thread on a pivotal issue. That issue should not be lost sight of. KF PS: Bodelian Library should itself be a significant point. kairosfocus

Hence the answer to "The Christian church had nothing to do with the British and American abolitionist movement?" is emphatically "no". daveS

DS, the abolitionist movement began with Christians. KF kairosfocus

JAD, Do you have a particular interlocutor in mind? I don't know much history but it is well known that many abolitionists were Christians and that their views on slavery were founded on their religious beliefs. daveS

The question was not meant for you KF. It was meant for our regular interlocutors, who have no knowledge of history. Please don’t sabotage what I am trying to do here. PLEASE let them try to answer the question. Here it is again: The Christian church had nothing to do with the British and American abolitionist movement? john_a_designer

F/N: Ponder:

. . . there were questions about [Christian] compromise with the political and social system. Gregory of Nyssa boldly attacked the institution of slavery. Augustine thought the domination of man over his neighbour an inherent wrong, but saw no way of ending it and concluded that, since the ordering of society prevented the misery of anarchic disintegration, slavery was both a consequence of the fall of man and at the same time a wrong that providence prevented from being wholly harmful. Slaves were not a very large proportion of the ancient labour force, since the cost of a slave to his owner exceeded that of employing free wage-labourers. Slaves in a good household with a reasonable master enjoyed a security and standard of living that seldom came the way of free wage labourers. But not all slaves had good masters, and in special cases the bishops used the church chest to pay the cost of emancipation. Refusal on moral grounds to own slaves became a rule for monasteries. [Henry Chadwick, "Envoi: On taking Leave of Antiquity," in The Oxford History of the Roman World, Eds. Boardman, Griffin & Murray, (Oxford, England: Oxford University Press paperback, 1991), p. 471. Links added. NB: In the very next paragraph, the contributor goes on to discuss how the church also deeply disapproved of capital punishment [which in many cases of course would be by the utterly degrading death on the cross, and which would thus sharply contrast with Paul's remarks on the magistrates' power of the sword in Rom 13:1 - 7] and judicial torture. Indeed, he notes that "[a] Roman church-order of about 200 forbids a Christian magistrate to order an execution on pain of excommunication. No Christian layman could tolerably bring a charge against anyone if the penalty might be execution or a beating with lead-weighted leather thongs . . . Torture forced so many innocent people to confess to crimes they had not committed that the Christian hatred of it commanded wide assent . . ." In short, the picture is far more complex than we might have thought.]

KF kairosfocus

JAD, the Abolitionist movement had its literal beginnings in churches. The anti slavery society's motto came from Philemon. Wilberforce's campaign grew out of his sense of mission. His campaign was in effect the work of a church commune that lived together. KF kairosfocus

The Christian church had nothing to do with the British and American abolitionist movement? john_a_designer

MS. you are amateurish at best in addressing the Scriptures; you would be well advised to be restrained in your conclusions. I simply note that there is in fact a common pattern in the scriptures of recognising and regulating a widespread pre-existing social practice as the alternative given hardness of hearts is a worse evil, especially under relevant circumstances. We must never over generalise from a gospel ethics and revivals softened situation that buttresses constitutional democracies to what was there in the long haul of history and is liable to return if Red Guards rioting and their backers have their way. . A classic example is in the Mt 19 exchange on divorce where Jesus corrects questioners that the proper purpose of marriage had been perverted so that there was need to refer to the original foundation of marriage. So, no, Divorce was not a command but the Mosaic law undertook a regulation and amelioration given hard hearts dull to the proper intent. In that context, Malachi 2:16 is striking: I hate divorce says the Lord. We must never conflate recognition, regulation and discussion of a social fact for establishment or endorsement. Where, further, it is precisely the heart softening work of the Spirit who indwells and the genuine enlightenment of the gospel that allows for material improvement. Divorce is still with us, legal under law and a widespread plague. A sign of a civilisation with hard heart problems. Slavery in various forms is still there, for similar reasons, though it is illegal and has been the target of the first civil rights movement. A movement energised by gospel awakenings and for which the manumission letter of Onesimus, Paul to Philemon, has been not only a model but a source of its very motto. Namely, am I not a man and a brother, and parallel, am I not a woman and a sister. Further to this, it is clear that the invention of printing, ferment of the Reformation, circulation of the Bible in the vernacular that helped energise democratising and cultural stabilising forces that made significant progress on social and legal as well as governmental reforms possible and sustainable. In that context, it is the persistent accuse accuse, refuse to listen hostility we are seeing that is diagnostic of the sad, benighted, hard hearted, evil-addicted state of much of our civilisation today. Some rethinking is in order. KF kairosfocus

MatSpirit: “They found the Bible, which endorses slavery in dozens of passages,…” EDTA: "Endorses? Or sets rules for? Big difference there." Both. Get an electronic Bible (I use www.biblegateway.com) and search for "slave". Hit return and sit back. Page after page will scroll past, full of lines from the Bible, each with the word "slave" bolded. Here's a great endorsement of slavery in Leviticus 25. (This is The Lord, speaking to Moses) Lev 25:44 "As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are round about you. 45 You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property. 46 You may bequeath them to your sons after you, to inherit as a possession for ever; you may make slaves of them, but over your brethren the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another, with harshness." Note that, according to the Bible, God himself tells Moses that he can have slaves and that he can buy them from foreigners, and foreigners living in Israel. They are your property forever and you can leave them to your son. I'd say that was a pretty authoritative endorsement of slavery. EDTA: "The NT (which has more force for Christians than the OT) states that masters are to treat slaves well, because both have the same Master in heaven. That’s a command that lots of employers could use to follow even today." Let's see about that. Here's a good passage from Exodus: Exodus 21:20-21 “When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. 21 But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be punished; for the slave is his money." So are you saying it would be a better world if employers could beat their employees to death, so long as they survive a day or two after the beating? This doesn't have anything to do with slavery, but I have to include the next verse: Exodus 21:22 “When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined, according as the woman’s husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. Again, this is God speaking. If men are fighting and hurt a pregnant women so badly that she has a miscarriage, the man who hit her will be fined. If the woman is further harmed, the man responsible will be punished "... life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn "burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe." KairosFocus, God's talking to you here. A lot of Conservative Christians wonder how the rest of the world can possibly support abortion. We're just following God's orders. Back to slavery. This is one of my 'favorite' Bible passages: Exodus 21 “Now these are the ordinances which you shall set before them. 2 When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing. 3 If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master’s and he shall go out alone. 5 But if the slave plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,’ 6 then his master shall bring him to God, and he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost; and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall serve him for life. Israeli slaves have to be released after 7 years. But if he gets married to another slave of his master's and has children during that time, the wife and children belong to his master and he keeps them forever. The slave who loves his wife and children has to make a choice: either going free or accepting permanent slavehood and gets his ear pierced. Now that's male Israeli slaves. Female Israeli slaves are treated differently by God and the Bible: Exodus 21:7 “When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do." She might get off easier if she doesn't "displease" her master. He can give her to his son or let her go. EDTA: "The NT (which has more force for Christians than the OT) states that masters are to treat slaves well, because both have the same Master in heaven." A lot of early Christians were slaves, which makes NT Christianity better disposed towards them. I'd like to think that Paul was anti-slavery, but the Romans were very suspicious towards Christianity because of its attractions to slaves. Now you would think that a man who had the favor of God himself would fight this, but Paul decided to co-operate. Nothing in the NT positively endorses slavery, but nothing forbids it, either. The entire book of Philemon is a letter from Paul, talking to Philemon about his runaway slave, Onesimus (which means Useful), who has attached himself to Paul. This undoubtedly put Paul and his new religion in considerable danger from the Romans and he tells Philemon he's sending him back and hopes he will be kind to him. There's nothing said about what happened after that. One warning: Be careful of which Bible you search. All my quotes are from the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, but some versions refuse to use the word slave. The King James version translates 'slave' as 'servant', for instance. England had banned slavery hundreds of years before and apparently they solved the problem of Englishmen having better morals than God by mis-translating the Bible. As I've said, most of the problems on this blog are caused by Christian's bad morals and the Bible is where they get a lot of them. Want to talk about massacres next? MatSpirit

EDTA: "... there are plenty of Southern Dems who need to apologize for voting against the ’64 Civil Rights Act." One minor problem with your thesis: all those Southern Dems are Republican today. The big switch started in the Nixon administration. The Dixiecrats (Southern Dems) had been getting more and more disgusted with the Democratic party after FDR turned it Liberal in 1932. Then Tricky Dick came along and noticed this and began his Southern Strategy of appealing to the South with the sleazy, immoral tactics he was famous for and sure enough, they started switching. I remember that time well. Every week we'd hear that another (Southern) Democrat had switched to the Republican party and the Republicans enjoyed rubbing our noses in it. Meanwhile, the Democrats didn't do too much about it because, frankly, we didn't want to associate with the Dixiecrats. It didn't much matter, nationally, because the Dixiecrats were nothing but obstructionists who fought the rest of the party at every step. But that set up a trope that is currently very popular in conservative circles: You've probably heard by now that the Democrats supported slavery in the Civil War. This is true. You've obviously heard the some (Southern) Dems voted against the '64 Civil Rights act. This is true. There are a few other 'Bad Democrat' memes that don't come immediately to mind, but if you follow right wing talk radio you'll hear them. The problem is that those Evil Democrats are the Heart of the GOP today and 100% Trump Lovers. They don't like to mention that. Spoils the joke, I guess. MatSpirit

Again, if all the Southern Baptists who opposed abolition and black civil rights are dead, and all the people they wanted to deny abolition and civil rights to are dead, why are we still bringing these things up? Just to tar-and-feather by association. Doesn't work. But if it did, then there are plenty of Southern Dems who need to apologize for voting against the '64 Civil Rights Act. EDTA

The Southern Baptists of today have nothing to apologize for, in regards to slavery. All they have to do is fight against racism. ET

@matSpirit

I believe the Southern Baptist denomination even apologized for slavery a few years ago.

They indeed have something to apologize for.

Southern Baptist Convention The word Southern in Southern Baptist Convention stems from it having been organized in 1845 at Augusta, Georgia, by Baptists in the Southern United States who split with northern Baptists over the issue of slavery, with Southern Baptists strongly opposed to abolition and black civil rights.[4] After the American Civil War, another split occurred when most freedmen set up independent black congregations, regional associations, and state and national conventions, such as the National Baptist Convention, which became the second-largest Baptist convention by the end of the 19th century.

Retired Physicist

Completely Ridiculous Assertions, Pretension & Posturing (CRAP&P) are not arguments. They are little more than an intolerant effort to shut down honest discussion and debate using empty rhetoric as ploy to obstruct, obfuscate, demonize, vilify and undermine other people’s God given natural rights. Who is being dogmatic and intolerant? It’s not people on the ID, theistic, traditionalist side of the debate. Please stop enabling people like MatSpirit. Whatever his motives they are not ethically or intellectually honest. He is certainly not infallible. (Though apparently he thinks he is.) Personally I don’t think he is very smart. I have said this before but let me say it once again: YOU CAN’T REASON WITH THESE PEOPLE. john_a_designer

MS, "I wish your ancestors had done the same." Actually, I cannot trace my lineage to any slave holders. My oldest known American ancestor was living in the North, and had no slaves. But I do wish that no American had ever owned slaves. And now that all slave owners are dead and all those owned as slaves are dead, I wish we could get past this issue, and move on to discussing issues that are actually still with us today. "They found the Bible, which endorses slavery in dozens of passages,..." Endorses? Or sets rules for? Big difference there. The NT (which has more force for Christians than the OT) states that masters are to treat slaves well, because both have the same Master in heaven. That's a command that lots of employers could use to follow even today. At a higher level, any belief system that has been around for many generations will have people who abuse it and use it deceitfully to justify doing evil. You don't really want to wander into the swamp of arguing over belief systems in general and which ones harbor the greatest potential for evil. EDTA

EG, "All that means is that people today are more discerning." Yes, people are rejecting other people more often now. And that's partially because people are less attractive (physically and psychologically) than they could be. This has impacts beyond just less dating/marriage happening. You failed to address the loneliness epidemic and its impact on people's health and longevity, etc. But you do tend to fail to address the difficult parts of other people's statements, I've noticed. (When will the Left take responsibility for the harm it is causing?) "Sometimes, a woman just wants to laugh and dance." More than just sometimes for many. Yes, hedonism has infected womankind too. Sad really. And bad for everyone's future. MS, "But there are still some activities going on that virgins don’t do because 40% of all births are out of wedlock today." Ah yes, the metric of how much sex is being had. You have seen the stats that show young people (even before covid) are having less sex these days? "My next door neighbor is one such mother, ...she has lots of other moms and children visiting her and her son appears to be very healthy. " I'm not sure you have studied the statistics and demographics surrounding children from broken homes, and their health (physical and mental). Not pretty. Your use of anecdotal evidence to rationalize that there's supposedly no harm going on is concerning. EDTA

MS, motive mongering and projection of hate. Meanwhile, on evolutionary materialistic scientism and/or fellow traveller ideologies, there is no basis adequate to bear the weight of ought. Talk of good morals on your part is little more than manipulative noise, absent such a base. Meanwhile, the fundamental point remains, that the inescapable first truths are all mutually interdependent, deeply mutually intertwined and binding. So, to impose under false colour of law, super-rights and progress or even caring, a new order in which people are forced to lie on pain of severe penalty imposed by the powers that be is utterly incoherent and demonically oppressive. The only solution is to accept the obvious: as your claimed rights would entail our duties, no rights claims are sound unless one is in the right so that what is claimed is compatible with others being able to freely fulfill their own first duties. In short, to justly claim a right one must first demonstrably be in the right. This criterion obviously cannot be fulfilled by the various impositions of political correctness. Where it is a notorious observations that modern tyrannies seek to create an entangling mesh of demands that cannot be met by the ordinary person so that everyone is in a state of perpetual fear and liability. That makes them more readily intimidated. Such is of course monstrously evil. KF PS: It remains the case that a contract or imposition after the fact that forces people into lies etc and generally into upholding evil is evil. kairosfocus

EDTA, the number of women marrying today is at an all time low, too. But there are still some activities going on that virgins don't do because 40% of all births are out of wedlock today. My next door neighbor is one such mother, but her boyfriend, whose work keeps him all over the state, is home every weekend, she has lots of other moms and children visiting her and her son appears to be very healthy. Things seem to be working out. This may violate your moral code, but you're a Christian and Christian morals are bad. EDTA: "And no Christian today is pro-slavery." Well good! Congratulations on deciding not to follow the Bible and base at least part of your moral code on the Golden Rule. I wish your ancestors had done the same. What we call the Bible Belt today used to be called the slave states. They found the Bible, which endorses slavery in dozens of passages, very congenial and used it relentlessly when arguing for slavery. After all, if the Bible says you can do it, who are you to challenge the Word of God? I believe the Southern Baptist denomination even apologized for slavery a few years ago. There's hope. MatSpirit

Acartia Eddie's motto: "I Shall Live by Lies" or "If I ain't lying, I ain't living" ET

Except that the people of today aren't discerning, at all. And that means that a pathological liar and sociopath, like Acartia Eddie, would do very well in the dive bars, rest areas and mall bathrooms of today. added via edit: I wouldn't quote scripture on a date and I don't have any fake war exploits to brag about. ET

Mattspirit ." Hint: The Golden Rule is in the Bible. And everywhere else. It’s actually pretty obvious unless your morals are already corrupted" What about a master humility in washing his servant's feet? Is that everywhere too? "Personally, I think Christians do have terrible morals and this is just one small example. Christians have the morals of an iron age middle east tribesman with the word “Jesus” on top." The first half is subjective and the 2nd half isn't even true. Jesus is from the classical era, not iron age.He also wasn't a tribesman, he was a handyman. ince you were “kind” enough to give me bad moral advice from the Bible, here’s some Bible verses back to you: Matthew 25:45: Then they also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to thee?’ 45 Then he will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.’ 46 And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” Oh look you found one of those bad morals. Gostbuster

EDTA

Those people who can’t get a date today could 75 years ago with no trouble at all.

All that means is that people today are more discerning. After all, could you imagine any woman today willing to date Joe Gallien, BA77 or KF? :) :) :) I cant see them being any fun on a date. One would brag about his fake war exploits and the other two would just quote scripture. Sometimes, a woman just wants to laugh and dance. Ed George

Matspirit. You can't be for real with these statements. " What is it about conservative Christianity that gives you and ET and the gang such undying hatred towards adolescents whose sexual orientation doesn’t meet your arbitrary standards" Christians don't hate the lgbt community or any one of these tumblr genders. In fact of we did hate them, we wouldn't tell them what the bible actually says about sexual orientation or gender identity. Speaking of arbitrary, if a man can be a woman and a woman can be a man, why can't love become hate and hate become love? Your standards are just as wonky as you accuse ours to be. ” The Bible says I can own slaves and that God gave David 20 of Saul’s wives as a reward. If you’re not willing to say slavery and bigamy by the dozen are OK, then look for a better foundation for your morality. " By exclaiming that slavery and bigamy are wrong, you are insisting that there is a right and where is your foundation for that? You are also removing context as you antichristians tend to do. Your ignorance of the topic of slavery is, sadly, very common, and, in our society, epidemic, probably due to the “it is a word that starts emotions and ends thought” syndrome. Slavery of all kinds has existed throughout human history, and continues to exist even to this day in various parts of the world. Failure to differentiate reasons for, and types of, slavery, has led to a wildly inane ignorance of the topic. Slavery as defined in the Hebrew Bible, for example, had different kinds, had to be ended on the Year of Jubilee, and could even lead to a slave desiring to remain as a servant, a true member of the household. This is very different from Roman slavery, and different again from the form of slavery that existed in Africa and Europe in the 16th and 17th centuries (yes, slavery was very common in Africa, with many Africans enslaving their fellow Africans—or traveling across the Mediterranean to enslave Europeans). In the biblical context, slavery was often the last resort, and as such, was a life-saving institution, allowing a person to remain alive when all other possibilities were exhausted, even with a hope of redemption and eventual freedom. David did not have 20 wives. The bible says he had many but only name 8. While I will admit in the old testament, God does not condemn polygamy, he does regulate to in terms of widowhood, famine and female infertility and says Kings can't practice it, david being the exception to secure his throne. It also warns of what happens if you do it wrong which is what happens to solomon. Not to mention, this later use to reiterate how unjustified david was for sleeping with Bathsheba as he already he had so many wives. Proving that even when God provides man with many, man will still seeks more . Gostbuster

Those people who can't get a date today could 75 years ago with no trouble at all. The number of males who will never marry is at an all-time high and getting higher with each passing generation. Loneliness is epidemic, and acknowledged (by those who care about other people anyway) to be a mental and physical health problem. The fact that they were not raised better is now everybody's problem, not just theirs. And no Christian today is pro-slavery. We gotta get you up to the present! You've been working with out-dated information, MS! EDTA

EDTA @ 166 "If they’re mostly Trumpers, then maybe they do see how it happened. It started before the Sexual Revolution of the 60’s, but for practical purposes, trace it there. It was a perfect storm of waning influence of Christianity, left-moving politics, enlarging gov’t which thought it could solve every problem, social engineering, increasing numbers of people going off to college, urbanization, and other things." I think you got it at "waning influence of Christianity". That's a phenomena in the entire Western world with the US dragging along at the rear. I think that when more and more people have the finances to take a moment to look around them once in a while and the education to know what they're looking at, religions don't do very well. The fact is that nearly every religion has a lot of really atrocious morality built into it. These morals usually date back to the morality of 1000+ years ago when they were founded. Little wonder Christian influence is waning. We don't believe in slavery anymore. However, I won't interfere if you want multiple wives. EDTA: "The proof is that the Left never saw the incel movement coming. They had no idea. They did not predict it in the slightest." Well, you got me there! We knew all about people who couldn't get a date, of course. Three or four of my high school classmates probably died virgins (class of '65). But we never dreamed they would start shooting people because of it. Thanks for the incels.net link. Yep, I'd almost swear I know some of them. I wonder if any of them have noticed that they're probably not popular with anybody. Their problems are deeper than they realize. MatSpirit

Lying is a sin. Period. End of story. Just because MatSpirit is too stupid to understand that basic fact is meaningless to me. I use SCIENTIFIC standards. But I understand why the confuses MatSpirit ET

Es58: "How frequently do students get to change their preferred pronoun? If they change it mid-sentence without informing the teacher is the teacher still liable?" The student asked the teacher to use one particular pronoun. I would imagine it would stay that way until he makes another request. MatSpirit

MS: if somebody gives you money to do something, you’re pretty much obligated to do it KF: Let’s contrast: Matt 16:26 For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what shall a man give in return for his soul? [ESV] Souls ought not be for sale and the suggestion that terms of employment are a selling of the soul is utterly, tellingly monstrous. I was going to answer ETs message above, but he's pretty much self refuting for those who have good morals and beyond hope for those who do not. But I have to ask you what point you're trying to make? Are you really trying to suggest that if you use an "incorrect" pronoun you're going to burn in Hell for all eternity? Really? Remember what I told you about breathing those volcano fumes. What is it about conservative Christianity that gives you and ET and the gang such undying hatred towards adolescents whose sexual orientation doesn't meet your arbitrary standards. Don't tell me, "The Bible says ..." The Bible says I can own slaves and that God gave David 20 of Saul's wives as a reward. If you're not willing to say slavery and bigamy by the dozen are OK, then look for a better foundation for your morality. Hint: The Golden Rule is in the Bible. And everywhere else. It's actually pretty obvious unless your morals are already corrupted. Personally, I think Christians do have terrible morals and this is just one small example. Christians have the morals of an iron age middle east tribesman with the word "Jesus" on top. Since you were "kind" enough to give me bad moral advice from the Bible, here's some Bible verses back to you: Matthew 25:45: Then they also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to thee?’ 45 Then he will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.’ 46 And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” MatSpirit

Meriwether’s school’s policy is that their students are to be addressed by their preferred gender. How frequently do students get to change their preferred pronoun? If they change it mid-sentence without informing the teacher is the teacher still liable? es58

MS:

if somebody gives you money to do something, you’re pretty much obligated to do it

Let's contrast:

Matt 16:26 For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what shall a man give in return for his soul? [ESV]

Souls ought not be for sale and the suggestion that terms of employment are a selling of the soul is utterly, tellingly monstrous. Again, on first duties of reason:

We can readily identify at least seven inescapable first duties of reason. Inescapable, as they are so antecedent to reasoning that even the objector implicitly appeals to them; i.e. they are self-evident. Duties, to truth, to right reason, to prudence, to sound conscience, to neighbour, so also to fairness and justice etc. Such built in law is not invented by parliaments or courts, nor can these principles and duties be abolished by such. (Cf. Cicero in De Legibus, c. 50 BC.) Indeed, it is on this framework that we can set out to soundly understand and duly balance rights, freedoms and duties; which is justice. The legitimate main task of government, then, is to uphold and defend the civil peace of justice through sound community order reflecting the built in, intelligible law of our nature. Where, as my right implies your duty a true right is a binding moral claim to be respected in life, liberty, honestly aquired property, innocent reputation etc. To so justly claim a right, one must therefore demonstrably be in the right. Thus, too, we may compose sound civil law informed by that built-in law of our responsibly, rationally free morally governed nature; from such, we may identify what is unsound or false thus to be reformed or replaced even though enacted under the colour and solemn ceremonies of law.

KF kairosfocus

LoL! @ MatSpirit:

I hate to break it to you, but if somebody gives you money to do something, you’re pretty much obligated to do it and do it the way the person paying you wants it done. If you don’t, you can be fired.

So now lying is part of someone's job description? Really? Someone was paying someone to call someone by their preferred pronouns? Really?

Meriwether’s school’s policy is that their students are to be addressed by their preferred gender.

So the school mandates that teachers and students lie? How is that not against the law? That has to be the most ignorant thing, ever. ET

Barry There was recently a case where a judge said he'd hold in contempt if preferred pronouns weren't used. What would you do? es58

MS, irrelevant -- save as enabling behaviour -- to the core issue, forced lying under threat of false colour and ceremonies of law. Do you understand where corrupted law ends? KF PS: I point onward to the underlying root issues:

We can readily identify at least seven inescapable first duties of reason. Inescapable, as they are so antecedent to reasoning that even the objector implicitly appeals to them; i.e. they are self-evident. Duties, to truth, to right reason, to prudence, to sound conscience, to neighbour, so also to fairness and justice etc. Such built in law is not invented by parliaments or courts, nor can these principles and duties be abolished by such. (Cf. Cicero in De Legibus, c. 50 BC.) Indeed, it is on this framework that we can set out to soundly understand and duly balance rights, freedoms and duties; which is justice. The legitimate main task of government, then, is to uphold and defend the civil peace of justice through sound community order reflecting the built in, intelligible law of our nature. Where, as my right implies your duty a true right is a binding moral claim to be respected in life, liberty, honestly aquired property, innocent reputation etc. To so justly claim a right, one must therefore demonstrably be in the right. Thus, too, we may compose sound civil law informed by that built-in law of our responsibly, rationally free morally governed nature; from such, we may identify what is unsound or false thus to be reformed or replaced even though enacted under the colour and solemn ceremonies of law.

At this point, I don't expect responsiveness. When needless pain at the bottom of the cliff forces a rethink, that is when lessons will be drawn. Athens after the Peloponnesian war was far more open to learn what it ignored and crushed in its heyday. kairosfocus

ET @ 165 "Thanks Acartia Eddie @ 150. It looks like discrimination is alive and well. Be assimilated or be cast out!" I hate to break it to you, but if somebody gives you money to do something, you're pretty much obligated to do it and do it the way the person paying you wants it done. If you don't, you can be fired. It may be that your religion prohibits you from certain kinds of work. For instance, if your religion prohibits alcohol, you might not be able to be a bartender. It's your choice whether to serve alcohol or not, but if you won't then nobody has to pay you not to. Even if you won't serve it because of your religion. Meriwether's school's policy is that their students are to be addressed by their preferred gender. Mr. Merriwether says that his religious beliefs prevent him from doing so. That's a pity, but if he won't do his job, the school doesn't have to pay him for not doing it. Merriwether started this by deliberately using a masculine pronoun and he apparently did it in front of the class. The pupil asked him to stop and he refused. The pupil complained to the school. The school gave Merriwether sever chances to start following school policy. He didn't. Eventually the whole mess wound up in court and so far two courts have agreed with the pupil. Merriwether has been given multiple chances to just follow school policy. If he continues to insult the pupil, then he'll eventually get fired. Maybe he'll try bartending next. I think right wing religion has deterorated into a series of excuses to justify their sinful ways. MatSpirit

@vivid yeah our instincts are crap. We think of it as a small piece of foam, but 500 miles an hour, it’s like a bullet. Retired Physicist

RP Yes velocity does matter doesn’t it ? We think a piece of foam nice and soft but at 500mph not. so much!! Vivid vividbleau

Nobody has ever explained to me how I was talking about a particular person. I certainly didn’t identify anybody, and maybe there’s some special website where you can see the ethnicity of every pseudonym on the Internet, but if there is I’m not aware of it. Retired Physicist

@Vivid it was just a piece of foam! Like you said. But it was a piece of foam traveling at 500 miles an hour, according to one calculation a friend of mine did. Our instincts are just inadequate, i believe. Retired Physicist

Vivid, no. Geek USED to be an insult. There's no way you can say a man bites the heads off of live chickens without insulting him. Today it has a different meaning and it's not an insult. I'm not sure if that's an improvement or not, since we no longer have a label for somebody with chicken feathers on his breath. MatSpirit

Barry Arrington "Ed it is none of my business what a person does on their own time. But the government has no business forcing funeral homes to let their male employees come to work in drag." Please quote the part of the decision that says employers can not set dress codes for their employees. Barry "Retired Physicist thinks nothing of insulting a black man for being stupidly verbose. " What if he IS stupidly verbose? Are we not allowed to accurately describe him because of his color? Are you saying that blacks are privileged here because of the color of their skin? What about a white man who says stupid things at length. Can we call him stupidly verbose? Barry in 55: "I made two main statements in my OP. 1. A man is not a woman. 2. I will never lie and say that a man is a woman." You also said, " A man is not a woman, and anyone who says or implies otherwise is a liar. On June 15, 2020, this lie prevailed in the Supreme Court of the United States of America. This lie is now the law, and it will be enforced with all of the terrible power of the government." Please quote the part of the Supreme Court decision that says that a man is a woman or that makes that statement into law. Actual quotes, please, not the type of stories that right wing Christians tell each other. You also said in 55, "It is very telling that none of you has addressed the issues on the table." I'll address them right now. 1: I agree with you. A man is not a women. 2: Nobody is saying you have to lie that they are. If you say they do, please quote the Supreme Court decision where it says that. MatSpirit

RP Hard to believe it was a piece of foam that caused it. What was fascinating is how they tracked all those parts down! Just amazing story Vivid vividbleau

It was a huge mission, led by Story Musgrave, to fix the Hubble, I can only imagine what the mission would have been to fix Columbia if they discovered that. Retired Physicist

A good thing to come out of that, is afterwards, when the shuttle was in orbit they positioned the camera to check out all the tiles so that didn’t happen again. We retired the shuttle now, so it’s less relevant, but it’s really interesting history. Retired Physicist

@Vivid Micheal Leinbach really told people what happened. Retired Physicist

@Vivid that is great book. Really very good. I’ve probably read 10 books on the incident and that was fantastic. Retired Physicist

RP Read a great book about it titled “Bringing Columbia Home” Vivid vividbleau

Because I’m a benevolent and helpful guy, I wanted to turn all of you on to one of the best pieces of science writing I’ve ever read, Columbia’s Last Flight by William Langewiesche: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2003/11/columbias-last-flight/304204/ When Langewiesche uses 10,000 words it’s because they are good and not just pointless jabbering. A Science Communications professor told me years ago that it’s one of the best instances of science communication ever written. It probably took him a year and $100,000, she said. Retired Physicist

“Retired Physicist, sorry for the insult, “ OMG geek is now an insult, we’re so screwed up as a society. Vivid vividbleau

I’m not offended, I just support the modern terminology, and I think Incel works pretty good for describing the kind of people you’re talking about. Young violent males who are aggrieved by their deficiencies and think they’re entitled to women’s attentions. Retired Physicist

Retired Physicist, sorry for the insult, but when I was your age, the geek was the side show man who bit the head off a live chicken to end the show and empty the tent quickly. The only other words I could think of that fit were rather obscene. MatSpirit

JVL, the attempted turnabout on lying is desperate. I have long since explained why I use a handle, which is not even a pseudonym. KF kairosfocus

The young males who shoot up Walmarts &c. (in the US) are typically "incels". Of course most are not so volatile. daveS

As a side note, I really appreciate the Spanish beginning a sentence with ¿ because it gives you a heads up and you’re not surprised in tone at the end of the sentence. Retired Physicist

Mat @152: “ haven’t monitored incell forums, but I’ve seen some of their screeds published after their crimes. Everything I’ve seen about them has portrayed them as uber geeks” This is trifling, but I must object to your use of the word geek. In the parlance of our times, geek means somebody who is unusually attentive to and knowledgeable about a particular subculture. I was a physics geek. I can talk to you in great detail about the historical development of modern physics. Not that you’d want to hear. :-D You can geek out on computer programming, or manga, or ‘57 Chevys, etc. Social misfit might be a better term for the raging unsuccessful violent entitled males you’re describing? Retired Physicist

JVL, your attempted turnabout pretence that I am raising a novel issue on dubious hand-waving would be funny if it were not so inadvertently revealing of the balance on the merits. Next, oh put up a math model or it doesn't count is little more than nonsense. The baseline reality is, the logic is plain enough and translating into a propositional calculus chain would only obscure the fairly obvious point that responsible rationality does not work unless we have significant freedom governed by first duties of reason, to follow and choose to acknowledge cogency of a conclusion. Computational substrates don't meet that threshold for various reasons. They are essentially mechanical, modified by stochastic events, driven by the relevant architecture and signal processing so that given inputs, up to statistical fluctuations produce given results. That holds for digital machines, analogue signal processing and neural networks. And as a notorious case in point here is Sir Francis Crick in his The Astonishing Hypothesis:

. . . that "You", your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behaviour of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules. As Lewis Carroll's Alice might have phrased: "You're nothing but a pack of neurons." This hypothesis is so alien to the ideas of most people today that it can truly be called astonishing.

Alien, as this notorious consequence is not discussed at popular level, say in high school IT classes when GIGO comes up. And I am not going to go into expositions of architecture and computer organisation, analogue computers, integrators or neural networks etc. They would only be roundabout hard to follow ways to confirm what is already manifest. But if you are informed enough to be aware of the hard problem of consciousness or to understand that a computer is a signal processing entity driven by its organisation, inputs, programming and chance events, you have enough to know. Attempted emergence ends up collapsing into this or else it ends up trying to get a poof magic mind as something from nothing. Which is a manifest fail. All of this is quite well known. So the whole project of getting to a functional, sane mind on evolutionary materialistic scientism fails. In failing, accommodationist fellow travellers are caught up in the collapse. We have to address responsible, rational, morally governed freedom on another ground entirely. KF kairosfocus

Someone who has Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome might have female genitalia and appear female. The person, and their family, may have no idea that they are genetically XY. They might only find out when the person fails to menstruate. Or maybe not even then, some gymnasts don’t menstruate for many years after they would ordinarily do so. That person might only find out, after living 30 years as a woman, and looking feminine and having feminine genitals, in a doctor’s office with her husband because they’re having trouble conceiving. So after 30 years being a woman by all intents and purposes, upon finding out that she is XY would you suddenly call her a man and use he/him pronouns? There are probably a few psychos who would. Thinking that all that matters is XX or XY is just simple minded nonsense. Retired Physicist

JVL, They are the INvolunarily CELibate, i.e., men who would like to be married (or just have sex, for the more hedonistic ones), but whom our newly-re-engineered society has left out. It is estimated that 25% of men will never marry now. (Give or take a few % points.) [The choice to just have lots of sex versus marrying is another whole discussion.)] Neither they nor the complement of women of this generation were brought up to be gentlemen (or ladies, respectively), to take responsibility in life, to marry and care for their spouses, perhaps have families, build social capital in their world, etc. Because of radical feminism, the media, the Left (but I repeat myself), the devaluing of traditional marriage, etc., they are no longer able to figure out how to achieve a stable satisfying relationship with another person. Those of you on the Left (not necessarily you, JVL) need to fix this problem. Get on it. EDTA

Kairosfocus: evolutionary materialistic scientism notoriously explains events in the end on Monod’s chance and necessity, in that context reducing mind to computation on a substrate. Dynamic-stochastic systems is a short description of that: mechanical necessity with chance, stochastic processes of varying character. Where GIGO limitation is equally well known. I'd like to see a proper mathematical model if that's your assertion 'cause otherwise that's just all hand waving. Beyond that, enough has already been said, the further talking points simply play out as predicted. Let me know when you hit rock bottom and hard, needless pain causes a change of mindset amenable to a fresh start. Right so, for some reason, you think you have already answered the question of whether or not men should be allowed to wear what is traditionally considered womens' clothing. And I think your answer is no, they should not be. If that's not correct then please state so clearly and unambiguously. If that is correct then can you please elucidate your legal grounds (we'll stick with the US for that) for that opinion. And can you also please state your moral grounds, Biblical is good, for that opinion. Remember I am just talking about clothing choices. Would you consider it appropriate for men to wear codpieces as they used to do? How about wigs (as judges and lawyers in England still do)? Also, are you asking us to lie when we defer to referring to you by your forum name when we know your true name? Is that still a sin? JVL

EDTA: They have the toughest choice of all then. We (collectively) have tried to re-order society around these other groups, and it is turning into a large fail. Remember the angry incels and what they fantasize about. I must be being stupid but: what/who are incels? Give up a bit, or give up everything? The angry incels are giving up major life opportunities. Some are also suicidal. What about them? I guess 'incels' are genetically normal men? What major life opportunities are they giving up? Incels are being denied the chance at normal marriage, family, etc. Again, not all, just an angry enough demographic group to want to band together and cause quite a bit of trouble for society as a whole. Have you lurked in their forums much? Again, not being exactly sure of who incels are how are they being denied the chance of normal marriage and family? I'm missing something here clearly. JVL

MatSpirit, >From what little I’ve seen, they appear to be about 99% Trumpers. Why do you say that the progressive left created them. Were we supposed to give them a bath and brush their teeth or something? We used to have a society that--while leaving the fringes somewhat ragged--did have the time/knowledge/wisdom to see that a large core set of people successfully carried society from one generation to the next. The "social fabric" got successfully woven at one end as people were passing away at the other. Social capital was continually being built. I saw it in action. That is no longer happening with enough frequency to keep things going. Yes, we've always had problems. But we need to not create new bigger ones. If they're mostly Trumpers, then maybe they do see how it happened. It started before the Sexual Revolution of the 60's, but for practical purposes, trace it there. It was a perfect storm of waning influence of Christianity, left-moving politics, enlarging gov't which thought it could solve every problem, social engineering, increasing numbers of people going off to college, urbanization, and other things. But spearheaded by liberals, those who supported the Sexual Revolution and pushed it forward. It wasn't conservatives, who would not ask for revolution, but rather slow change to make sure things didn't break faster than they were being improved. The proof is that the Left never saw the incel movement coming. They had no idea. They did not predict it in the slightest. They don't care that it is happening now. (OK, some do--it's the next problem they will try to solve. God help them.) The leftist agenda is truly an unplanned, (largely) uncontrolled plunge into the unknown. Thanks a bunch. And yes, a lot of people all around the political spectrum don't seem as mature as they should be. Try incels dot net. I haven't made it to the reddit forum yet, but I hear it's even more popular. EDTA

Thanks Acartia Eddie @ 150. It looks like discrimination is alive and well. Be assimilated or be cast out! ET

JVL, evolutionary materialistic scientism notoriously explains events in the end on Monod's chance and necessity, in that context reducing mind to computation on a substrate. Dynamic-stochastic systems is a short description of that: mechanical necessity with chance, stochastic processes of varying character. Where GIGO limitation is equally well known. All of this, as an educated person you full well know so I reject the attempt to pretend that I have raised some dubious novelty that requires particular specification. Further to this, it is manifest that you don't get to responsible, rationally free mind on that so the challenge is to see how ever a properly functioning rational, knowing mind could arise from such. In fact, more than that, the view is manifestly, multiply self-referentially incoherent and necessarily false, taking down fellow traveller accommodationist views with it. So, you do not get to a rational, responsible, sane mind, much less one that -- as we inescapably are -- is under government of first duties of reason. Rationality and sanity as well as responsible freedom go poof, so there is no base to assess sanity much less insanity, much less MORAL-intellectual debasement aka the reprobate mind. Indeed, there is no genuine who to do a freely rational assessment. The whole project of intellect crashes down in self referential incoherence. The reasonable conclusion is that we are more than such substrates, as say Haldane long ago pointed out:

"It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. In order to escape from this necessity of sawing away the branch on which I am sitting, so to speak, I am compelled to believe that mind is not wholly conditioned by matter.” ["When I am dead," in Possible Worlds: And Other Essays [1927], Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209. Cf. here on (and esp here) on the self-refutation by self-falsifying self referential incoherence and on linked amorality.]

Beyond that, enough has already been said, the further talking points simply play out as predicted. Let me know when you hit rock bottom and hard, needless pain causes a change of mindset amenable to a fresh start. KF kairosfocus

JVL, >So true hermaphrodites should do what exactly? They have the toughest choice of all then. We (collectively) have tried to re-order society around these other groups, and it is turning into a large fail. Remember the angry incels and what they fantasize about. >I guess the question is: how do we decide on the lesser-of-many-evils choice. Doesn’t everyone have to give up a bit for a greater consensus? Give up a bit, or give up everything? The angry incels are giving up major life opportunities. Some are also suicidal. What about them? >Intended by whom? God. >What is that exactly that men are being denied? Incels are being denied the chance at normal marriage, family, etc. Again, not all, just an angry enough demographic group to want to band together and cause quite a bit of trouble for society as a whole. Have you lurked in their forums much? EDTA

Sev, >"That boys engage in outdoor physical activities and girls stay indoors and practice domestic skills is not biologically determined. That men become engineers or scientists while women become nurses or teachers is not biologically determined." Not absolutely determined, but is there a biologically-based _tendency_ to prefer one over the other? If you think not, how do you know? EDTA

Vivid, Plato's Cave shadow shows mistaken for reality. I suppose a key factor is, to accuse or question is to be a Racist or an Uncle Tom Oreo (or in my native, a roast breadfruit). Truth forfeited, sound conscience forfeited, justice forfeited. It is also easy to see that things don't add up with Antifa. The very claim Anti-Fascist is an obvious turnabout projection. One of Herr Schicklegruber's favourite techniques. KF kairosfocus

“Then, why were they handed the keys to the kingdom, complete with a protected ride on the media magic carpet? That is deeply revealing. “ BLM is the name no one can mention. It is suicide for anyone to report on its origin, its self avowed Marxist founders, it’s connections to Freedom Roads Socialist Organization now called Liberation Road. My God a coach that wore a t shirt to go fishing in was forced to publicly apologize. Now we are into the modern day equivalent of book burning. “I know already that the dominant narrative on the Ferguson incident is propagandistically falsified. “ I remember reading the full transcript of the file and the eyewitness testimony, African Americans all, afraid for their lives. Michael Brown went for the gun, hands up don’t shoot never happened. Vivid vividbleau

Vivid, okay, it moved from the fringe to the mainstream riding piggyback on "never let a crisis go to waste," never mind that such misanthropic folly should have utterly discredited a group advocating such. Then, why were they handed the keys to the kingdom, complete with a protected ride on the media magic carpet? That is deeply revealing. I know already that the dominant narrative on the Ferguson incident is propagandistically falsified. There is a pattern here, so where do backing resources and connexions come from. KF kairosfocus

Vivid, we are seeing Red Guard tactics and the sort of corrupting intimidation Havel described in his greengrocer parable. The parable clipped in 14 above that objectors so studiously side stepped. We have forgotten, or never learned just how much use Marxist subversion makes of front groups and issues that involve people who don't see the strings going behind the curtain. I would expect that culture form critical theory oppression metanarrative marxists and their community organiser operatives will do much as the classical Leninist/Stalinist and Maoist ones did. KF kairosfocus

“In less than one week the demand to defund and abolish the police came from seemingly nowhere to 24/7 media coverage. “ Not out of nowhere BLM has demanded this for years. Vivid vividbleau

Vivid, the issue is of course design detection. I assert that 4th gen insurgency operations do not come from nowhere nor are such going to be organised without plans and heavy logistics backing. That requires planners with difficult to achieve capabilities backed by enough economic clout to channel serious resources, where we already see strong signatures of Alinsky style tactical doctrine and clear parallels to the Red Guards. For serious level operatives, we are looking at years of training. For those using protest infiltration and swarm tactics (notice how often the first confrontation is with a female backed by a swarm), months. I see where a captured arsonist was posted as a missing person about a year ago, fully across the US from where she was caught. Even then, she habitually wore red and black, telling colours. The operations also seem to track the Arab Spring and E Europe uprisings. But then we know we deal with those utterly unwilling to see signs of inconvenient design, even as we have seen a long parade of conspiracism and linked lawfare trumpeted all over major media. That selective filtering is itself a clue. KF kairosfocus

“In fact, I agree that I do not think anyone should be forced to address someone by that person’s chosen pronoun; in fact I really, really like ET’s excellent suggestion: just call them ‘you’ or by their name.” I am not sure about this but I think some teacher lost their job because they would not use the correct pronoun. Regardless using correct pro nouns will be required not just the name. Found it. Plaintiff Nicholas K. Meriwether. Vivid vividbleau

Kairosfocus: Your basic problem does not start with mental or moral aberrations etc, but with rising above computational substrates to rational, responsible mind. As von Hayek was oft heard to say, the problem is not so much what is wrong but how could things ever have gone right in the first place. If you could explain how all this answers the questions we have put to you I'd appreciate it. You pride yourselves on clever intelligence (and not a few belittle those dumb IDiots), but the first challenge is that a computational substrate is utterly non-rational. It is a You pride yourselves on clever intelligence (and not a few belittle those dumb IDiots), but the first challenge is that a computational substrate is utterly non-rational. It is a GIGO constrained, dynamic stochastic system that could never freely make a ground consequent inference or worse a judgement of inductive cogency. "[A} GIGO constrained, dynamic stochastic system that could never freely make a ground consequent inference or worse a judgement of inductive cogency. A stochastic system? Really? Please spell that out mathematically. That is, without freedom, rationality goes poof. And freedom is not in the gift of blind mechanical forces and equally blind chance. So . . . men do have the freedom to wear womens' clothing? What a relief! You say a lot of things but you continually avoid answering some basic and simple questions. Why I cannot say but it makes it hard for some of us to avoid thinking you are somewhat narrow minded. I'd rather give you the chance to answer for yourself but you seem unwilling to do so. Or should I just assume your answer? It is patent from the genetically stamped complementarity of the two sexes and linked requisites of stable society much less sound upbringing, that our sexuality is ordered as between the sexes in stable responsible bonds, marriage. That which disorders such, is inherently deranged, morally as well as intellectually. Not that this day and age is inclined to acknowledge the obvious. Including, that a man is a man and a woman a woman, from the genes up; never mind nonsense on 112 so called genders as psycho-social constructs. The consequences of our irresponsibility and folly are all around, regardless of willingness to be led to the sound. What about hermaphrodites? And besides, I was just asking you about clothing choices. You can surely answer that question easily. Seversky, that a man is a man and a woman a woman is biologically, genetically driven and decisive. Truth says of what is that it is and of what is not that it is not. To try to use colour and ceremony of law to force people of integrity to lie is manifestly evil. We will not yield to it, nor will we assume that we can change naturally evident creation order for man, woman, marriage, family as we will. Period. But, does that mean a man cannot wear a skirt/kilt? JVL

“Perhaps these ‘shadowy warlords’ don’t exist, and you have just been reading too much WND.com?“ Then again perhaps they do, do a deep dive on BLM which has little to do with Black Lives. Vivid vividbleau

EDTA @ 38: "#2 will suck for some people. But life sucks now for many millions of incels, and they are ready to rape and kill. Just visit their forums where they encourage each other and discuss what they want to do in their anger. The progressive Left had no idea they were creating such a dangerous demographic group." I agree that #2 is the right answer, but I'm puzzled by your remark about INvoluntary CELibates. I haven't monitored incell forums, but I've seen some of their screeds published after their crimes. Everything I've seen about them has portrayed them as uber geeks who sit around and complain about how every single woman in the world discriminates against because they can't even get a date, let alone get laid, and who are so mad about their pathetic condition that they're ready to rape and kill because of it. From what little I've seen, they appear to be about 99% Trumpers. Why do you say that the progressive left created them. Were we supposed to give them a bath and brush their teeth or something? Also, could you give us some URLs for these incel forums? I like to keep track of people who are pro rape and murder. MatSpirit

JVL, the disordered are not the yardstick of order. We may indeed pity and seek how to help, but it is manifest that we must first understand how things could ever have gone right if we are to set in order what has gone wrong. The modernist preoccupation with the odd and the attempted counter-example mislead us by tending to make a crooked yardstick our standard to judge what is straight and upright. KF kairosfocus

I have a close American friend who’s company has an employee who informed him that he was transitioning to a women. He asked my friend if that would cause a problem with his job. My friend told him that it absolutely would not but asked his permission to have a meeting with the rest of staff so that it wouldn’t come as a surprise. During this meeting my friend asked if any of them would have an issue with this. One staff member essentially said what Barry said in the OP. My friend told him that he had a choice to make. Either respect the transgendered employee and call her by her new name or seek alternate employment. That person no longer works for my friend’s company. Ed George

EDTA: 2) Try to approximate the intended state as much as possible. Since God originally (pre-fall) intended that we be distinctively male and female, we can try to approximate that as best we can. That means those at the fringes of the male/female bell curves should pick the closest sex/gender, and live that way. So true hermaphrodites should do what exactly? Life is a continuous series of lesser-of-many-evils choices. I’m not happy that we can’t accommodate everyone, but it looks like the attempt to do so is failing badly. I guess the question is: how do we decide on the lesser-of-many-evils choice. Doesn't everyone have to give up a bit for a greater consensus? You are correct that women have been moving in the direction of men as far as dress goes for some time now. But as I said above, the sexes/genders were intended to be distinct and special in their own ways. Intended by whom? Men in particular can see that they are being denied something they easily obtained a few gen’s ago. What is that exactly that men are being denied? JVL

JaD, let's work together to draw this out further. I suggest many principles are evident to sound, conscience guided and guarded reason, tracing to creation order. In particular, even our rationality is morally governed. This sets a context for true justice in community, the due balance of rights, freedoms and duties. KF kairosfocus

DS, WND has essentially nothing to do with the matter. The agit prop street insurgency is all over the news, in recent days the misanthropic call to abolish the police came out of nowhere to instant prominence despite patent folly, the media amp and orchestrated singing from a common hymn sheet are obvious, the lawfare has been going on for years. I am simply connecting dots as one who lived through such a civil war already. BTW, ten years later the fading USSR sent a delegation of public apology that actually hired a conference centre to publicly, formally apologise for what it had done. Those who pooh-pooed KGB/GRU involvement a decade earlier were publicly refuted. Familiar patterns are playing out, echoing also, say, the Chinese Cultural Revolution. There is smoke of arson, literal and metaphorical, so who is lighting things up? KF kairosfocus

As I have already written here and elsewhere when it comes to morality and human rights there is a long natural law tradition in the west that moral obligation and human rights are based on something objective and transcendent. Cicero understood this when he wrote, “Neither the senate nor the people can give us any dispensation for not obeying this universal law of justice. It needs no other expositor and interpreter than our own conscience. It is not one thing at Rome and another at Athens; one thing today and another tomorrow; but in all times and nations this universal law must forever reign, eternal and imperishable.” https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/how-the-warren-debacle-demonstrates-the-insanity-of-the-progressive-war-on-reality/#comment-666474 Saint Paul and Aquinas also appealed to moral natural law. For example, in Romans 2:13-15 Paul writes, “For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. 14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them…” I couldn’t find a comprehensive Aquinas quote. However I did find a good summary of Aquinas’ thinking by someone who wrote his PhD dissertation on Natural Law.

I wrote my PhD dissertation on Natural Law (Titled: “Thomas Aquinas on Natural Law and the Twofold End of Humanity), and I hope to publish it in the next few years. Until then, here’s the short version in just 5 easy points: *God designed natural law so that humans participate in God’s eternal law. As rational creatures we can determine and seek that which is good and avoid that which is evil. *According to Thomas Aquinas, the first precept of natural law is “good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided.” Every subsequent moral precept is based on this “first precept of natural law.” (By the way, you should memorize the underlined quote and never forget it. It is very useful and it will strengthen your understanding of natural law). *The #1 mistake people make about natural law is that they assume that natural law is secular and non-religious. Not true according to Saint Thomas Aquinas. Saint Thomas teaches that the virtue of religion, sacrifice, holidays, and even a natural priesthood pertains to the natural law. Moreover, avoiding idols and worshipping the Creator are derived precepts of the natural law. *Natural law is common to all the nations. It doesn’t matter if you’re a Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindu, Buddhist, Daoist, animist…natural law applies to you. This means that the testimony of natural law leads one to have a true religion. Thomas Aquinas would say that natural law in the heart of man would argue against idolatry, polytheism, atheism, etc. Hence, the idolatry of, say, Hinduism is banned under natural law. *Natural law is insufficient for human beatitude and salvation. Thomas Aquinas is really clear about this. He teaches that natural law is not enough. A human person can never erase natural law from his heart, but he can mitigate its force in his life. And even if a human person followed natural law perfectly, he would not attain to Heaven, because sanctifying grace is needed to enter the Beatific Vision (vision of God). So then, God gave “Divine Law” in the form of the Old Testament but perfectly in the New Testament. The New Law of the New Testament is really the Holy Spirit who communicates mercy, grace, and love to our souls and body. Hence, the human person after Adam and Eve needs Divine Law to perfect what natural law cannot do. (The heresy of Pelagianism holds that humans can be saved by perfectly following natural law – a big no-no for Catholics!)

https://search.proquest.com/openview/b0ae2ecddcddfdb392fb3580d4275e54/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y In other words, morality and human rights are not something that were invented or made up by human beings. Moral thinking and beliefs are intrinsic to human nature. So somehow it just evolved or, more logically, human beings were purposely created with a moral nature. And as I have also conceded, the natural law view of morality doesn’t mean there aren’t disagreements about natural law. There have been, there are and there will be disagreements. However, what can’t be argued is the historical fact that the natural law view has been foundational to western thinking about morality and human rights for the last 2500 years. And again, its roots go all the way back at least to Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. john_a_designer

KF, Perhaps these 'shadowy warlords' don't exist, and you have just been reading too much WND.com? People are very angry and restless at the moment, and have lots of extra time due to lockdowns and unemployment. That's enough to explain the current happenings. daveS

Seversky, that a man is a man and a woman a woman is biologically, genetically driven and decisive. Truth says of what is that it is and of what is not that it is not. To try to use colour and ceremony of law to force people of integrity to lie is manifestly evil. We will not yield to it, nor will we assume that we can change naturally evident creation order for man, woman, marriage, family as we will. Period. KF kairosfocus

Folks, Yesterday, I raised some pointed questions in answer to DS, first at 102:

street theatre insurrection points to those who want to use that theatre to advantage, as was highlighted through the living memory example of the Cultural Revolution that convulsed China for ten years. So, no, such questions are relevant and material. Riot, rapine, looting, arson and attack on culture symbols have moved ahead apace, duly media amplified through singing off the same hymn sheet. Linked lawfare is trying to take the police off the chessboard, despite how obviously insane that is. That has to make sense to somebodies, somebodies who by this alone are misanthropic. Where, admissions indicate that 2 years back candidates were being asked about abolishing the police . . . 4th gen war, nevertheless points to 4th gen Generals, warlords backing them and logistics to back same. So, what is going on? Who hopes to benefit?

A little later, 104 :

I am putting up facts from the Cultural Revolution so that we can look at a major power with its longstanding civilisation and how it was brought to its knees through a 4th Gen, low kinetic intensity civil war using street theatre as a key arena of struggle. The history is there, now witnessed by the dupes used in that street theatre decades before as they try to make peace with themselves. While history does not simplistically repeat itself and while 50 years of technological advance have happened (so the Arab Spring and Revolutions in Ukraine etc are also relevant) we can get a more frank admission here. Then, let us familiarise ourselves with patterns so we will not be blinded by the fog of war closer to home. And yes, I repeat, it has been obvious to me for years that the US has been in low grade 4th Gen civil war . . .

I ask these again: we see the operations playing out on streets, in the media, in courts and legislatures as well as local and federal executive offices. But operations are not self-explanatory as spontaneous disconnected random events. Operations point to strategy, strategic goals, logistics setting the framework. Planners, organisers, operators, decision makers, generals are involved. In China, 54 years ago, Mao and his faction were the answer. Today, who are behind the curtains, pulling the strings? And no, this is not empty conspiracism. Recognisable, continent scale Alinski style agit prop street theatre operations, with singing off the same hymn sheet media amplification and even censorship are playing out. Lawfare is associated. In less than one week the demand to defund and abolish the police came from seemingly nowhere to 24/7 media coverage. This alone, is a crossing the Rubicon event, marking something that is ruthlessly misanthropic and anti-civilisational. This is therefore an existential event. But as everything else with 4th Gen war, it is in the shadows and fog, working by manipulating and polarising a critical mass. Brick pallets were being pre-positioned. Frozen water bottles were in use as projectiles, all leading to hundreds of police casualties, which were suppressed as not fitting the metanarrative. Suddenly, we realised that skateboards were turned from toys into seemingly innocuous but deadly war hammers. Civilisational icons are being attacked with impunity, with police etc obviously told to stand aside. So bad is it that Spain has had to send a diplomatic message. You have to search far and deep to pick the pattern up, the anchors, guests and pundits ring false. All of which is strongly parallel to things we have seen before. So, what geostrategic agenda is at work, who are the generals and funders, where do the shadowy warlords lurk? This is all existential, we had better get some good, well warranted answers and act on them urgently, in defence of civilisation. Today's Red Guards and their backers must not win, for the common good. KF kairosfocus

Yes, genes determine whether a human being develops as a man or a woman and there are obvious physiological differences between the two. But the convention that blue is for boys and pink is for girls is not biologically determined. That boys wear pants and girls wear dresses is not biologically determined That boys engage in outdoor physical activities and girls stay indoors and practice domestic skills is not biologically determined. That men become engineers or scientists while women become nurses or teachers is not biologically determined. There is the physical sex which, in most but not all cases, is clear at birth and there is gender which are the socially-acceptable and culturally-determined roles played by each sex in society. That some may be discomfited by the undermining of their unwarranted certainty that these gender conventions were somehow laws of nature, the fact that some men prefer to dress and behave like women or vice versa is not going to bring human civilization crashing down in ruins, even if, for some, that is apparently a "consummation devoutly to be wished". Seversky

EG & JVL et al: Your basic problem does not start with mental or moral aberrations etc, but with rising above computational substrates to rational, responsible mind. As von Hayek was oft heard to say, the problem is not so much what is wrong but how could things ever have gone right in the first place. You pride yourselves on clever intelligence (and not a few belittle those dumb IDiots), but the first challenge is that a computational substrate is utterly non-rational. It is a GIGO constrained, dynamic stochastic system that could never freely make a ground consequent inference or worse a judgement of inductive cogency. That is, without freedom, rationality goes poof. And freedom is not in the gift of blind mechanical forces and equally blind chance. This is one reason why evolutionary materialistic scientism is a self-referential, self-defeating self contradictory necessarily false scheme of thought. One, that takes its fellow travellers down with it in self-falsifying ruin. Of course, you will never acknowledge it, but that makes utterly no difference to the self-ruin. To have rationality, one has to have freedom (a strong sign of our spiritual nature, but let's not go there in detail), which means we face the gap between IS and OUGHT, starting with the first duties that govern reason. As I have been noting:

We can readily identify at least seven inescapable first duties of reason. Inescapable, as they are so antecedent to reasoning that even the objector implicitly appeals to them; i.e. they are self-evident. Duties, to truth, to right reason, to prudence, to sound conscience, to neighbour, so also to fairness and justice etc. Such built in law is not invented by parliaments or courts, nor can these principles and duties be abolished by such. (Cf. Cicero in De Legibus, c. 50 BC.) Indeed, it is on this framework that we can set out to soundly understand and duly balance rights, freedoms and duties; which is justice. The legitimate main task of government, then, is to uphold and defend the civil peace of justice through sound community order reflecting the built in, intelligible law of our nature. Where, as my right implies your duty a true right is a binding moral claim to be respected in life, liberty, honestly aquired property, innocent reputation etc. To so justly claim a right, one must therefore demonstrably be in the right. Thus, too, we may compose sound civil law informed by that built-in law of our responsibly, rationally free morally governed nature; from such, we may identify what is unsound or false thus to be reformed or replaced even though enacted under the colour and solemn ceremonies of law.

Yes, duty governs rationality, we are inescapably morally governed creatures. A point observed by Cicero when he noted that “Law (say they) is the highest reason, implanted in [our] nature, which prescribes those things which ought to be done, and forbids the contrary.” Which means that bridging the IS-OUGHT gap is central to rational life. Moral government is inseparable from rational, responsible mindedness. In turn, that gap can only be bridged in the root of reality, on pain of ungrounded ought. We have known this since Hume. That means, the root source of reality must bridge the gap, if we are to account for ourselves as responsible, rational creatures. This requires that that root source is inherently good and utterly wise as well as awesomely powerful and of course truly independent -- i.e. necessary -- in being. A familiar figure, one far more reasonably to be acknowledged than ever those in the grips of today's fashionable but self-defeating ideologies will acknowledge. So, the question of derangement is deeper than ever you would credit. So, let us write for record as a witness against an age of utter moral and intellectual, suicidal folly. It is patent from the genetically stamped complementarity of the two sexes and linked requisites of stable society much less sound upbringing, that our sexuality is ordered as between the sexes in stable responsible bonds, marriage. That which disorders such, is inherently deranged, morally as well as intellectually. Not that this day and age is inclined to acknowledge the obvious. Including, that a man is a man and a woman a woman, from the genes up; never mind nonsense on 112 so called genders as psycho-social constructs. The consequences of our irresponsibility and folly are all around, regardless of willingness to be led to the sound. This derangement does include the attempt to join what is patently contrary to nature and is manifestly destructive as we see the increasing consequences of trying to reorder society in its image. Obviously, we are so stubbornly determined to rush ahead on this civilisational march of folly that we will only wake up, shattered and broken, at the foot of the cliff. That is how great a folly it is to turn our backs on the source and governor of our being. But all of this is elaboration that predictably you will pay not a moment's heed to save to snip, strawmannise, stigmatise and scorn. See you at the foot of the cliff, where awful, needless pain might just make for a more amenable mindset. In the meanwhile, it remains demonic, blasphemous tyranny to try to force people of integrity to lie under threat of coercion appealing to colour and ceremony of law. Even as they make mockery of the solemn duty of justice, There are those of us that will never yield to such blasphemous folly, learn that for sure and know that if you carry forward with force under false colour of law, you simply prove that you serve anything but the civil peace of justice. In my case, that is literally written into my name. KF kairosfocus

JVL, >Are you okay with men or women dressing like the opposite sex, work and job requirements aside. Is that being deceitful? ... (Of course, women have been dressing like men for decades so the real issue is men wearing dresses, skirts, nylons and makeup.) You are correct that women have been moving in the direction of men as far as dress goes for some time now. But as I said above, the sexes/genders were intended to be distinct and special in their own ways. Women were not intended to be just like men, nor men llike women. Mixing them up confuses the hell out of most people. Few know how to handle the world the progressives have created in just a few generations, so they revert back to their instincts, and that results in a lot of hatred and anger coming out. Men in particular can see that they are being denied something they easily obtained a few gen's ago. We are in a very precarious time. EDTA

Caitlyn Marie Jenner (born William Bruce Jenner; October 28, 1949) won the men’s decathlon at the 1976 Olympic Games. Does “she” still have the gold medal? If so shouldn’t she give it back because she isn’t/wasn’t really a man? john_a_designer

JVL, >Would you be okay with male employees wearing a kilt?...If women can wear a skirt why can’t a man wear a kilt? >My questions about men being allowed to wear a kilt (which is a skirt) is trying to get at some of the other potential biases this supreme court decision may be partially uncovering. These are all good questions, but they are clearly intended to slowly pull others in a different direction by showing them how close we already are to those newer things/ideas. I appreciate that you want us to join you. But I have to go back to my theistic grounding. (I am grounded there for all the reasons we present here continually.) We are a fallen race. People aren't always born perfect. I have mental and physical flaws of which I am reminded daily. Some of those I was just born with. I can't fix very many of them of them it seems. Some of them hold me back in life, and cause others to treat me with less respect than they might otherwise. I live with that. (100% of the less-than-ideal treatment I get comes from non-belivers, btw.) We have two broad choices in life it seems: 1) Embrace the fallenness and just go whatever way we think we like best. Whatever feels good, do it. This is where we are headed now. Or 2) Try to approximate the intended state as much as possible. Since God originally (pre-fall) intended that we be distinctively male and female, we can try to approximate that as best we can. That means those at the fringes of the male/female bell curves should pick the closest sex/gender, and live that way. #2 will suck for some people. But life sucks now for many millions of incels, and they are ready to rape and kill. Just visit their forums where they encourage each other and discuss what they want to do in their anger. The progressive Left had no idea they were creating such a dangerous demographic group. Life is a continuous series of lesser-of-many-evils choices. I'm not happy that we can't accommodate everyone, but it looks like the attempt to do so is failing badly. EDTA

EG >Let’s, for the sake of argument, say that homosexuality and transgenderism is a mental disorder,... If evolution selects against it by them having an order-of-magnitude fewer offspring, what is correct evolutionary term for the phenomenon? Maladaptive, perhaps? I'm serious. I want to know the proper evolutionary term. Thanks. EDTA

News: Did someone mention KILTS? Oh, you must mean the Canadian Ladies from Hell: The Black Watch: I was going to call you on this saying: Whoa! The Black Watch is a Scottish regiment. And guess what: we're both right!! The Scottish version has a famous tartan which I find quite fetching. JVL

Kairosfocus and ET: Of course it depends on the kind of work being done and any dress code a company chooses to adopt; I was once told that my hair was inappropriate by an interviewer and while I could have created a stink about a double standard I felt that it is within a company's right to have a dress code and at least they let me know up front. My questions about men being allowed to wear a kilt (which is a skirt) is trying to get at some of the other potential biases this supreme court decision may be partially uncovering. Have any of you seen Eddie Izzard, a famous English comedian and actor who buys his clothes in the womens' department (he says: they're not womens' clothes, they're his clothes, he bought them). He's not gay or trans, he just likes wearing them. Grayson Perry is an artists who won a famous award in London a few years ago; he has a wife and kids and he likes wearing dresses. Scottish men have been wearing skirts as formal wear for a couple of centuries. In fact, I agree that I do not think anyone should be forced to address someone by that person's chosen pronoun; in fact I really, really like ET's excellent suggestion: just call them 'you' or by their name. So, two questions: if someone you deem to be male asks you to call them by an obvious feminine name is that okay? Is that being deceitful? Are you okay with men or women dressing like the opposite sex, work and job requirements aside. Is that being deceitful? (Of course, women have been dressing like men for decades so the real issue is men wearing dresses, skirts, nylons and makeup.) JVL

KF

EG, really. KF

Are homosexuality and transgendered mental disorders? If so, an employer has a legal obligation to accommodate them as long as is not financially restrictive and the person can do the job. Ed George

Did someone mention KILTS? Oh, you must mean the Canadian Ladies from Hell: The Black Watch: Comin' over the ridge... presented to you by ... the Irish Rovers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2fizeoT22g "And they call us the Irish Rovers!" Seriously: The Romans, who once ruled the Western world, regarded trousers as a ridiculous example of what was wrong with barbarian civilizations. Their view likely preceded gentlemen's tailoring (one fears to imagine what went on before that). We will hear no more on the subject. None of it has anything to do with sex as a biological concept. News

Acartia Eddie:

Let’s, for the sake of argument, say that homosexuality and transgenderism is a mental disorder, which many here believe it is.

Employers don't have to hire the mentally handicapped. ET

DS, deceit is deceit. KF kairosfocus

EG, really. KF kairosfocus

Let’s, for the sake of argument, say that homosexuality and transgenderism is a mental disorder, which many here believe it is. An employer has a legal obligation, within financial limitations, to accommodate those with illnesses and disabilities. An employer cannot fire an employee if he becomes disabled if his work can be accomplished with a modified workstation. The same applies to MS, cerebral palsy, bi-polar, etc. Now, if an employee is homosexual or transgendered, shouldn’t the employer be required to accommodate this as long as it does not affect the quality of their work? Ed George

KF, Well, according to you, she was a man at the time she filled out the application. But the larger issue is that you clearly have no appreciation for the difficulties associated with coming out as transgender and are not interested in understanding Stephens' perspective. Edit: My response might be a bit harsh, but I have worked with a few trans people over the years, and I would have been horrified if one of them had been fired like Stephens (given what I know about the situation, which is admittedly not a great deal). daveS

DS, deceit in itself is enough to cause loss of confidence for cause. KF kairosfocus

If Stephens had insisted on dressing like a drag queen on the job, I can see how that would be a problem. In the picture on the ACLU website (along with others on the web), she is dressed modestly and looked like she could pass for a late middle-age woman. daveS

JaD, deceit is a serious issue on the job and elsewhere. KF kairosfocus

JVL, I actually had in mind a specific context. At the first, Scottish Regiments wore kilts in the trenches of WW1. It was already problematic but then gases were used. Later in the war, they reverted to more conventional uniform pants and this was also the case since. There are environments where the chemistry and physics are relevant and there are others when dress code is about corporate image and appropriateness becomes a factor. But in fact, all of this is distractive in hopes of clouding the issue. I therefore refocus the foundational issue, following. If we do not return law and courts to safe ground, a real slippery slope is already in effect with a ruinous dynamic in play. KF PS: Once more, root issues:

We can readily identify at least seven inescapable first duties of reason. Inescapable, as they are so antecedent to reasoning that even the objector implicitly appeals to them; i.e. they are self-evident. Duties, to truth, to right reason, to prudence, to sound conscience, to neighbour, so also to fairness and justice etc. Such built in law is not invented by parliaments or courts, nor can these principles and duties be abolished by such. (Cf. Cicero in De Legibus, c. 50 BC.) Indeed, it is on this framework that we can set out to soundly understand and duly balance rights, freedoms and duties; which is justice. The legitimate main task of government, then, is to uphold and defend the civil peace of justice through sound community order reflecting the built in, intelligible law of our nature. Where, as my right implies your duty a true right is a binding moral claim to be respected in life, liberty, honestly aquired property, innocent reputation etc. To so justly claim a right, one must therefore demonstrably be in the right. Thus, too, we may compose sound civil law informed by that built-in law of our responsibly, rationally free morally governed nature; from such, we may identify what is unsound or false thus to be reformed or replaced even though enacted under the colour and solemn ceremonies of law.

So, are we morally governed creatures or not, starting with our rationality? If not, reason much less responsibility is delusion. If so, we need very serious reformation of what looks to be the generally used philosophy of law. Serious consequences obtain. kairosfocus

Here’s a little more information about Bostock v. Clayton County that was recently decided by SCOTUS.

Aimee Stephens had worked for nearly six years as a funeral director at R.G. and G.R. Harris Funeral Homes when she informed the funeral home’s owner that she is a transgender woman. She was fired, the EEOC sued on her behalf, and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Aimee’s employer engaged in unlawful sex discrimination when it fired her because she’s transgender…

https://www.aclu.org/cases/rg-gr-harris-funeral-homes-v-eeoc-aimee-stephens So in other words, “Aimee” lied on “her” job application. “She” knew when she applied that she was a transgender woman. She had no obligation to be truthful and honest upfront? Was Aimee the name she used on her job application? Sounds like a set-up to me. john_a_designer

JVL- It depends on the type of work, duh. ET

Kairosfocus: A kilt is not drag. It may not be appropriate dress code. Why shouldn't it be appropriate dress code? If women can wear a skirt why can't a man wear a kilt? Some men in Scotland do wear them and not just for formal occasions. I've heard they are very comfortable. How about a Sarong, common amongst men in many cultures. JVL

“Retired Physicist thinks nothing of insulting a black man for being stupidly verbose.” As far as I know, I’ve never done this. Retired Physicist

A kilt is not drag. It may not be appropriate dress code. kairosfocus

Barry Arrington: Ed it is none of my business what a person does on their own time. But the government has no business forcing funeral homes to let their male employees come to work in drag. Would you be okay with male employees wearing a kilt? JVL

Vivid, thanks for the reminder. It is clear that EG, who has wrecked whatever credibility was due per benefit of doubt, is using ad hominems to evade responding to the judicial failure on the underlying case as well as to the premise that inescapably, we are bound by a cluster of first duties of reason of equally binding force. So, it is blasphemously improper to try to twist duty of fairness, under colours and ceremonies of justice, to force people to perjure themselves and taint conscience by lying under threat of persecution by the corrupt state. Such abuse reveals at once the demonic root of what is now running riot in our civilisation. KF PS: On where we will have to go to restore civilisation to sanity:

We can readily identify at least seven inescapable first duties of reason. Inescapable, as they are so antecedent to reasoning that even the objector implicitly appeals to them; i.e. they are self-evident. Duties, to truth, to right reason, to prudence, to sound conscience, to neighbour, so also to fairness and justice etc. Such built in law is not invented by parliaments or courts, nor can these principles and duties be abolished by such. (Cf. Cicero in De Legibus, c. 50 BC.) Indeed, it is on this framework that we can set out to soundly understand and duly balance rights, freedoms and duties; which is justice. The legitimate main task of government, then, is to uphold and defend the civil peace of justice through sound community order reflecting the built in, intelligible law of our nature. Where, as my right implies your duty a true right is a binding moral claim to be respected in life, liberty, honestly aquired property, innocent reputation etc. To so justly claim a right, one must therefore demonstrably be in the right. Thus, too, we may compose sound civil law informed by that built-in law of our responsibly, rationally free morally governed nature; from such, we may identify what is unsound or false thus to be reformed or replaced even though enacted under the colour and solemn ceremonies of law.

PPS: Food for thought on being forced to deal with aggressive misanthropic, anti-civilisational activism that often hides under slogans such as "social justice." kairosfocus

EG, again, you are trying a rhetorical turnabout, complete with attempted mocking parody. It is first duly noted that after all this time neither you nor any other person on your side has substantially engaged this repeatedly linked article. That article brings out in several ways just how judicially bad this decision was, with emanations and penumbras to follow. We can safely take it to the bank that you have no response to the exposed judicial nihilism or to the impact of setting the precedent that at will electorally unaccountable judges may amend from the bench any law as they please. Where, it is a further safe conclusion that the fruit of a toxic tree will be just as deadly. Judicially corrupt decisions will predictably be destructively unjust. This exposes enabling of recklessness and lawlessness. Specifically, in the teeth of warning you patently cannot cogently answer but recklessly disregard, you are enabling the sort of aggressive super-right in the work place and community that allows politically protected activists belonging to "right" groups to run riot in a business, being effectively impossible to dismiss for even the most blatant cause of outrageous and disruptive counterproductive behaviour, given likelihood of lawsuit before courts corrupted like this and media lynching. That has already happened with customers and regulators setting out to persecute targetted businesses, and it pivots on refusal to acknowledge the fundamentally moral nature of rights and linked built-in core law. Including, that Havel's concern -- another point you have refused to engage -- on abuse of state power to force lying on pain of devastating consequences obtains. This pattern points to enabling of such widespread injustice that it implies an underlying strategy to trigger fatal disaffection and chaos. In that light, cries such as discrimination on whatever excuse ring utterly hollow. So, I remain on the point: it is manifest demonic blasphemy to compel lying under threat of abusive use of policing and court powers meant to uphold justice. And that specifically includes forcing people in a business to speak, write and act as though a man is a woman (directly implying exposing women to attack in the bathroom), under threat of government-backed persecution. What you would enable speaks volumes, none of it good. KF kairosfocus

Ed it is none of my business what a person does on their own time. But the government has no business forcing funeral homes to let their male employees come to work in drag. Barry Arrington

BA

EG, I have no idea what you are talking about

I apologize if I jumped to the conclusion that you do not support an employers right to discriminate against an employee because he/she is gay or transgendered. I falsely arrived at this misinterpretation of your beliefs from this previous comment.

I have not said I intend to discriminate against anyone, including so called transgender people.

I promise to never again suggest that you believe that gays and transgendered should not fear for their jobs due to their sexual orientation of gender identification. Ed George

KF

EG, you have forfeited such and not least by twisting the isue, which is forced lying under false colour of law. Which I shall not do. KF

Your evasion is duly noted. Based on your refusal to answer a simple question I think I am warranted to conclude that you support the right of an employer to fire a person for being gay or transgender. Ed George

EG, I have no idea what you are talking about Barry Arrington

JaD, the first issue there is what is justice, why so. that points straight to first duties of reason. Which are joint. Truth, justice and sound conscience are each just as primary. KF kairosfocus

EG “but I have yet to get a response from KF as to whether it is OK for an employer to discriminate against an employee (Ie fire) because he/she is gay or transgendered. “ Like when I asked you repeatedly to to show me when a certain politician used a term and you never answered? And now you are chastising KF for doing the same thing you did? Im in wonder that one can be so shamelessly hypocritical. This is your SOP Vivid vividbleau

EG, you have forfeited such and not least by twisting the isue, which is forced lying under false colour of law. Which I shall not do. KF PS: Interesting to see what is being left out in what you clip. Typical, and part of why answer/answer not takes on a very different colour and judgement. kairosfocus

KF

News U/D: Disruptive protests force cancellation of outdoors speeches at OK rally.

I assume that you are referring to the following:

President Trump scrapped a planned speech to the overflow crowd outside the arena at his Saturday night rally in Tulsa, Oklahoma after the event saw lower than expected turnout with no big overflow. https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.businessinsider.com/trump-canceled-outdoor-speech-at-tulsa-rally-over-low-turnout-2020-6%3famp https://i-insider-com.cdn.ampproject.org/i/s/i.insider.com/5eeea3004dca6808070f3735?width=640&format=jpeg&auto=webp

Ed George

The real problem with the current SJW thinking, which dominates the secular progressive left, is that it based on a dishonest bait and switch tactic. You can’t just proclaim something to be unjust unless you are using an objective standard. But secular progressive SJW’s posits no such standard. At its roots it’s morally subjective and relativistic. Obviously a subjective standard cannot be an objective standard. The problem is that these people are motivated by power and passion not truth, reason and logic-- they claim to be right because they believe they are right. Claims to the contrary this thinking is not progressive because it provides no way for us to measure progress. To paraphrase C.S. Lewis: Moral progress “means not just changing, but changing for the better.”

“There are two reasons for saying [that morality] belongs to the same class as mathematics. The first is, as I said in the first chapter, that though there are differences between the moral ideas of one time or country and those of another, the differences are not really very great — not nearly so great as most people imagine — and you can recognize the same lay running through them all: whereas mere conventions, like the rule of the road of the kinds or clothes people wear, may differ to any extent. The other reason is this. When you think about these differences between the morality of one people and another, do you think that the morality of one people is ever better or worse than that of another? Have any of the changes been improvements? If not, then of course there could never be any moral progress. Progress means not just changing, but changing for the better. If no set of moral ideas were truer or better than any other, there would be no sense in preferring civilized morality to savage morality, or Christian morality to Nazi morality. In fact, of course, we all do believe that some moralities are better than others. We do believe that some of the people who tried to change the moral ideas of their own age were what we would call Reformers or Pioneers — people who understood morality better than their neighbors did. Very well then. The moment you say that one set of moral ideas can be better than another, you are, in fact, measuring them both by a standard, saying that one of them conforms to that standard more nearly than the other. But the standard that measures two things is something different from either. You are, in fact, comparing them both with some Real Morality, admitting that there is such a thing as a real Right, independent of what people think, and that some people’s ideas get nearer to that real Right than others. Or put it this way. If your moral ideas can be truer, and those of the Nazis less true, there must be something — some Real Morality — for them to be true about. The reason why your idea of New York can be truer of less true than mine is that New York is a real place, existing quite apart from what either of us thinks. If when each of us said ‘New York’ each means merely ‘The town I am imagining in my own head’, how could one of us have truer ideas than the other? There would be no question of truth or falsehood at all.” (from Mere Christianity.)

In other words, without an interpersonal objective standard there is no such thing as better, no basis for criminal justice or universal human rights. Again, I don’t see how a moral subjectivist has any kind of basis for any kind of rational argument. How am I obligated to give any consideration to someone else’s moral opinions if they are presented by him as just his subjective moral opinions? How do we reach any kind of consensus in a society where there is no kind of objective standard for morality, law and human rights? john_a_designer

BA@103, your defense of KF is laudable, but I have yet to get a response from KF as to whether it is OK for an employer to discriminate against an employee (Ie fire) because he/she is gay or transgendered. You, at least, have stated that this is not OK. And I respect you for this stance. Ed George

News U/D: Disruptive protests force cancellation of outdoors speeches at OK rally. https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bronsonstocking/2020/06/20/disruptive-protesters-at-trump-rally-force-campaign-to-cancel-outdoor-speeches-n2571011 >>Disruptive Protesters at Trump Rally Force Campaign to Cancel Outdoor Speeches Bronson Stocking Bronson Stocking | Posted: Jun 20, 2020 8:55 PM President Trump spoke at a campaign rally in Tulsa, Oklahoma, on Saturday. The president had planned to speak to supporters outside the BOK Center, a 19,000-seat arena, due to limited capacity inside the venue. But campaign officials said they were forced to cancel outside remarks by both President Trump and Vice President Pence due to interference from protesters. "President Trump is rallying in Tulsa with thousands of energetic supporters, a stark contrast to the sleepy campaign being run by Joe Biden from his basement in Delaware," said Trump campaign Communications Director Tim Murtaugh in a statement. "Sadly, protesters interfered with supporters, even blocking access to the metal detectors, which prevented people from entering the rally. Radical protesters, coupled with a relentless onslaught from the media, attempted to frighten off the president’s supporters. We are proud of the thousands who stuck it out.">> Free speech for me but not for thee, anyone? (Does anyone want to guess who used to do such in Munich?) KF kairosfocus

PS: I am putting up facts from the Cultural Revolution so that we can look at a major power with its longstanding civilisation and how it was brought to its knees through a 4th Gen, low kinetic intensity civil war using street theatre as a key arena of struggle. The history is there, now witnessed by the dupes used in that street theatre decades before as they try to make peace with themselves. While history does not simplistically repeat itself and while 50 years of technological advance have happened (so the Arab Spring and Revolutions in Ukraine etc are also relevant) we can get a more frank admission here. Then, let us familiarise ourselves with patterns so we will not be blinded by the fog of war closer to home. And yes, I repeat, it has been obvious to me for years that the US has been in low grade 4th Gen civil war. Terrorist threats are extra. Years ago, I suggested target hardening with a mobilised locally based organised and accountable militia, going so far as to specifically recommend the Tavor Bullpup -- compresses the size for a given barrel length -- in 6.5 mm Grendel giving 800 - 1,000 m ranges. For longer range I would now add the 6.5 mm Creedmoor for those needing to reach out even further. 9mm parabellum is obvious for in close. Yes, I was that specific. The church shooting earlier this year demonstrated much of my point. kairosfocus

Retired Physicist, it occurs to me that in addition to chiding you for your boorish behavior, you might benefit from some advice on how to do better. Here is a clue. If you are too stupid and/or lazy to appreciate a brilliant man's cogent and timely explication of a critically important subject, it would be better to keep quiet about it instead of embarrassing yourself by whining about how many words he used. You should write that down. Barry Arrington

DS, street theatre insurrection points to those who want to use that theatre to advantage, as was highlighted through the living memory example of the Cultural Revolution that convulsed China for ten years. So, no, such questions are relevant and material. Riot, rapine, looting, arson and attack on culture symbols have moved ahead apace, duly media amplified through singing off the same hymn sheet. Linked lawfare is trying to take the police off the chessboard, despite how obviously insane that is. That has to make sense to somebodies, somebodies who by this alone are misanthropic. Where, admissions indicate that 2 years back candidates were being asked about abolishing the police. I have lived through this before, only a few years after the China case; where BTW it was nearly 20 years later that I learned of the UN classification as a Civil War, and later yet that I learned of open discussion and acknowledgement. At that time too, police were a particular target, some had to try using their 303s of WW1 vintage to pot those armed with ex Vietnam M16s, then grab these better weapons. On the same Mtn View Ave my aunt was murdered on, by a vigilante enraged by head of a Communist front group. . 4th gen war, nevertheless points to 4th gen Generals, warlords backing them and logistics to back same. So, what is going on? Who hopes to benefit? KF kairosfocus

Yes, the USA was born with a birth defect. 4 score and almost 7 years later, that changed. ET

Retired Physicist thinks nothing of insulting a black man for being stupidly verbose. Then he goes on and on about racial justice. There's a word for that RP. It begins with an "h" and ends with "ypocrite."* And all the while he steadfastly averts his gaze from the challenge of the OP, which was renewed in comment 55. _____________ *It is ironical too, because the black man you insulted has forgotten more about most subjects than you ever knew to begin with. Barry Arrington

RP, that taint and disqualify fails, precisely because their case rested on things that are universal, where I note how consistently those who argue like that almost never acknowledge Jefferson's draft and its anti-slavery sentiment. That took a lot of moral courage for someone trapped in holding slaves through debt and the cluster of laws that seem to have included that manumission would have led to seizure by debt holders. KF PS: Let's refocus central principle, echoing Cicero et al (where Cicero would for certain have been a slave holder):

We can readily identify at least seven inescapable first duties of reason. Inescapable, as they are so antecedent to reasoning that even the objector implicitly appeals to them; i.e. they are self-evident. Duties, to truth, to right reason, to prudence, to sound conscience, to neighbour, so also to fairness and justice etc. Such built in law is not invented by parliaments or courts, nor can they be abolished by such. (Cf. Cicero in De Legibus, c. 50 BC.) Indeed, it is on this framework that we can set out to soundly understand and duly balance rights, freedoms and duties; which is justice. The legitimate main task of government, then, is to uphold and defend the civil peace of justice through sound community order reflecting the built in, intelligible law of our nature. Where, as my right implies your duty a true right is a binding moral claim to be respected in life, liberty, honestly aquired property, innocent reputation etc. To so justly claim a right, one must therefore demonstrably be in the right. Thus, too, we may compose sound civil law informed by that built-in law of our responsibly, rationally free morally governed nature; from such, we may identify what is unsound or false thus to be reformed or replaced even though enacted under the colour and solemn ceremonies of law.

To such, what is your cogent reply? Especially, given this:

. . . he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, & murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.

kairosfocus

The obvious question is, what dirty, ruthless power struggle is going on behind the scenes, to what end? Who hopes to gain oligarchic or autocratic power from the snap-back from seemingly anarchic chaos. A key sign is, who are enabling the mobs? (look out, too, for the equivalent of Mao’s infamous Olympic swim down the river with his red guards, something I recall from the time.)

Get ahold of yourself, KF, you're reaching the point of self-parody. :-) daveS

Let's connect dots, given the Red Guards as showing patterns. 1} There are street activists able to run the board as insatiable bullies because they are powerfully backed. 2] They are young, indoctrinated, caught up in somebody's scheme, serving as street theatre cannon fodder mobs. 3] Things symbolic of the civilisation and otherwise respectable authorities are singled out, publicly attacked through a metanarrative of their being evil, discredited oppressors and more. 4] Things went to public bullying, beatings, forced confessions. Some were crippled physically, some were bbbbroken to suicide, some were murdered. 5] The police were neutralised from above and intimidated from below, allowing mobs to run riot. 6] To destroy the sense of common heritage, key cultural symbols were attacked and desecrated or destroyed. 7] Any who tried to object or oppose (save for the military, who apparently fought pitched battles with them) were targetted. 8] Behind the scenes there was a power game, led by the utterly ruthless. 9] Serious damage was done, some of it irrecoverable. 10] We see the year zero reset and cutting off from history. Notice one at 67 saying we have to compile and pass on the lessons lest they be forgotten leading to similar blunders. The obvious question is, what dirty, ruthless power struggle is going on behind the scenes, to what end? Who hopes to gain oligarchic or autocratic power from the snap-back from seemingly anarchic chaos. A key sign is, who are enabling the mobs? (look out, too, for the equivalent of Mao's infamous Olympic swim down the river with his red guards, something I recall from the time.) The game's afoot. KF kairosfocus

34 of 47 men in the room when the Declaration of Independence was signed were slave holders. Retired Physicist

https://chicago.suntimes.com/2019/9/10/20859458/fact-check-declaration-independence-slaves-trumbull-painting-arlen-parsa Retired Physicist

Martin Luther King said that rioting was the language of the oppressed, and those 100% white people sure thought they were being oppressed by living near some black people. America was shitty to black people for 400 years, and sometimes I think it will take another 400 years for them to gain equal acceptance. Have you seen the meme, that somebody did, where they took the famous painting of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, and they put a red dot over everybody’s face who owned slaves? Retired Physicist

RP, I'd heard of Levittown, but don't recall learning about this racist aspect of the story. Thanks. daveS

“Brevity is the soul of wit.” -Polonius (With, of course, wit in a kind of archaic usage, to mean intelligence. As in keeping your wits about you.) Some people take a thousand words to say what a smarter person can say in ten. Retired Physicist

@DaveS 85: You might want to look into the history of Levittown Pennsylvania. Every time a black family tried to move in, the white people rioted. And lest people say that was ancient history, it was 10 years after World War II. To this day, 98% of the town is white. Retired Physicist

More on the Red Guards: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/07/mao-little-general-horror-cultural-revolution >> Fifty years on, one of Mao’s ‘little generals’ exposes horror of the Cultural Revolution This article is more than 4 years old In the face of silence from the Communist party, a former Red Guard has written a blog about the bloody summer of ’66 Thousands of teenage hands rocketed skywards as the Great Helmsman stepped down from the rostrum in Tiananmen Square to greet the shock troops of his revolution. It was the summer of 1966 and Mao’s Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution – a catastrophic political convulsion that would catapult China into a decade of heartbreak, humiliation and deadly violence – was under way. Thousands visit birthplace of Chairman Mao – in pictures “When we saw Mao Zedong wave his hand, we all went berserk,” recalled Yu Xiangzhen, then a 13-year-old schoolgirl whose bright red armband marked her out as one of millions of loyal Red Guards. “We shouted and screamed until we had no voices left.” Fifty years after the start of the Cultural Revolution, in May 1966, Yu, who is now 64, has been blogging her memories of the period in a bid to prevent history repeating itself. China’s communist rulers have remained silent over the anniversary of the devastating political mobilisation, which scholars estimate claimed somewhere between one and two million lives. But since the start of this year, Yu has been trying to use her blog to tear down the wall of official silence surrounding the events of that bloody summer. “If our descendants do not know the truth they will make the same mistakes again,” she wrote in the introduction to her series of online reflections. “I want to use real experiences to prove that the Cultural Revolution was inhumane.” Even half a century on, Yu, a retired journalist, says she is still trying to fathom the horrors she witnessed that summer and to understand how she was radicalised into becoming one of Mao’s “little generals”. “We became Red Guards [because] we all shared the belief that we would die to protect Chairman Mao,” she says over a cup of tea in a Beijing cafe. “Even though it might be dangerous, that was absolutely what we had to do. Everything I had been taught told me that Chairman Mao was closer to us than our mums and dads. Without Chairman Mao, we would have nothing.” Yu’s attempts to remember the mayhem of 1966 began in January, when she began composing short online dispatches on an ageing desktop computer at her home in China’s capital. “When I started to write, I didn’t have a plan,” she said. “I just wanted to write down what I experienced in those 10 years of cultural revolution. I didn’t even have a title for my series of articles.” The former Red Guard decided to start at the very beginning, focusing her first essay on the closure of Beijing’s primary schools, in May 1966: “For me, the Cultural Revolution started at that moment. [So] that was the first article I wrote,” said Yu, who was a student at Beijing’s Chongwen Number 49 middle school at the time. Former Red Guard Yu Xiangzhen poses in front of her picture by artist Xu Weixin. Facebook Twitter Pinterest Former Red Guard Yu Xiangzhen poses in front of her picture by artist Xu Weixin. Photograph: Dan Chung/The Guardian Subsequent posts chronicle Yu’s journeys through a world that was at once exhilarating, bewildering, comic and horrifying. She remembers the vicious persecution of her teachers, the lynching of suspected class enemies, the hysterical mass rallies, and how Red Guards roamed Beijing, setting upon those with supposedly counter-revolutionary footwear, clothing or hair. “We thought that if you wore skinny trousers you were a monster,” said Yu, recalling how scissors were used to lop the tips off pointy shoes, slice open excessively fashionable trousers or shear off locks of hair. In one post, Yu recalls the excitement of boarding public buses with her Red Guard comrades and spending entire days reading extracts of Mao’s Little Red Book to commuters. “It was quite fun,” she recalled, leaning over the table in laughter. “I still remember the words in the book today. ‘Revolution is not a dinner party, or writing an essay, or painting a picture, or doing embroidery. It can’t be done elegantly and gently.’” “I believed it,” Yu went on. “I thought Mao Zedong was great and that his words were great.” Other memories are more painful. As the summer of 1966 progressed, and a period of so-called “red terror” began, the thrill of having been let out of class and let loose on the Chinese capital faded and was replaced by an atmosphere of fear. Red Guards marauded across the city, ransacking and looting homes and staging public “struggle sessions” in which victims were savagely beaten, tortured and sometimes killed. At least 1,772 people are known to have been murdered in Beijing alone. Some targets committed suicide to escape the relentless persecution. As violence engulfed the capital, an editorial in the Communist party journal, Red Flag, fanned the rapidly spreading flames. “The Red Guards have ruthlessly castigated, exposed, criticised and repudiated the decadent, reactionary culture of the bourgeoisie … landing them in the position of rats running across the street and being chased by all,” it read, according to Michael Schoenhals’ seminal book on the period, China’s Cultural Revolution. One night Yu recalls being unable to sleep because of the ferocious beating being inflicted on one of her teachers. “Each time we fell asleep the screams woke us up. The screaming never stopped.” Later, towards the end of August, Yu recalls seeing a severely injured man dragging himself across the road towards her after he had apparently been subjected to a savage Red Guard attack. “There was blood all over his face,” she said. “He looked like a ghost.” We Red Guards all believed that we would die to protect Chairman Mao Yu Xiangzhen After fellow Red Guards ordered her to pummel a group of prisoners with a belt, Yu said she decided to flee. “God bless me, I didn’t beat anyone back then. If I had beaten anyone how could I have lived with myself all these years?”>> See the fires we are playing with? KF kairosfocus

JVL, >You care more about being right about “a woman is not a man” or that lying is a sin than you do about the people who are involved. How can we say we care about people if we let them do harmful things without warning them? How can we say we care about people if we let them live lies themselves? >That’s the way I see this gender identification issue: who cares? Apparently enough people to have the SCOTUS rule on the matter. That's a lot of carin' there! >Honest and unintentional mistakes or forgetfulness has to be excused. We know this. The Left is not so forgiving as you think then. >Instead of continually trying to drive a wedge through society why aren’t you trying to close the gap and heal some of the wounds? God forgives all sins for those who repent. End the wedge; come on over. 8-) >What do you care more about: the rules as you see them...? No, the rules as I can best determine my creator intends them to be taken. >Are you stepping on others to try and make sure you are at the top of the heap when the end times arise? I will not be at the top of any human heap when trouble comes. I figure my destiny is the gulag-equivalent or worse. If you mean this in a religious sense, then there is no heap involved. All can freely enter who repent and turn to God. >Who shall be judged compassionate, caring, empathetic, supportive and loving then? No clue what standard you are using there. That's not what the NT teaches about how we will be judged by God, and the mob down here doesn't care a bit about empathy. EDTA

JAD, I note again:

We can readily identify at least seven inescapable first duties of reason. Inescapable, as they are so antecedent to reasoning that even the objector implicitly appeals to them. Duties, to truth, to right reason, to prudence, to sound conscience, to neighbour, so also to fairness and justice etc. Such built in law is not invented by parliaments or courts, nor can they be abolished by such. Indeed, it is on this framework that we can set out to soundly understand and balance rights, freedoms and duties, which is justice. Thus, we may compose sound civil law and we may identify what is unsound or false even though enacted under the colour of law.

Cicero was right, is right and this is where it begins. KF kairosfocus

DaveS “I’m also in the US. I have had periodic training in diversity etc., but I have found it interesting and constructive so far.“ Buckle up! Vivid vividbleau

F/N: Daily Mail on abolish the police: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8442531/Nearly-75-percent-DC-cops-want-quit-NYC-murders-increased-70-percent.html >>Nearly 75 percent of disgruntled DC cops want to quit amid national protests while NYC murders have increased by 70 percent since unrest began and shootings in the Big Apple have more than doubled Emergency police reforms released in the wake of George Floyd's death have angered many officers across the country A new D.C. police union survey shows 71 percent of the city's cops are now considering leaving the force 98.7 percent of those polled say they have been 'completely abandoned' by politicians; 96 percent say crime will rise in the wake of new reforms Meanwhile, violent crime was up dramatically in New York City in May, in comparison with figures from the same time last year Robberies were up 34 percent, murders 79 percent, and shootings 64 percent Shootings have continued to surge into the month of June, as the NYPD plainclothes anti-crime unit was disbanded 'This is what the politicians wanted - no bail, nobody in Rikers prison, cops not arresting anyone,' one irate officer told The New York Post By Andrew Court and Rachel Sharp For Dailymail.com Published: 14:24 BST, 20 June 2020 | Updated: 22:10 BST, 20 June 2020 >> KF kairosfocus

Vivid, I'm also in the US. I have had periodic training in diversity etc., but I have found it interesting and constructive so far. daveS

Where did so-called transgender rights originate? They are “rights” that have been invented or made up whole cloth by so-called secular progressives over the last few decades as part of a broader subversive political agenda. This is the dangerous nonsense that is a result of decades of a relativist or subjectivist view on morality, ethics and human rights. As I have written several times on other threads, when it comes to morality and human rights there is a long natural law tradition in the west that moral obligation and human rights are based on something objective and transcendent. Cicero understood this when he wrote, “Neither the senate nor the people can give us any dispensation for not obeying this universal law of justice. It needs no other expositor and interpreter than our own conscience. It is not one thing at Rome and another at Athens; one thing today and another tomorrow; but in all times and nations this universal law must forever reign, eternal and imperishable.” The question is, how am I obligated to accept a view of morality and human rights that is based on someone else’s made-up subjective opinion? The answer: I’M NOT. On the other hand, I certainly have a right to reject such nonsense. If your main premise in your argument is that “this is my personal belief and opinion,” then you don’t really have an argument. Please stop trying to fool others and then fooling yourself. It is a waste of everyone’s time. john_a_designer

DavesS Since you are not a person of color, I assume male, employed , and for the purpose of this exchange I will assume you are heterosexual and cis gender, you stand right below those on the second step of the ladder which are male, people of color, heterosexual, cis gender, employed, who think white, who stand below those at the top of the ladder which are white male, heterosexual, cis gender, religious., native born. I must add if my assumptions about your sexual status are incorrect that will change your position. First off since you are not a person of color you can’t help but be a racist. If you reject this accusation that is only more proof that you are. Since you are a racist you need remediation where you learn how racist you are however you must always keep in mind that your remediation is never done after all you are not a person of color so you will be forever a racist. Also although you occupy the third step of the intersectionality ladder and in turn being oppressed by those above you there are many identity groups that you are oppressing that are lower on the intersectionality ladder. Therefore you need to acknowledge your oppression, to not acknowledge this oppression is evidence that you are indeed guilty. Thus you need to be re-educated, these courses are coming and will be mandatory re-education classes, think of them as the Chinese “struggle sessions” There maybe things in these sessions you disagree with however remember to disagree is to affirm. I think you live in Australia so it may take a while to get there but it has arrived here in the US Vivid vividbleau

DS, with what is already on the table, chaos on many levels and fronts. Lawfare is ratcheting up as are ever more polarising media stunts. The mobs are freely targetting symbols of a civilisation, street theatre is already at arson and mobbing, with several murders and some shooting back. . The call to abolish police is spinning out on the ground with a police strike already having happened. I shudder to think what will happen whichever way the election goes; accepting defeat is not on cards for those already getting a taste for mob power, and winning would lead to a sense that they can freely run the board (especially in cities): Red Guards. A second CV19 wave multiplies the chaos. Folly and mischief are on the loose. All of this is playing with fire. KF kairosfocus

PS: More on the Red Guards: https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2014/01/23/265228870/chinese-red-guards-apologize-reopening-a-dark-chapter >>The early phases of the Cultural Revolution were centered on China's schools. In the summer of 1966, the Communist Party leadership proclaimed that some of China's educators were members of the exploiting classes, who were poisoning students with their capitalist ideology. Indeed, the educated classes in general were marked as targets of the revolution. The leadership gave Communist youth known as Red Guards the green light to remove educators from their jobs and punish them. One of the highest-profile apologies comes from Chen Xiaolu, a Red Guard leader at Beijing's elite No. 8 high school. He is also the son of Chen Yi, a leading Communist revolutionary and former foreign minister, and that allows him some latitude to speak out. "On August 19, I organized a meeting to criticize the leaders of the Beijing education system," Chen, now 67, recalls. "A rather serious armed struggle broke out. At the end, some students rushed onstage and used leather belts to whip some of the education officials, including the party secretary of my school." Chen says he was against the violence, but the situation spiraled out of his control. Chen says his school's party secretary later committed suicide, and a vice secretary was crippled as a result of that day's attack. The same summer, Chairman Mao met with crowds of frenzied Red Guards in Beijing's Tiananmen Square. He endorsed their violent tactics — consisting mainly of beatings with fists, clubs and other blunt instruments. In August and September 1966, a total of 1,772 people were killed in Beijing, according to the Beijing Daily newspaper. Students beating up their teachers was a shocking reversal in the Confucian society, where educators were once held in the highest esteem. Now, the teachers who were victimized in the Cultural Revolution are mostly in their 70s and 80s, and the Red Guards have said they wanted to apologize while they still have the chance. Last October, Chen met with his former classmates and teachers and apologized for the violence he presided over. Chen Xiaolu is one of the most high-profile former Red Guards to publicly apologize for the attacks against his teachers. "Looking back on it, I believe their human rights and dignity were trampled upon," says Chen, shown here in the courtyard of his Beijing residence. "Teachers were made to stand onstage, bow their heads and confess their crimes," he says. "Looking back on it, I believe their human rights and dignity were trampled upon." In fact, Chen says, the entire Cultural Revolution was illegal because it violated China's Constitution — though he acknowledges that criticizing the movement as unconstitutional is a way to make his point without being silenced by the authorities. Chen belongs to the "red second generation." He lives in spacious courtyard home in central Beijing. A black Audi sedan with paramilitary license plates — almost de rigueur for Beijing's power elite — can be seen in his garage. And yet Chen says he must be careful in his critique of the Cultural Revolution. He's criticizing himself, he emphasizes, not Mao. And he says he's certainly not implying any criticism of China's current leadership. Red Guards still use the euphemistic jargon of the era, including terms such as "struggling" against class enemies. Critics point out that these vague terms could be considered to include acts such as murder, torture and imprisonment. [--> cases I recall were house invasion type imprisonment, often with despoliation of the house]>> In the US, mobbing has already led to shootings by targets of the mob. kairosfocus

Vivid: Yes, I do work for someone else; I'm not a person of color. KF: Do you have any specific predictions for the next 6 to 8 months? daveS

DS, the history of the Red Guards is already in the thread above. Add in 50 years of technology and planning. Voila, it is already beginning to play out. The next six or eight months will play much more out. KF kairosfocus

DaveS “Can you sketch out what you think might happen to me? Or has someone written a short story or novel presenting a realistic depiction? I’m not sure what these metaphors of “being devoured” or “bending the knee” represent.” Well it depends where you stand on the intersectionality step ladder. Do you work for someone else,? Are you a person of color? Vivid vividbleau

JVL, slander by mock apology with strawman caricature of the NT's balance of teachings and examples does not work. It actually further illustrates the point. KF kairosfocus

Vivid, Can you sketch out what you think might happen to me? Or has someone written a short story or novel presenting a realistic depiction? I'm not sure what these metaphors of "being devoured" or "bending the knee" represent. daveS

Ds, the Red Guards did not operate Gulags. Wrong tyranny. They used mob power to pounce on and crush targets, forcing compliance through public confession under pressure. See above. Though street mob bullying is happening, media lynching and lawfare raping are also in play 50 years on. KF kairosfocus

DaveS Unfortunately what you do or don’t anticipate is irrelevant, you will either bow the knee or you won’t. Vivid vividbleau

Kairosfocus and Barry: I do apologise, I completely got the wrong impression about your ideals and motivations. I assumed that given the choice between compromising your standards a little bit and supporting another human being AND sticking to your guns and insisting on a hard and fast rule you'd pick the former. I assumed that because that's what I thought was taught in the New Testament: love your neighbour as yourself. I hadn't realised that your fear of being found wanting by God is much greater than your empathy and compassion. I hadn't realised that you thought God would care more about you saying whatever you think is true instead of reaching out and supporting another human being who is feeling judged and discriminated against. I got it wrong. I will try harder in the future to remember that the letter of the law, as you interpret it, is what is important to you and not the spirit of the law which is love and support and empathy. As I see it. You care more about being right about "a woman is not a man" or that lying is a sin than you do about the people who are involved. We all lie, every day. To our spouses, our friends, our colleagues, our business associates. Most of the time they are harmless lies that we hope smooth the way, make our day-to-day interactions easier. What's the point of annoying someone when it doesn't matter? That's the way I see this gender identification issue: who cares? Unless you intentionally address someone in a way you have been told repeatedly is not they way they want to be addressed there cannot be serious prosecution. That's obvious. Honest and unintentional mistakes or forgetfulness has to be excused. We know this. Your choice to bring this up as some kind of existential crisis is just you scaremongering or as KF is fond of putting it: agi-prop activity. Instead of continually trying to drive a wedge through society why aren't you trying to close the gap and heal some of the wounds? What do you care more about: the rules as you see them or the people you judge? Maybe it's yourself you are judging the most? Maybe you are afraid and worried that if you don't march in lockstep with the rules you will be cast off and left aside because you were wanting. Are you stepping on others to try and make sure you are at the top of the heap when the end times arise? Who shall be judged compassionate, caring, empathetic, supportive and loving then? JVL

Vivid, True, I don't anticipate ending up in the gulag. daveS

Many of our regular interlocutors self-identify as moral subjectivists, which means they believe there is no such thing as moral truth. However, they never explain how you can resolve a moral or ethical debate if everyone is a moral subjectivist with his or her personal agenda. They also claim, very disingenuously in my opinion, that they are pro-democracy. They also sometimes talk about trying to reach some kind of consensus. But again, how can we reach any kind of consensus if everyone is a moral subjectivist with his or her personal agenda. john_a_designer

Vivid, the Red Guards are the lesson we need to heed, they are already on the streets and have called for abolition of the police. Within days, one main faction, per survey, leaped to 55% support for that insanity, over twenty points ahead of the reported national support for same. Which is itself already a demonstration of where we now are. This is the genie that won't go back in the bottle, the Rubicon that cannot be "sorry folks" re-crossed. The Red Guards are on the march and can only be over-matched, they cannot be pleaded with or appeased. KF kairosfocus

Dave re 67 For now but the day is coming where that will not suffice. What truly amazes me is that JVL, EG, Sev, and DaveS, all decent liberal minded individuals, think they will be spared the “Gulag” . Critical Theory in all its forms will devour them or they too will have to bow the knee. Vivid vividbleau

Folks, just remember the Red Guards. Sometimes, you may not be interested in trouble, but trouble is interested in you. Which is precisely the dilemma BA raised in the OP. Behind which lies the issue of freedom and thus moral government, for to reason we must be free. Thus, we face IS vs OUGHT, thence rights arise as binding morally driven expectations, i.e. my right implies your duty. On which, given first duties of reason -- to truth, to right reason, to prudence, to sound conscience, to neighbour, to fairness and justice etc -- we find that we may only justly claim a right where we are demonstrably in the right. As, one cannot have a right to compel another to do or to uphold the wrong, tainting conscience. This is in part why the civil peace of justice pivots on the due balance of rights, freedoms and responsibilities. In which context, the assertion of improperly grounded super-rights that demand that others do or uphold the wrong (such as compelling lying under false colour of law or even rights etc) is revealed as a war against humanity. Which is precisely what the now uncomfortably familiar case of the Red Guards comes in. We should have stepped back from the brink but now we have crossed the Rubicon with the demand to defund and abolish lawful as opposed to ideological police. And of course, we are by and large in denial of the horrific new reality. Our collective folly testifies against us, we have massively failed as a civilisation and before this is over blood will flow in shocking quantities that we don't begin to imagine. One certainty is, the degree of civil liberty we have enjoyed in recent generations is dead. In our folly, we have sown dragon's teeth and will reap a due harvest. Our grand children, for cause, will curse us for our ruinous folly. KF kairosfocus

ET,

As for pronouns, instead just use that person’s name.

Yes, this is a good idea. daveS

JVL, " Maybe I’ve got it all wrong; I thought the central message of the New Testament was to love and care and support each other." That is the watered-down version of the NT, which puts something other than its true message at the center. (But I understand that you will get the above message at almost any Christian church today.) The NT as a whole points to Jesus as the redeemer for sinful mankind. The Bible as a whole tells us that we are not accidents of nature, but rather we were created, and as such, our creator is fully within his rights to place expectations on us. We are not to make up new morality to suit ourselves, no matter how enlightened we tell ourselves we are. We are just to accept his definitions of morality and do our best from there, regardless of where culture happens to be meandering at the moment. That goes completely against the spirit of this age, but it's still what the NT is really saying. EDTA

Barry

I made two main statements in my OP. 1. A man is not a woman.

Except in rare instances, you are correct. But we have been told repeatedly on this site that humans are more than their biology. More than meat robots. We still don’t know what consciousness is and how it arises. The one thing we do know is that there is a small number of people who identify more with the societal expectations of the opposite sex.

2. I will never lie and say that a man is a woman.

And I would certainly defend your right to do so. Just as I defend the right of an old man to sit on his porch yelling at kids to get off his lawn. Ed George

People used to think being gay was a disorder that could be changed by praying. Remember Exodus International? They were around for 37 years before they admitted it doesn’t work and gave up. Retired Physicist

1- Lying is a sin 2- Calling people something that they are not, is a lie 3- A way around that is to just use their name when referring to them. 4- Another way around it is to use the example Prince set: The person who identifies as X (or Y) ET

Thankfully States are taking matters in their own hands when it comes to transgender athletes. Biological boys, declaring themselves to be girls, have been winning track and field events to the detriment of biological females. States are now putting a stop to that nonsense. As for pronouns, instead just use that person's name. No lies, no harm, no foul. You're welcome. ET

F/N: As a reminder from history, Wiki speaking against interest on the Red Guards:

Attacks upon the "Four Olds" Main article: Four Olds The remains of Ming dynasty Wanli Emperor at the Ming tombs. Red Guards dragged the remains of the Wanli Emperor and Empresses to the front of the tomb, where they were posthumously "denounced" and burned.[11] The 11th Plenum of the CPC Central Committee had ratified the 'Sixteen Articles' in August 1966, a document that stated the aims of the Cultural Revolution. It also highlighted the role students would be asked to play in the movement. After the 18 August rally, the Cultural Revolution Group directed the Red Guards to attack the 'Four Olds' of Chinese society (old customs, old culture, old habits and old ideas). For the rest of the year, Red Guards marched across China in a campaign to eradicate the 'Four Olds'. Old books and art were destroyed, museums were ransacked, and streets were renamed with new revolutionary names and adorned with pictures and the sayings of Mao.[12] Many famous temples, shrines, and other heritage sites in Beijing were attacked.[13] The Cemetery of Confucius was attacked in November 1966 by a team of Red Guards from Beijing Normal University, led by Tan Houlan.[14][15] The corpse of the 76th-generation Duke Yansheng was removed from its grave and hung naked from a tree in front of the palace during the desecration of the cemetery.[16] Attacks on other cultural and historic sites occurred between 1966 and 1967. One of the greater damages was to the Ming Dynasty Tomb of the Wanli Emperor in which his and the empress's corpses along with a variety of artifacts from the tomb were destroyed by student members of the Red Guard. Between the assaults on Wan Li and Confucius' tombs alone, more than 6,618 historic Chinese artifacts were destroyed in the desire to achieve the goals of the Cultural Revolution.[17] Individual property was also targeted by Red Guard members if it was considered to represent one of the Four Olds. Commonly, religious texts and figures would be confiscated and burned. In other instances, items of historic importance would be left in place, but defaced, with examples such as Qin Dynasty scrolls having their writings partially removed and stone and wood carvings having the faces and words carved out of them. Re-education came alongside the destruction of previous culture and history, throughout the Cultural Revolution schools were a target of Red Guard groups to teach both the new ideas of the Cultural Revolution; as well as to point out what ideas represented the previous era idealizing the Four Olds. For example, one student, Mo Bo, described a variety of the Red Guards activities taken to teach the next generation what was no longer the norms.[18] This was done according to Bo with wall posters lining the walls of schools pointing out workers who undertook "bourgeois" lifestyles. These actions inspired other students across China to join the Red Guard as well. One of these very people, Rae Yang, described how these actions inspired students. Through authority figures, such as teachers, using their positions as a form of absolute command rather than as educators, gave students a reason to believe Red Guard messages.[19] In Yang's case it is exemplified through a teacher using a poorly phrased statement as an excuse to shame a student to legitimize the teacher's own position. Attacks on culture quickly descended into attacks on people. Ignoring guidelines in the 'Sixteen Articles' that stipulated that persuasion rather than force were to be used to bring about the Cultural Revolution, officials in positions of authority and perceived 'bourgeois elements' were denounced and suffered physical and psychological attacks.[12] On August 22, 1966, a central directive was issued to stop police intervention in Red Guard activities.[20] Those in the police force who defied this notice were labeled "counter-revolutionaries." Mao's praise for rebellion effectively endorsed the actions of the Red Guards, which grew increasingly violent.[21] Public security in China deteriorated rapidly as a result of central officials lifting restraints on violent behavior.[22] Xie Fuzhi, the national police chief, said it was "no big deal" if Red Guards were beating "bad people" to death.[23] The police relayed Xie's remarks to the Red Guards and they acted accordingly.[23] In the course of about two weeks, the violence left some one hundred teachers, school officials, and educated cadres dead in Beijing's western district alone. The number injured was "too large to be calculated."[22] The most gruesome aspects of the campaign included numerous incidents of torture, murder, and public humiliation. Many people who were targets of 'struggle' could no longer bear the stress and committed suicide. In August and September 1966, there were 1,772 people murdered in Beijing alone. In Shanghai there were 704 suicides and 534 deaths related to the Cultural Revolution in September. In Wuhan there were 62 suicides and 32 murders during the same period.[24] Intellectuals were to suffer the brunt of these attacks. Many were ousted from official posts such as university teaching, and allocated manual tasks such as "sweeping courtyards, building walls and cleaning toilets from 7am to 5pm" which would encourage them to dwell on past "mistakes".[25] An official report in October 1966 reported that the Red Guards had already arrested 22,000 'counterrevolutionaries'.[26] The Red Guards were also tasked with rooting out 'capitalist roaders' (those with supposed 'right wing' views) in positions of authority. This search was to extend to the very highest echelons of the CPC, with many top party officials, such as Liu Shaoqi, Deng Xiaoping and Peng Dehuai being attacked both verbally and physically by the Red Guards.[27] Liu Shaoqi was especially targeted, as he had taken Mao's seat as State Chairman (Chinese President) following the Great Leap Forward. Although Mao stepped down from his post as a sign of accepting responsibility [--> for needless, massive economic disruption and loss of life amounting to democide], he was angered that a capitalist roader like Liu could take the reins of communist China.

Slippery slope reality, not fallacy. Resemblance to current events and demands is not coincidental. KF kairosfocus

Fact: A transgender “woman” (a man who now believes he is now a woman) is biologically and genetically still a man. But according to the latest secular progressive thinking we are now all obligated to respect this persons beliefs about himself. But what about my belief that the facts are the facts? Is it now okay for people on the left to discriminate against me because I reject their agenda and still believe the scientific facts? In other words, the transgendered person subjective beliefs about himself supersede my belief in science? john_a_designer

JVL, forcing people to lie under false colour of law is not trying to be nice. And, you clearly have failed to address the specific, substantial issues. BA at 55 is right. And BTW a real slippery slope backed by real history is not a fallacy. Though, it is noteworthy that you seem to imagine that a mere dismissive opinion is tantamount to substantial engagement, imposing a stalemate the better to get on with belittling and demonisation through projecting accusations or insinuations of bigotry. KF kairosfocus

JVL, Has it occurred to you that you have refused to address the issues on the table as I noted in 55? Barry Arrington

Kairosfocus: JVL, I cannot but note that you have not responded to the already linked article, which tells us all we need to know. I told you what I thought about it. if you do not understand that forced lying under penalty of colour and ceremonies of law and financial catastrophe is blasphemy, I cannot help you. I gave an actual historical exemplar of that, which led to Christians being put to death as traitors, for centuries. Maybe today’s schools have censored out that history or rewritten it through equally blasphemous lies under false colour of education. So, being nice and respectful to another human being might condemn you to hell? Maybe I've got it all wrong; I thought the central message of the New Testament was to love and care and support each other. And you haven't explained how any of this is blasphemous. Has it occurred to you (and Barry) that if one of your own children or grandchildren were gay or transgender they'd be too afraid to tell you because of how they feared you would react? JVL

JVL, if you do not understand that forced lying under penalty of colour and ceremonies of law and financial catastrophe is blasphemy, I cannot help you. I gave an actual historical exemplar of that, which led to Christians being put to death as traitors, for centuries. Maybe today's schools have censored out that history or rewritten it through equally blasphemous lies under false colour of education. KF kairosfocus

To my various detractors: I made two main statements in my OP. 1. A man is not a woman. 2. I will never lie and say that a man is a woman. It is very telling that none of you has addressed the issues on the table. Stop sniping. Address the issues I have laid on the table. Is statement 1 false? If so, give me logic and evidence. Should anyone suffer (for example, job loss as the teacher in VA) for refusing to say a man is a woman? If so, give me logic for why that person should be compelled to speak against his conscience. Barry Arrington

EG, you would like the primary issue to be that. From the OP on it has been forced lying, thus forced tainting of conscience and support of evil under colour of law backed by abusive state power. That, in the further context of a ruling arrived at under utterly nihilistic principles of jurisprudence now adopted by Conservatives, showing just how far the rot has gone. On such the ruling is evil in direct and enabled onward effects. Judges must never be able to create law out of thin air on the bench, essentially, by amending legislation as they please, implying that when law is made it has no meaning, apart from what some unelected, electorally unaccountable panel of judges wish to push in. Which BTW happened about a year ago with a Constitution here in my region, in direct defiance of specific provision for how courts should advise parliaments if they found constitutional defects, in their opinion; also, in defiance of a referendum ratifying same constitution as what was acceptable to the people. The right, blunt name for that is a long train of abuses and usurpations pursuing the design of subjugation under despotism. Kindly, let us know what document I am here alluding to, in what highly significant context. KF kairosfocus

EG says, "Court rulings are not about truth." Indeed. And because they are not about truth, nor are they even trying to seek any sort of truth, we are just as free to ignore them. Oh that may bring the force of the gov't down on our heads, but even that will be an unjust thing. Just the current wind direction, that's all. See how wonderful relativism is? Two can play at that game. And your side hasn't a leg to stand on in claiming ours is wrong. Sev, "Perhaps, in time, we will come to regard washrooms divided into “Men” and “Women” in the same way we now regard facilities assigned to “Black” or “White” only in past years." Today nearly anything is possible I suppose. But skin color has nothing to do with what restrooms are divided up for. Restrooms are separated mainly to keep men (too many of whom are basically instinct-driven jerks) separate from women, whom they would harass any time they get a chance. Separation reduces those opportunities. Just survey men and women. Men wouldn't care if women came into their restroom, but most women would decline to have men coming into theirs. Men who care about women want them to remain separate so that women have that control and privacy. Black/white separation was an unnecessary cultural phenomenon that we have thankfully discarded. EDTA

JVL, I cannot but note that you have not responded to the already linked article, which tells us all we need to know. KF kairosfocus

Kairosfocus: kindly stop snipping out of context to set up and knock over ad hom laced strawman caricatures. First, I had already given reasons for why there is something seriously wrong with the decision, so a badgering demand for Y/N that can be used to set up strawman caricatures was and is out of order. You mean when you said the following: To impose lies and linked oppression under false colour of law with the lurking threat that one may not buy nor sell save s/he take the deadly mark of evil, is outright demonic and misanthropic. I will not violate truth, reason nor sound conscience, period. That it has clearly come to such is an all too telling sign of our times I don't understand how any of that applies to ensuring that a (until recently) shunned minority is granted equal treatment under law. You talk about evil but how can being nice to people who you may disagree with be evil? I wish you speak more plainly and clearly. You too are referred to here and are invited to explain to us in detail just how this kind of decision, arrived at in that way — and with the precedents, emanations and penumbras it invites — could in any wise be deemed just, responsible, reasonable. In your response, pay particular attention to the warning by Justice Alito. The opinion piece you link to I FIND agi-prop and scare mongering; the typical slippery slope fallacy. You have a different opinion. We disagree. That doesn't make me wrong or you right. Culture form marxists, nihilistic legal positivists and those who reach for “super-rights” to be used as clubs to batter down others, locking them out of employment, bankrupting them through “the process is the punishment” and the like so that none may buy or sell or now speak in the new town square save s/he kowtow and take the latest demanded “mark” of “virtue” are indeed destructive misanthropes. For one who would rob me of the means of daily bread menaces my life and one who would demand that I corrupt my conscience demands to damn my soul. No one is doing any of those things! Do you feel that a shopkeeper refusing to serve a member of the public because they disagree with their gender identification, sexual preference or a myriad of other points has the right to inflict his prejudices and biases on others? How is that shopkeeper, in his heart, any different from the bigots in the 50s and 60s who lynched and beat-up and refused service to legal citizens of their own country because of the colour of their skin? How is being homophobic different from being racist, legally? Particularly, in a context where justice is the due balance of rights freedoms and duties where my claimed right implies correlative duties on your part. In that context you can never have a proper right to demand that I lie in the face of known patent truth — cf the greengrocer in Havel’s parable — or otherwise taint or damn my soul. That is, one may only justly claim a right where one is demonstrably in the right. Which BTW is why the US DoI, 1776, appealed to self-evident first truths. Such truths can indeed be rejected but only on pain of instant fall into patent absurdities. Which, are not absent on these matters. Do you really think tolerating gay or transgender people puts your soul at risk? Here's a question for you: if you were seriously injured in an accident and were rushed to the emergency room would you refuse treatment if you knew the attending doctor was gay or transexual? So, no, I will not be coerced or manipulated or intimidated into bending the knee before the latest altar at the gate of the marketplace in order to toss a pinch of salt into a foul fire of blasphemy, declaring “Kaiser Kurion.” Explain to me, plainly and clearly, what in the decision is blasphemous. No fancy allegories or metaphors, just spell it out so there is no doubt what is bothering you about this decision. JVL

KF

Remember, the primary issue is forcing people into lying and otherwise enabling evil thus tainting conscience, multiplied by the corruption of jurisprudence through amending law from the bench.

You are wrong. The primary issue is whether a person can be fired because he/she is gay or transgendered. Ed George

KF

EG, you have long since forfeited any right to simple answers through use of loaded, manipulative argument.

The ruling was about the employers right to discriminate (ie, fire) an employee who is gay or transgendered. I asked you if you thought it was OK for an employer to discriminate against an employee who was gay or transgendered. How is that loaded or manipulative?

You have repeatedly argued in bad faith for a long time, now face the consequences.

From the KF International Dictionary:

Bad Faith Argument: any argument that disagrees with KF’ds opinion.

RP, belittling namecalling — and sexist — projection.

RP did not reference anyone in his comment. And you jump to the conclusion that zi is referring to you? Ed George

KF, Eh? I didn't ask any questions (in #46). Just saying I agree with part of your post #45, FTR. daveS

DS, multiple instances of fallacy of the complex, loaded, question-begging question. You would be well advised instead to actually address the critique I have long since directed you to, with particular emphasis on Justice Alito's remarks as cited there and above. KF kairosfocus

KF, I agree that there are two issues that have to be kept separate. A rational person could hold that gay and trans people should be not be fired just because they are gay or trans, and also believe no one should be compelled to call men women and vice versa (or use 'incorrect' pronouns, call trans women 'women', however you choose to say it). The discussion seems to be flipping back and forth between these issues. daveS

DS, being a pentecostal is not even in the same class of category, nor is such freighted with anything like the issues now on the table or in precedents, emanations and penumbras. Remember, the primary issue is forcing people into lying and otherwise enabling evil thus tainting conscience, multiplied by the corruption of jurisprudence through amending law from the bench. Your attempted counter example exposes a lot. KF kairosfocus

KF, Would your answer change if we considered different classes of people? For example, "Pentecostals should not be fired from a job solely because they are Pentecostals". daveS

RP, ad hominem used to try to cancel a key advance in history; aptly illustrating a classic culture-form marxism "critical theory" rhetorical device designed to poison discourse and get us to walk away from what we most need to heed. And actually, the main author who did own slaves in his draft had the courage to write in it stringent denunciations of same (he was trapped by debt and laws). A painful compromise was struck in order to get as much as was achieved, leading to onward history that cost 600,000 lives in the first American Civil War. 4th gen style CW 2 is spinning up into more kinetic phases as we speak. KF kairosfocus

DS, such is not even a serious candidate SET. KF kairosfocus

“Which BTW is why the US DoI, 1776, appealed to self-evident first truths. ” Do you know that most of the people in the room when the Declaration of Independence was signed owned slaves? If they were in touch with all these self evident truths, how come they missed that one? Retired Physicist

KF, I have a somewhat tangential, but closely related question. Referring to:

Which BTW is why the US DoI, 1776, appealed to self-evident first truths. Such truths can indeed be rejected but only on pain of instant fall into patent absurdities.

Is the following a self-evident truth? "Gay or trans people should not be fired from a job solely because they are gay or trans". daveS

RP, when you address the substantial issue then there will be something to discuss. Meanwhile, setting up and knocking over"Anti-X" strawmen makes no substantial point. And, had you read the article or my references above instead of hinting at ancient Egyptian notions of ailments due to wandering wombs -- you would have seen that I pointed out that the sobering judicial problem now extends to "conservatives," demanding a restoration that starts from the very roots of law. KF PS: Here is another wandering womb in action, just FYI:

—Marcus [in de Legibus, introductory remarks,. C1 BC, being Cicero himself]: . . . the subject of our present discussion . . . comprehends the universal principles of equity and law. In such a discussion therefore on the great moral law of nature, the practice of the civil law can occupy but an insignificant and subordinate station. For according to our idea, we shall have to explain the true nature of moral justice, which is congenial and correspondent [36]with the true nature of man.

[--> Note, how justice and our built in nature as a morally governed class of creatures are highlighted; thus framing the natural law frame: recognising built-in law that we do not create nor can we repeal, which then frames a sound understanding of justice. Without such an anchor, law inevitably reduces to the sort of ruthless, nihilistic might- and- manipulation- make- "right,"- "truth,"- "knowledge,"- "law"- and- "justice"- etc power struggle and chaos Plato warned against in The Laws Bk X.]

We shall have to examine those principles of legislation by which all political states should be governed. And last of all, shall we have to speak of those laws and customs which are framed for the use and convenience of particular peoples, which regulate the civic and municipal affairs of the citizens, and which are known by the title of civil laws. Quintus [his real-life brother]. —You take a noble view of the subject, my brother, and go to the fountain–head of moral truth, in order to throw light on the whole science of jurisprudence: while those who confine their legal studies to the civil law too often grow less familiar with the arts of justice than with those of litigation. Marcus. —Your observation, my Quintus, is not quite correct. It is not so much the science of law that produces litigation, as the ignorance of it, (potius ignoratio juris litigiosa est quam scientia) . . . . With respect to the true principle of justice, many learned men have maintained that it springs from Law. I hardly know if their opinion be not correct, at least, according to their own definition; for “Law (say they) is the highest reason, implanted in nature, which prescribes those things which ought to be done, and forbids the contrary.” This, they think, is apparent from the converse of the proposition; because this same reason, when it [37]is confirmed and established in men’s minds, is the law of all their actions. They therefore conceive that the voice of conscience is a law, that moral prudence is a law, whose operation is to urge us to good actions, and restrain us from evil ones. They think, too, that the Greek name for law (NOMOS), which is derived from NEMO, to distribute, implies the very nature of the thing, that is, to give every man his due. [--> this implies a definition of justice as the due balance of rights, freedoms and responsibilities] For my part, I imagine that the moral essence of law is better expressed by its Latin name, (lex), which conveys the idea of selection or discrimination. According to the Greeks, therefore, the name of law implies an equitable distribution of goods: according to the Romans, an equitable discrimination between good and evil. The true definition of law should, however, include both these characteristics. And this being granted as an almost self–evident proposition, the origin of justice is to be sought in the divine law of eternal and immutable morality. This indeed is the true energy of nature, the very soul and essence of wisdom, the test of virtue and vice.

kairosfocus

You mostly find anti-trans sentiment among the elderly, and Gorsuch is not elderly. Retired Physicist

KF, Gorsuch is on the court because Donald Trump nominated him and the Republicans in the Senate approved him. You should be mad at them, not me. Retired Physicist

RP, belittling namecalling -- and sexist -- projection. I challenge you also to respond on specifics, here. When you can do so cogently, then we can consider what else you have to say. KF PS: For examples of ignorant, mindlessly destructive anti-civilisational misanthropes in riotous vandalising action, kindly cf here. kairosfocus

hys·ter·i·cal /h??ster?k(?)l/ adjective 1. deriving from or affected by uncontrolled extreme emotion. "the band was mobbed by hysterical fans"

Someone here posts in a hysterical tone. Retired Physicist

JVL, kindly stop snipping out of context to set up and knock over ad hom laced strawman caricatures. First, I had already given reasons for why there is something seriously wrong with the decision, so a badgering demand for Y/N that can be used to set up strawman caricatures was and is out of order. You too are referred to here and are invited to explain to us in detail just how this kind of decision, arrived at in that way -- and with the precedents, emanations and penumbras it invites -- could in any wise be deemed just, responsible, reasonable. In your response, pay particular attention to the warning by Justice Alito. On your second point, notice that there are very specific misanthropes [the allusion to Robespierre et al is deliberate] in mind given 27 immediately referenced and 13 - 14 above as background. Culture form marxists, nihilistic legal positivists and those who reach for "super-rights" to be used as clubs to batter down others, locking them out of employment, bankrupting them through "the process is the punishment" and the like so that none may buy or sell or now speak in the new town square save s/he kowtow and take the latest demanded "mark" of "virtue" are indeed destructive misanthropes. For one who would rob me of the means of daily bread menaces my life and one who would demand that I corrupt my conscience demands to damn my soul. Particularly, in a context where justice is the due balance of rights freedoms and duties where my claimed right implies correlative duties on your part. In that context you can never have a proper right to demand that I lie in the face of known patent truth -- cf the greengrocer in Havel's parable -- or otherwise taint or damn my soul. That is, one may only justly claim a right where one is demonstrably in the right. Which BTW is why the US DoI, 1776, appealed to self-evident first truths. Such truths can indeed be rejected but only on pain of instant fall into patent absurdities. Which, are not absent on these matters. So, no, I will not be coerced or manipulated or intimidated into bending the knee before the latest altar at the gate of the marketplace in order to toss a pinch of salt into a foul fire of blasphemy, declaring "Kaiser Kurion." Shame on you. KF kairosfocus

EG, 15: It is time to get back to answering further fallacies, here from EG at 15:

Let’s assume, as you do, that Jesus Christ is the son of God

Kindly, refrain from projecting to me assumptions I do not hold. Someone who has met with another person and has been influenced by that encounter is not merely positing assumptions. This is a belittling projection, therefore, for even an ordinary Christian person who has encountered God in the face of the risen Christ. And I am not the ordinary person. I have taken time to lay out at 101 level a reasoned framework for ethical theism and a linked one for Christian, gospel based faith. That framework as you full well know, has long been readily accessible to those of your ilk from the penumbra of UD attack sites. If you disagree with the case (as is manifestly obvious), address and refute it cogently, don't project to me a belittling assumption. In this, yet again, you demonstrate the bad faith I have already had to call attention to in this thread. KF kairosfocus

Kairosfocus: EG, you have long since forfeited any right to simple answers through use of loaded, manipulative argument. He was just asking if you agreed with the Supreme Court ruling; how was that manipulative? You read the above for yourself and recognise the implications of hidden agendas in the hands of ruthless misanthropes and enemies of not just our civilisation but civilisation. Enemies of civilisation? Really? Gay people are plotting to take over because they're asking for equal protection under the law? Just like black people had to do at one point. JVL

BR, reference to the Constitution's text, precedents, history etc will not save us. The case in view is one where the "Conservatives" are rewriting thus amending law from the bench without electoral accountability. Which is inherently a will to power, nihilistic move. Only when we go back to where the US DoI started, self-evident first truths accepted as plumb-lines, can safety be restored. That's why I noted in 27 above:

It is time to restore truth and other first duties of reason to their rightful place. Note, to justly claim a right (which implies correlative duties on the part of others) one must first manifestly be in the right. Or else, the power-backed assertion of novel super-rights becomes a demand that others taint sacred conscience and even damn their souls in order to enable one in evil or folly. The civil peace of justice is the due balance of rights, freedoms and responsibilities or duties.

The inescapable, so self-evident, first duties that morally govern responsible reason start with what I pointed out in 9 above:

we can readily identify at least seven inescapable first duties of reason. Inescapable as they are so antecedent to reasoning that even the objector implicitly appeals to them. Duties, to truth, to right reason, to prudence, to sound conscience, to neighbour, so also to fairness and justice etc. Such built in law is not invented by parliaments or courts, nor can they be abolished by such. Indeed, it is on this framework that we can set out to soundly understand and balance rights, freedoms and duties, which is justice. Thus, we may compose sound civil law and we may identify what is unsound or false even though enacted under the colour of law. Thus, too, we see the contrast between seeing the roots of law in the built in law of our morally governed nature and the chaos of nihilistic positivism that would reduce law to power. Thence, slippery slope hell and chaos.

With that in mind, one may then restore sanity to jurisprudence, law-making, government and governance. KF PS: Here is my summary on the built-in law of our morally governed . . . responsibly, rationally significantly free . . . nature. Without such freedom neither virtues (which pivot on love) nor reason (which must be able to freely choose to accept ground-consequent links and make judgements as to inductive cogency) are possible. kairosfocus

Under current conditions, since there is no response from the federal government to violations of the Supremacy Clause by 45 governors, the precedence has been set for governors to do as they wish regardless of Constitutional restrictions. California, in the name of public health, could round up every homeless person and put them in slave camps. The human waste alone is enough to declare a public health emergency. Slavery is only prevented through the 13th Amendment, which can be ignored as easily of the Commerce Clause. BobRyan

The courts have been bastardizing the Constitution for over a century. The job of the Supreme Court is to determine if something is in violation of the US Constitution and only the Constitution. The 10th Amendment is clear that anything not in the Constitution is left to the states and the people of the states. The Supremacy Clause is specific to only what is in the Constitution. U. S, codes are not amendments to the Constitution. BobRyan

EG, you have long since forfeited any right to simple answers through use of loaded, manipulative argument. You have repeatedly argued in bad faith for a long time, now face the consequences. You read the above for yourself and recognise the implications of hidden agendas in the hands of ruthless misanthropes and enemies of not just our civilisation but civilisation. Once the abolish the police threshold was passed, the Rubicon was irrevocably crossed. KF kairosfocus

F/N: Notice, the evasions and ducking of the implications of ex post facto rewriting of law at will by electorally unaccountable judges who by and large have been brought up in a legal philosophy that sees law as little more than imposition of power. Such, will not end well. KF PS: Justice Alito and Justice Thomas warn us:

The Court tries to convince readers that it is merely enforcing the terms of the statute, but that is preposterous. Even as understood today, the concept of discrimination because of “sex” is different from discrimination because of “sexual orientation” or “gender identity.” And in any event, our duty is to interpret statutory terms to “mean what they conveyed to reasonable people at the time they were written.” A. Scalia & B. Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts 16 (2012) (emphasis added). If every single living American had been surveyed in 1964, it would have been hard to find any who thought that discrimination because of sex meant discrimination because of sexual orientation–not to mention gender identity, a concept that was essentially unknown at the time. The Court attempts to pass off its decision as the inevitable product of the textualist school of statutory interpretation championed by our late colleague Justice Scalia, but no one should be fooled. The Court’s opinion is like a pirate ship. It sails under a textualist flag, but what it actually represents is a theory of statutory interpretation that Justice Scalia excoriated––the theory that courts should “update” old statutes so that they better reflect the current values of society.

Remember, this infection is now affecting the "conservatives." And, we should ask pointed questions about the ideas and agendas at work. It is time to restore truth and other first duties of reason to their rightful place. Note, to justly claim a right (which implies correlative duties on the part of others) one must first manifestly be in the right. Or else, the power-backed assertion of novel super-rights becomes a demand that others taint sacred conscience and even damn their souls in order to enable one in evil or folly. The civil peace of justice is the due balance of rights, freedoms and responsibilities or duties. We are playing with hell-fire as a civilisation and a horrific conflagration is brewing. kairosfocus

Seversky @ 17 Biological differences are being ignored. Females are competing against males in numerous sports, which males have a distinct advantage over females. Biological males who feel they are females do compete in female sports. BobRyan

Relax and do not take it personally. This is literally just business. One can still call these unfortunate people by whatever word one likes *as long as* one does not depend on the powers that be for income. It is literally pointless trying to argue these topics or to provide arguments - TPTB are not interested in a discussion, they are just recruiting an army of useful idiots, hence by trying to argue you are interfering with their recruiting efforts. Eugene

Lucy looks at linus and says,"Liberal scientists can prove climate change is real." Linus looks back at her and says,"They can't tell the diffrence between boys and girls." DaRook

SCotUS should have left it to legislation. But I guess the legislators forced their hand by their inaction. Well, except for those States that already did so. Living in Massachusetts I never knew there were States in which said discrimination was still happening. 21st century, even. And we knew all this was coming. From 1970:

Girls will be boys, and boys will be girls It's a mixed up, muddled up, shook up world

Free will made Lola ET

KF

As for the usual preoccupation on your part with perversities, I simply note the fact and set such aside, having already laid out the serious issues you seem determined not to face. Havel has given enough, hard bought warning. KF

Do you even realize that the OP is referring to a SCOTUS ruling on the rights of homosexuals and transgendered in the workplace (ie, the right not to be discriminated against). So, I will repeat my question. Do you think it is OK for an employer to discriminate against a homosexual or transgendered employee? It’s a simple question. My answer is “NO”. Ed George

KF, I don't know anything about law, so I'm not equipped to decide which of the justices is right (if any). I'll take your answer to be "wrong", however. daveS

DS, I suggest you ponder here then tell us your views on the opinion, precedents, emanations and penumbras in light of the implicit nihilism of legal positivism. Particularly note Justice Alito's dissent and implications for legislation from the bench by inserting novel concepts into law at will. KF kairosfocus

KF, Is the actual opinion right or wrong? daveS

Sev, what you perceive is irrelevant, the issue is dynamics at work and running riot in our civilisation. Enough has been said, and Havel has a serious point. BA has stated his stance, and I have stated mine. I will not be perjured regardless of consequences, period. No, I will not be intimidated to deny what I for good cause know to be the truth, and I will not be whispering under my breath, and yet it moves. Your attempt to attaint will not be accepted. Perhaps, our civilisation needs to be reminded that there are such as us, in significant numbers. KF kairosfocus

I don't see in this opinion a denial of the biological differences between the two sexes or any form of judicial compulsion to deny them. What I see is a ruling which prohibits discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. That this entails that the relatively small group of people affected should be allowed to express a preference concerning the pronoun by which they are addressed or may not be restricted to the gender roles traditionally sanctioned by society does not, in my view, pose an existential threat to the whole of Western civilization. There is no fundamental "truth" involved in whether someone is called "he", "she", "xe", "ze" or "them" or the way someone chooses to dress or even the washroom they prefer to use. Perhaps, in time, we will come to regard washrooms divided into "Men" and "Women" in the same way we now regard facilities assigned to "Black" or "White" only in past years. "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield"? Seversky

EG, you have so twisted the matter that it is patent that you have never seriously considered the issue of freedom of conscience. I suggest to you, further, that truth is so closely connected to justice that to suggest as you did that "Court rulings are not about truth" reflects the most profound misunderstanding of same. If you understood the nexus between truth and justice you simply would not write in that vein, the phrasing would clang so badly that you would never use it. As for the usual preoccupation on your part with perversities, I simply note the fact and set such aside, having already laid out the serious issues you seem determined not to face. Havel has given enough, hard bought warning. KF kairosfocus

KF

EG, what an admission against respopnsibility: “Court rulings are not about truth.”

Let's assume, as you do, that Jesus Christ is the son of God. Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Shinto, Budhism, etc. all disagree with this. Yet the courts uphold their rights to believe this (a non-truth, by your estimation) and do not allow employers to discriminate against people because of these beliefs (with a few understandable exceptions). But I noticed that you didn't answer my question. Do you believe that employers should be allowed to discriminate against homosexuals and transgendered? Ed George

PS: Let's clip the story of the Greengrocer: >>The manager of a fruit-and-vegetable shop places in his window, among the onions and carrots, the slogan: “Workers of the world, unite!” Why does he do it? What is he trying to communicate to the world? Is he genuinely enthusiastic about the idea of unity among the workers of the world? Is his enthusiasm so great that he feels an irrepressible impulse to acquaint the public with his ideals? Has he really given more than a moment’s thought to how such a unification might occur and what it would mean? I think it can safely be assumed that the overwhelming majority of shopkeepers never think about the slogans they put in their windows, nor do they use them to express their real opinions. That poster was delivered to our greengrocer from the enterprise headquarters along with the onions and carrots. He put them all into the window simply because it has been done that way for years, because everyone does it, and because that is the way it has to be. If he were to refuse, there could be trouble. He could be reproached for not having the proper decoration in his window; someone might even accuse him of disloyalty. He does it because these things must be done if one is to get along in life. It is one of the thousands of details that guarantee him a relatively tranquil life “in harmony with society,” as they say. Obviously the greengrocer is indifferent to the semantic content of the slogan on exhibit; he does not put the slogan in his window from any personal desire to acquaint the public with the ideal it expresses. This, of course, does not mean that his action has no motive or significance at all, or that the slogan communicates nothing to anyone. The slogan is really a sign, and as such it contains a subliminal but very definite message. Verbally, it might be expressed this way: “I, the greengrocer XY, live here and I know what I must do. I behave in the manner expected of me. I can be depended upon and am beyond reproach. I am obedient and therefore I have the right to be left in peace.” This message, of course, has an addressee: it is directed above, to the greengrocer’s superior, and at the same time it is a shield that protects the greengrocer from potential informers. The slogan’s real meaning, therefore, is rooted firmly in the greengrocer’s existence. It reflects his vital interests. But what are those vital interests? Let us take note: if the greengrocer had been instructed to display the slogan “I am afraid and therefore unquestioningly obedient;” he would not be nearly as indifferent to its semantics, even though the statement would reflect the truth. The greengrocer would be embarrassed and ashamed to put such an unequivocal statement of his own degradation in the shop window, and quite naturally so, for he is a human being and thus has a sense of his own dignity. To overcome this complication, his expression of loyalty must take the form of a sign which, at least on its textual surface, indicates a level of disinterested conviction. It must allow the greengrocer to say, “What’s wrong with the workers of the world uniting?” Thus the sign helps the greengrocer to conceal from himself the low foundations of his obedience, at the same time concealing the low foundations of power. It hides them behind the facade of something high. And that something is ideology. Ideology is a specious way of relating to the world. It offers human beings the illusion of an identity, of dignity, and of morality while making it easier for them to part with them. As the repository of something suprapersonal and objective, it enables people to deceive their conscience and conceal their true position and their inglorious modus vivendi, both from the world and from themselves. It is a very pragmatic but, at the same time, an apparently dignified way of legitimizing what is above, below, and on either side. It is directed toward people and toward God. It is a veil behind which human beings can hide their own fallen existence, their trivialization, and their adaptation to the status quo. It is an excuse that everyone can use, from the greengrocer, who conceals his fear of losing his job behind an alleged interest in the unification of the workers of the world, to the highest functionary, whose interest in staying in power can be cloaked in phrases about service to the working class. The primary excusatory function of ideology, therefore, is to provide people, both as victims and pillars of the post-totalitarian system, with the illusion that the system is in harmony with the human order and the order of the universe.>> Shame on you! kairosfocus

EG, what an admission against respopnsibility: "Court rulings are not about truth." If the first duties of reason (including to truth) are disregarded, what is left is nihilistic imposition by raw power, a classic summary of injustice. You go on to speak about "hav[ing] the right" which leads to: what is a right? As in, a morally founded expectation or demand to be respected, supported or upheld in a particular way: my right implies your duty and the converse, so compossible rights imply a due balance of rights, freedoms and duties. Thus, the genuine civil peace of justice. Now, one clear aspect is that I can have no legitimate right to demand of you that you taint conscience to fit in with my demand, including by supporting an obvious falsity -- deeming a man a woman or any of a million further perversities, penumbras and emanations to be dreamed up, on pain that "no man may buy or sell save [he conform to the imposed demand]" Do you see where this heads? As you target freedom of conscience/religion, notice it is freedom to hold conviction and to worship or speak regarding same. It does not extend to imposing your convictions or assertions -- including atheistical ones --on me by abuse of state power. Which is exactly what is now patently in prospect. Homework, kindly read Havel's famous essay, Power of the Powerless, starting with the green grocer, to see what is afoot, including in the statue toppling riot, arson and looting mobocracy now walking the streets. KF kairosfocus

KF

EG, truth is not a psycho-social construct.

Court rulings are not about truth. Americans have the right to not be discriminated against because of their religion. Obviously, all religions can’t be true. Just as homosexuals and transgendered now have the same legal protection. Are you suggesting that they shouldn’t? Ed George

It should have been handled via legislation and not via the SCotUS. As I said earlier, Massachusetts made such discrimination illegal back in 1989. ET

Hmm, this commentary from Paul Waldman is interesting:

When the Supreme Court ruled Monday that the Civil Rights Act protects gay and transgender Americans from discrimination in employment, social conservatives were predictably outraged. They called it “a grave threat to religious liberty.” They said that white evangelicals, having now been betrayed by Justices John G. Roberts Jr. and Neil M. Gorsuch (who voted with the court’s liberals in the case), would not bother going to the polls to support President Trump. They said that “Roberts no longer pretends to be a judge; now Gorsuch has left his robe behind as well.” Their shock is probably sincere; with five extremely conservative justices making up the court’s majority, any opinion that contradicts the right’s perspective on anything is a surprise. But this is a reminder that as central as reactionary social conservatism — especially its obsession with its version of sexual “morality” — is to the broader Republican project, there are limits to how far elite conservatives will go to defend it. Even though the Trump administration took the pro-discrimination position in this case, and even though you’ll have a hard time finding any conservatives defending the decision, I suspect that in many quarters on the right, particularly in Washington, there isn’t all that much concern. Just as they accommodated themselves fairly quickly to marriage equality, your average big-business conservative won’t look at this decision and feel that their world is falling down around them. They also know — as do the social conservatives — that it’s the economic conservatives who drive the Republican train. The social conservatives may get most of what they want most of the time when Republicans are in power, but the interests of capital will always be taken care of first and last, with tax cuts and deregulation and anything else their hearts desire. So when conservative writer Varad Mehta proclaims Monday’s decision is “the end of the Federalist Society judicial project. Gorsuch was grown in the Federalist Society lab and did this,” adding that the whole point of the Federalist Society and the whole point of electing Trump was “to deliver Supreme Court victories to social conservatives,” he’s only partly right. Gorsuch was indeed “grown in a Federalist Society lab” — the Federalist Society was created to nurture a steady supply of conservative judges who could be pre-vetted and delivered to a Republican administration for quick appointment. But who do you think is lavishly funding the Federalist Society to make sure their interests are taken care of? It’s not social conservatives. It’s corporations.

Retired Physicist

AS, I have become convinced that the root issue is failure to understand that we are responsible, rational, free thus morally governed creatures. Where we can readily identify at least seven inescapable first duties of reason. Inescapable as they are so antecedent to reasoning that even the objector implicitly appeals to them. Duties, to truth, to right reason, to prudence, to sound conscience, to neighbour, so also to fairness and justice etc. Such built in law is not invented by parliaments or courts, nor can they be abolished by such. Indeed, it is on this framework that we can set out to soundly understand and balance rights, freedoms and duties, which is justice. Thus, we may compose sound civil law and we may identify what is unsound or false even though enacted under the colour of law. Thus, too, we see the contrast between seeing the roots of law in the built in law of our morally governed nature and the chaos of nihilistic positivism that would reduce law to power. Thence, slippery slope hell and chaos. As we are now seeing. KF kairosfocus

EG, truth is not a psycho-social construct. Down that road lies hell. KF kairosfocus

I have not said I intend to discriminate against anyone, including so called transgender people. I did not say that the SCOTUS decision itself will require me to misapply pronouns. But that is coming and it is already here. As I have reported before, a teacher in West Point, VA was fired on this very ground. He is suffering for the sake of his soul, just as Solzhenitsyn said. My post is a preemptive declaration. It is none of my business, Ed George, what these people do. They can live their lie as much as they want. The government will even force their employers to treat their lie as true. But the government cannot compel me to speak in a way that violates my conscience. And if it tries to, I will defy it. Barry Arrington

if it puts a person’s mind and soul at peace to live as the opposite gender, I have no problem with that. I’m Canadian so the SCOTUS ruling has no impact on me. Just as it has no impact on the vast majority of US citizens, other than those who feel it is their right to discriminate against homosexuals and transgendered. I won’t lose any sleep over their discomfort. Ed George

Just in another brick in the Great Wall of SCOTUS Dysfunction going back aways. Andrew asauber

OK, wait. Massachusetts has had this law in its books since 1989- via legislation. The law has nothing to do with pronouns or calling a man and woman or a woman a man. That said, that day is coming. Dictionaries are already changing the word "they" to be singular, also. Meaning trans people want to be called "they" or "them" as opposed to "him" or "her". ET

Sev, that's the colour of law part. Turnabout projection is a powerful tool of manipulation, as Herr Schicklegruber and co proved. 'Twas the Poles that attacked Germany and much more. Oh it is constructive dismissal to refuse to call X by preferred pronoun etc, or to object to use of preferred rest room facilities etc etc etc. And that's before precedents, emanations and penumbras kick in. Slippery slope hell. KF kairosfocus

I thought the ruling was just about prohibiting discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. Seversky

BA, I stand with you. To impose lies and linked oppression under false colour of law with the lurking threat that one may not buy nor sell save s/he take the deadly mark of evil, is outright demonic and misanthropic. I will not violate truth, reason nor sound conscience, period. That it has clearly come to such is an all too telling sign of our times. GEM of TKI kairosfocus