I Shall Not Live by Lies

_{Barry Arrington
June 19, 2020

Intelligent Design

2}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

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.

Alexander Solzhenitsyn said this about lies:

Let your credo be this: Let the lie come into the world, let it even triumph. But not through me.

And he said this about refusing to surrender one’s soul to a terrible lying government:

It will not be an easy choice for a body, but it is only one for a soul. And if we get cold feet, even taking this step, then we are worthless and hopeless, and the scorn of Pushkin should be directed to us:“Why should cattle have the gifts of freedom? Their heritage from generation to generation is the belled yoke and the lash.”

This day I vow to defy this lie that has become law. I will never participate in the lie. I will never say a man is a woman, and I will never imply it by using feminine pronouns to refer to him. I call on you to join me. And if you refuse? Solzhenitsyn again:

And he who is not sufficiently courageous even to defend his soul — don’t let him be proud of his “progressive” views, Let him say to himself: I am in the herd, and a coward. It’s all the same to me as long as I’m fed and warm.

Comments

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. KFkairosfocus_{June 19, 2020
June
06
Jun
19
19
2020
05:53 PM
5
05
53
PM
PDT}

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_{June 19, 2020
June
06
Jun
19
19
2020
05:29 PM
5
05
29
PM
PDT}

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. KFkairosfocus_{June 19, 2020
June
06
Jun
19
19
2020
03:02 PM
3
03
02
PM
PDT}

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_{June 19, 2020
June
06
Jun
19
19
2020
01:49 PM
1
01
49
PM
PDT}

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_{June 19, 2020
June
06
Jun
19
19
2020
01:29 PM
1
01
29
PM
PDT}

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. KFkairosfocus_{June 19, 2020
June
06
Jun
19
19
2020
01:24 PM
1
01
24
PM
PDT}

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_{June 19, 2020
June
06
Jun
19
19
2020
01:11 PM
1
01
11
PM
PDT}

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_{June 19, 2020
June
06
Jun
19
19
2020
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PDT}

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_{June 19, 2020
June
06
Jun
19
19
2020
12:50 PM
12
12
50
PM
PDT}

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. KFkairosfocus_{June 19, 2020
June
06
Jun
19
19
2020
11:12 AM
11
11
12
AM
PDT}

EG, truth is not a psycho-social construct. Down that road lies hell. KFkairosfocus_{June 19, 2020
June
06
Jun
19
19
2020
11:02 AM
11
11
02
AM
PDT}

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_{June 19, 2020
June
06
Jun
19
19
2020
11:01 AM
11
11
01
AM
PDT}

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_{June 19, 2020
June
06
Jun
19
19
2020
10:33 AM
10
10
33
AM
PDT}

Just in another brick in the Great Wall of SCOTUS Dysfunction going back aways. Andrewasauber_{June 19, 2020
June
06
Jun
19
19
2020
10:07 AM
10
10
07
AM
PDT}

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_{June 19, 2020
June
06
Jun
19
19
2020
10:05 AM
10
10
05
AM
PDT}

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. KFkairosfocus_{June 19, 2020
June
06
Jun
19
19
2020
09:39 AM
9
09
39
AM
PDT}

I thought the ruling was just about prohibiting discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation.Seversky_{June 19, 2020
June
06
Jun
19
19
2020
09:33 AM
9
09
33
AM
PDT}

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 TKIkairosfocus_{June 19, 2020
June
06
Jun
19
19
2020
09:08 AM
9
09
08
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 7 8 9

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply