Culture Intelligent Design Naturalism Science

Would Hooker, Boyle, Pascal, and Newton all be out of work today?

Spread the love

if they fell afoul of new “diversity” rules:

Today, a new kind of scientist—with corresponding competencies—is being championed. First and foremost is the one who embraces diversity according to the definition du jour, which happens to be gender-identity, at least at the time of this writing (I just checked social media two minutes ago).

Case in point: the American Geophysical Union (AGU) and the Geological Society of America (GSA) pulled job ads placed from Brigham Young University (BYU) for a tenure-track faculty position, capitulating to complaints from LGBT activists, that the University’s positions were antithetical to their hallowed notion of diversity. The complaints focused on BYU’s Honor Code—forbidding homosexual conduct among students and staff (certainly a science-stopper).

The concern for many is that in today’s political environment this kind of blacklisting will not stop with the AGU and GSA; and there will be countless other universities – both Evangelical and Catholic—requiring a similar code that will be targeted by these activists.

Emily Morales, “Hooke, Boyle, Pascal, and Newton Need Not Apply” at Salvo blog

One fears that a good deal of the diversity push today isn’t so much about science, really, as about the spoils of science: the appointments, the prestige. Not about living with walruses for years on an ice floe or staring for decades at a remote point in the sky—with no certainty of learning anything of enduring value.

The original main reason that science was so largely the preserve, for centuries, of well-to-do European men (many of whom were clergy or religious brothers) is circumstantial: They were available in considerable numbers in the right places at the right time.*

But for a long time science wasn’t very prestigious so they also had to be dedicated to something beyond personal or group recognition. When recognition becomes very important, it has a way of vastly outstripping achievement. That’s Goodhart’s Law at work.

In this case, we shall see.

Incidentally, Isaac Newton was apparently a Unitarian but this fact, which would have been politically incorrect in his day, was not publicized. Good thing if his religious incorrectness didn’t become an issue, right?

*Note: For the same reasons, a ship’s captain conducted burial services for those who died at sea: Only someone who was literate could read the burial service and enter an accurate note in the ship’s log.

See also: A glimpse at one facet of post-science physics In the post-science world, people can presumably define success according to their own frames of reference, according to their own facts and their own truths.

and

Why it’s so hard to reform peer review

Follow UD News at Twitter!

19 Replies to “Would Hooker, Boyle, Pascal, and Newton all be out of work today?

  1. 1
    BobRyan says:

    How about this for a thought experiment. Take 2 groups with the same goal of landing on the moon. 1 group is filled with people that fill all the expected check marks the left demands. The other group is filled with the best minds. How long will it take group 1 to realize they are never getting off the Earth?

  2. 2
    Eugene says:

    Bob, this is exactly the purpose of the agenda. It is not to make the society better or stronger, it is to weaken it.

  3. 3
    BobRyan says:

    Eugene, your comment brings to mind something attributed to Lincoln. ‘You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.’ The mad desire to fill universities, corporations and government agencies with people who have no idea what they are doing will serve to weaken our understanding. Edison was a great many things, but actual inventor of everything he patented he was not. He hired people and paid them well in exchange for their ideas. He patented everything under his name and anyone that worked for him understood exactly what they were getting into.

    A modern day Edison is needed. If I had the resources, I would share the patent with anyone who works for me. Corporations, universities and government bureaucrats do not allow people to truly create.

  4. 4
    Bob O'H says:

    Bob@ 1 – isn’t what you’re criticising exactly what BYU are doing? They’re excluding a group of people for reasons not to do with their work. Surely the best minds would include the likes of Alan Turing.

  5. 5
    bornagain77 says:

    Bob O’H states, “Surely the best minds would include the likes of Alan Turing.”

    Funny. Alan Turing, although his very own work on the ‘halting problem’ indicated otherwise, denied that he had a mind in the first place and thought that he was merely a machine.

    As Gregory Chaitin explains at the 4:50 minute mark of the following video,

    “Turing’s personality is one thing. His mathematics doesn’t have to be consistent with his personality. There is his work on artificial intelligence where I think he believes that machines could become intelligent just like people. or better, or different, but intelligent. But if you look at his first paper, when he points out that machines have limits because there are numbers, in fact most numbers, cannot be calculated by any machine, he is showing the power of the human mind to imagine things that escape what any machine could ever do. So that may go against his own philosophy. He may think of himself as a machine but his very first paper is smashing machines. Its creating machines and then its pointing out their devastating limitations.”
    – Gregory Chaitin –
    Alan Turing & Kurt Gödel – Incompleteness Theorem and Human Intuition – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/8516356/

    Thus, if anything, Alan Turing is a case study in which a man ought to be judged by his work and not by his prior philosophical commitments.

    It is also interesting to note that although Alan Turing believed humans were merely machines, much like the computers he had envisioned, that his idea for computers came to him, as he himself confessed, suddenly, ‘in a vision’, thus confirming Godel’s contention that humans had access to the ‘divine spark of intuition’. A divine spark which enables humans to transcend the limits that he had found in Godel’s incompleteness theorem for computers. In other words, Turing’s very own flash of insight for a computer is proof that humans are not merely machines and that humans must therefore necessarily have immaterial minds.

    Also of note, the alternating current (AC) electric induction motor, (which has arguably done more work for humans than any other invention in history), was also the result of a sudden flash of insight, i.e. a “vision”.

    “While walking in Budapest Park, Hungary, Nikola Tesla had seen a vision of a functioning alternating current (AC) electric induction motor. This was one of the most revolutionary inventions in the entire history of the world.”
    – NIKOLA TESLA–THE MAN WHO ELECTRIFIED THE WORLD!!
    of note: Nicola Tesla’s father was a clergyman.
    http://www.reformation.org/nikola-tesla.html

    Further notes:

    “Either mathematics is too big for the human mind, or the human mind is more than a machine.”
    – Kurt Gödel As quoted in Topoi : The Categorial Analysis of Logic (1979) by Robert Goldblatt, p. 13

    Gödel’s philosophical challenge (to Turing) – Wilfried Sieg – lecture video
    38 second mark: “The human mind infinitely surpasses any finite machine.”
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=je9ksvZ9Av4

    “Even if the finite brain cannot store an infinite amount of information, the spirit may be able to. The brain is a computing machine connected with a spirit. If the brain is taken to be physical and as [to be] a digital computer, from quantum mechanics [it follows that] there are then only a finite number of states. Only by connecting it [the brain] to a spirit might it work in some other way.”
    – Kurt Gödel – Section 6.2.14 from A Logical Journey by Hao Wang, MIT Press, 1996.

    Robert Marks: Some Things Computers Will Never Do: Nonalgorithmic Creativity and Unknowability – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cm0s7ag3SEc

  6. 6
    Bob O'H says:

    Thus, if anything, Alan Turing is a case study in which a man ought to be judged by his work and not by his prior philosophical commitments.

    Indeed, so I guess you agree with the AGU and GSA that BYU is wrong to exclude homosexuality.

  7. 7
    bornagain77 says:

    Bob (and weave) O’Hara, trying to score cheap points, states this before thinking it through thoroughly,

    “I guess you agree with the AGU and GSA that BYU is wrong to exclude homosexuality.”

    I did not say that.

    What’s wrong with Bob’s logic there? Well, aside from the fact that Turing’s philosophical beliefs were directly contradicted by his very own work, Bob is confusing religious beliefs, which are protected by the constitution, with personal philosophical beliefs which are not protected by the constitution.

    Namely, because of his prior philosophical bias for homosexuality, Bob wants AGU and GSA to be able to discriminate against BYU, a religious educational institution, because of their deeply held religious belief against homosexuality (or their deeply held religious beliefs against any other immoral conduct that may reflect badly on BYU as, first and foremost, a religious institution).

    Brigham Young University, Brigham Young University-Hawaii, Brigham Young University-Idaho, and LDS Business College exist to provide an education in an atmosphere consistent with the ideals and principles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. That atmosphere is created and preserved through commitment to conduct that reflects those ideals and principles. Members of the faculty, administration, staff, and student body at BYU, BYU-H, BYU-I, and LDSBC are selected and retained from among individuals who voluntarily live the principles of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Observance of such is a specific condition of employment and admission. Those individuals who are not members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are also expected to maintain the same standards of conduct, except church attendance. All who represent BYU, BYU-H, BYU-I, and LDSBC are to maintain the highest standards of honor, integrity, morality, and consideration of others in personal behavior. By accepting appointment on the faculty, continuing in employment, or continuing class enrollment, individuals evidence their commitment to observe the Honor Code standards approved by the Board of Trustees “at all times and . . . in all places” (Mosiah 18:9).
    https://facultycenter.byu.edu/honor-code-faculty-information

    Thus, Bob, is, in reality, encouraging the religious discrimination by AGU and GSA against BYU based solely on his/their own secular philosophy, which is unconstitutional.

    If BYU wanted, (and I believe they ought to), they could bring a lawsuit against AGU and GSA for religious discrimination based on their own secular philosophy.

    It would be interesting to see if atheists would then try to define their philosophical commitment to homosexuality as a religious belief. 🙂

    I wouldn’t put it past them.

  8. 8
    Bob O'H says:

    ba77 – I actually don’t know what Turing’s religious belief were, but surely the point is that they are not relevant. As for BYU, if (as you write) Turing should be judged on his work, then surely others should be too. So it would be wrong (morally, at least) for BYU to exclude people based on their beliefs. The AGU and GSA are acting against BYU for their attitude towards homosexuality, not for their belief in God. I would hope that they would take the same action against any secular organisation that sought to exclude people based on their sexual preferences.

    If BYU wanted, (and I believe they ought to), they could bring a lawsuit against AGU and GSA for religious discrimination based on their own secular philosophy.

    I don’t see that working unless BYU could show that AGU and GSA had failed to act against non-religious organisations in similar circumstances. I don’t think using religion as a defence per se would work, because to do so would fail under the endorsement test: it would imply that one could do almost anything as long as it was done for religious purposes.

  9. 9
    bornagain77 says:

    Poppycock. You cannot define another person’s deeply held religious belief against homosexuality as simply being an subjective moral ‘attitude’. What a pathetic argument for you, a subjective moralist, to make.

    I think the lawsuit would work, and I believe similar cases have been brought forth (Christian Bakers etc..) and will be forthcoming to more properly restrict secularists from legally imposing their immorality upon religious individuals and institutions.

    The constitution and declaration of independence are on our side.

    Not to mention, the supreme court now has a majority of constitutional ‘originalists’. (In spite of the fact that democrats tried every dirty underhanded trick in the book to block Kavanaugh’s appointment)

  10. 10
    Bob O'H says:

    You cannot define another person’s deeply held religious belief against homosexuality as simply being an subjective moral ‘attitude’.

    No, and I didn’t do that.

  11. 11
    bornagain77 says:

    “are acting against BYU for their attitude towards homosexuality, not for their belief in God.”

    Your very own words betray you once again.

  12. 12
    Bob O'H says:

    Only, ba77, if you don’t read what I actually wrote.

  13. 13
    bornagain77 says:

    Pray tell how do you read your own words otherwise.

    While you are at it, pray tell how you, an atheist, can have anything other than subjective moral attitudes.

    Pardon me while I get my popcorn.

  14. 14
    BobRyan says:

    bornagain77 @ 13

    It isn’t what he wrote, but what he wrote. Do you see the difference?

  15. 15
    Bob O'H says:

    ba77 – I made no statement about the subjective or objective nature of anyone’s beliefs in what I wrote. I can’t see how any of my argument wouldn’t work if beliefs were objective.

  16. 16
    bornagain77 says:

    Bob finally has somewhat of a moment of honesty

    “I can’t see how any of my argument wouldn’t work if beliefs were objective.”

    But alas Bob, you are a Darwinian atheist and your worldview cannot possibly ground objective morality.

    Premise 1: If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.
    Premise 2: Objective moral values and duties do exist.
    Conclusion: Therefore, God exists.
    The Moral Argument – drcraigvideos – video
    https://youtu.be/OxiAikEk2vU?t=276

    So basically Bob you, an atheist, concede the existence of God in order to try to have a objective moral argument for homosexuality that ‘works’.

    Basically Bob, you are trying to argue that it is always objectively morally wrong for a religious institution (BYU) to not hire a homosexual to teach at its university. i.e. Or to use a more charged word, it is always objectively morally wrong for a religious institution (BYU) to ‘discriminate’ against a person on the basis of homosexuality. In short, you want to use the Theistically based moral standard of equality of all men before the eyes of God to try to trump the immorality inherent in homosexuality.

    Not that I grant you that your argument would ‘work’ even then, but do you see how that is an inconsistent argument for you, an atheist, to make?

    You have conceded that you NEED God in order to try to have a objective moral argument that ‘works’ against God.

    You are in much the same self-refuting position as other atheists who use the ‘argument from evil’ to try to disprove the existence of God.

    Ironically, many atheists, in one of their main arguments against the existence of God, the argument from evil, unwittingly concede the reality of objective morality. Specifically, they state “There exist a large number of horrible forms of evil and suffering”

    The Problem of Evil: Still A Strong Argument for Atheism – 2015
    Excerpt:,,, the problem of evil, one of the main arguments against the existence of an all-good and all-knowing God.,,,
    P1. There exist a large number of horrible forms of evil and suffering for which we can see no greater purpose or compensating good.
    P2. If an all-powerful, all-good God existed, then such horrific, apparently purposeless evils would not exist.
    C. Therefore, an all-powerful, all-good God does not exist.
    https://thegodlesstheist.com/2015/10/13/the-problem-of-evil-still-a-strong-argument-for-atheism/

    But this is self defeating position for atheists to be in. As David Wood put it,, “By declaring that suffering is evil, atheists have admitted that there is an objective moral standard by which we distinguish good and evil.”

    Responding to the Argument From Evil: Three Approaches for the Theist – By David Wood
    Excerpt: Interestingly enough, proponents of AE grant this premise in the course of their argument. By declaring that suffering is evil, atheists have admitted that there is an objective moral standard by which we distinguish good and evil. Amazingly, then, even as atheists make their case against the existence of God, they actually help us prove that God exists!,,,
    https://www.namb.net/apologetics/responding-to-the-argument-from-evil-three-approaches-for-the-theist

    And “If Good and Evil Exist, (then) God Exists”

    If Good and Evil Exist, (then) God Exists: Peter Kreeft – Prager University – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xliyujhwhNM

    And C.S Lewis, a former atheist who converted to Christianity, put the failure of the argument from evil like this: “My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?,,, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.”

    “My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?,,,
    in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist–in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless–I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality–namely my idea of justice–was full of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.”
    – C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity. Harper San Francisco, Zondervan Publishing House, 2001, pp. 38-39.

    I like Van Til’s illustration of the self-refuting nature of the argument from evil,

    “Transcendental Arguments” by John M. Frame
    Excerpt: The non-Christian, then, in Van Til’s famous illustration, is like a child sitting on her father’s lap, slapping his face. She could not slap him unless he supported her. Similarly, the non-Christian cannot carry out his rebellion against God unless God makes that rebellion possible. Contradicting God assumes an intelligible (and moral) universe and therefore a theistic one.
    https://frame-poythress.org/transcendental-arguments/

    And although there are many scientific evidences that I could bring forth to prove that we really do live in an objective ‘moral universe’, and that our lives really do have far more meaning, value, and purpose than atheists presuppose,

    Atheistic Materialism vs Meaning, Value, and Purpose in Our Lives – video (review of the scientific evidence starts at the 13:00 minute mark)
    https://youtu.be/aqUxBSbFhog?t=782

  17. 17
    bornagain77 says:

    ,,, although there are many scientific evidences that I could bring forth, my favorite evidence for the fact that we really do live in a objective ‘moral universe’ is the fact that the atheist himself is unable to live his own life consistently as if objective morality did not really exist. As Bob himself conceded, his argument ‘works’ only if moral beliefs are objective.

    The Heretic – Who is Thomas Nagel and why are so many of his fellow academics condemning him? – March 25, 2013
    Excerpt: ,,,Fortunately, materialism is never translated into life as it’s lived. As colleagues and friends, husbands and mothers, wives and fathers, sons and daughters, materialists never put their money where their mouth is. Nobody thinks his daughter is just molecules in motion and nothing but; nobody thinks the Holocaust was evil, but only in a relative, provisional sense. A materialist who lived his life according to his professed convictions—understanding himself to have no moral agency at all, seeing his friends and enemies and family as genetically determined robots—wouldn’t just be a materialist: He’d be a psychopath.
    http://www.weeklystandard.com/.....tml?page=3

    In the following article Nancy Pearcey has many quotes from leading atheists who admit that it is impossible for them to live their lives consistently as if atheism were actually true:

    Darwin’s Robots: When Evolutionary Materialists Admit that Their Own Worldview Fails – Nancy Pearcey – April 23, 2015
    Excerpt: Even materialists often admit that, in practice, it is impossible for humans to live any other way. One philosopher jokes that if people deny free will, then when ordering at a restaurant they should say, “Just bring me whatever the laws of nature have determined I will get.”
    An especially clear example is Galen Strawson, a philosopher who states with great bravado, “The impossibility of free will … can be proved with complete certainty.” Yet in an interview, Strawson admits that, in practice, no one accepts his deterministic view. “To be honest, I can’t really accept it myself,” he says. “I can’t really live with this fact from day to day. Can you, really?”,,,
    In What Science Offers the Humanities, Edward Slingerland, identifies himself as an unabashed materialist and reductionist. Slingerland argues that Darwinian materialism leads logically to the conclusion that humans are robots — that our sense of having a will or self or consciousness is an illusion. Yet, he admits, it is an illusion we find impossible to shake. No one “can help acting like and at some level really feeling that he or she is free.” We are “constitutionally incapable of experiencing ourselves and other conspecifics [humans] as robots.”
    One section in his book is even titled “We Are Robots Designed Not to Believe That We Are Robots.”,,,
    When I teach these concepts in the classroom, an example my students find especially poignant is Flesh and Machines by Rodney Brooks, professor emeritus at MIT. Brooks writes that a human being is nothing but a machine — a “big bag of skin full of biomolecules” interacting by the laws of physics and chemistry. In ordinary life, of course, it is difficult to actually see people that way. But, he says, “When I look at my children, I can, when I force myself, … see that they are machines.”
    Is that how he treats them, though? Of course not: “That is not how I treat them…. I interact with them on an entirely different level. They have my unconditional love, the furthest one might be able to get from rational analysis.” Certainly if what counts as “rational” is a materialist worldview in which humans are machines, then loving your children is irrational. It has no basis
    within Brooks’s worldview. It sticks out of his box.
    How does he reconcile such a heart-wrenching cognitive dissonance? He doesn’t. Brooks ends by saying, “I maintain two sets of inconsistent beliefs.” He has given up on any attempt to reconcile his theory with his experience. He has abandoned all hope for a unified, logically consistent worldview.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....95451.html

    Even Richard Dawkins himself reluctantly conceded that it would be ‘intolerable’ for him to live his life as if atheistic materialism were actually true:

    Who wrote Richard Dawkins’s new book? – October 28, 2006
    Excerpt:
    Dawkins: What I do know is that what it feels like to me, and I think to all of us, we don’t feel determined. We feel like blaming people for what they do or giving people the credit for what they do. We feel like admiring people for what they do.,,,
    Manzari: But do you personally see that as an inconsistency in your views?
    Dawkins: I sort of do. Yes. But it is an inconsistency that we sort of have to live with otherwise life would be intolerable.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....02783.html

    In what should be needless to say, if it is impossible for you to live as if your worldview were actually true then your worldview cannot possibly reflect reality as it really is but your worldview must instead be based on a delusion.

    Existential Argument against Atheism – November 1, 2013 by Jason Petersen
    1. If a worldview is true then you should be able to live consistently with that worldview.
    2. Atheists are unable to live consistently with their worldview.
    3. If you can’t live consistently with an atheist worldview then the worldview does not reflect reality.
    4. If a worldview does not reflect reality then that worldview is a delusion.
    5. If atheism is a delusion then atheism cannot be true.
    Conclusion: Atheism is false.
    http://answersforhope.com/exis.....t-atheism/

    Of supplemental note to Bob’s supposedly ‘objective’ moral argument for homosexuality, I once had a very similar experience with Larry Moran in regards to him trying to defend the objective morality of homosexuality:

    Atheist Professor Larry Moran, who believes naturalism/materialism to be true, had previously denied the existence of moral absolutes, and in regards to that claim he was at least being consistent with his atheism. Yet, here’s Professor Moran’s new moral absolute, in all its resplendent glory:

    “It is totally wrong, all the time, to discriminate against someone based on their sexual preferences… There is NEVER a time when an enlightened society should tolerate, let alone legalize, bigotry.”
    Larry Moran – Professor of evolutionary biology

    How fitting that Professor Moran picked that particular sin to declare off-limits for criticism! He is a pure Romans 1 poster boy. He suppresses the truth in unrighteousness by denying that God exists, then “gives approval to those who practice” exhibit A in God’s list of sins that the suppression of truth leads to.

    Romans 1:18–20
    For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

    Romans 1:26-28
    For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.

    Romans 1:32
    Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

    Thus Professor Moran, and Bob, not only concede that moral absolutes must exist, but also prove, unbeknownst to themselves, that these moral absolutes are based in the God of the Bible!

    These self-refuting arguments from atheists would be absolutely comical were it not for the dire consequences involved for their eternal souls in their rejection of God.

    Matthew 23:33
    “You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?

    Jewel – Who Will Save Your Soul (Official Music Video)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wBDDAZkNtk

  18. 18
    Bob O'H says:

    ba77 –

    So basically Bob you, an atheist, concede the existence of God in order to try to have a objective moral argument for homosexuality that ‘works’.

    No I don’t. I concede that if objective morality exists then my argument still works.

  19. 19
    bornagain77 says:

    Well Bob, morality is objective regardless of whether you personally admit it or not. And since objective morality must be based on God, then God is real whether you personally admit it or not. The very fact that you live your life as if objective mortality were real, indeed the very fact that you are incapable of consistently living your life otherwise, is a irrefutable testament to that fact.
    As the bible says, “For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them”.

    Yet even IF morality were subjective as you must hold in your atheistic worldview, then your argument fails in the most direct way possible. You simply have forsaken any moral right to dictate your subjective moral precepts onto another person’s subjective moral precepts. You say your preference for homosexual behavior trumps another person’s belief that homosexual behavior is repugnant. I say “So what?, my gun is bigger than your gun! You can’t force your subjective moral beliefs on me or on another person!” You get a bigger gun to force your subjective morality on me. I get a bigger gun to stop you. More and more people die. i.e. The subjective morality of atheists always ends up dying a violent death, Just ask the hundreds of millions of victims under Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc.. etc..

    Soviet Union – Homosexual persecution
    In the atheistic communist state of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR),[2] “a person could end up in prison for being openly gay.”[3] This policy was enforced after 1934,[4] and went hand in hand with the Soviet Union’s official doctrine of militant atheism, which led to the persecution of Christians in the USSR.[5]
    Sexual intercourse between been [muzhelozhstvo] is subject to imprisonment for up to five years. Muzhelozhstvo, carried out with the use of physical force, threats, or in relation to an underage person, or by using the dependent position of the victim, is subject to up to eight years’ imprisonment. —Article 121.1 of the Criminal Code of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics[6]
    As such, homosexual members of the intelligentsia often suppressed their homosexuality and married women.[7] The oppression of homosexuals in the atheist state of the USSR was noted by human rights organizations such as Amnesty International.[8] Soviet homosexuals, in the 1970s and 1980s, attempted to establish the Gay Laboratory (Gei-laboratoriia), which sought to “examine the implications for Russians of the ideals of gay liberation and to consider the new threat that AIDS posed to same-sex love in Soviet conditions” but under “pressure from KGB surveillance and threats, the group disbanded in 1984”.[8] Since 1934, homosexuality was illegal, “punishable by imprisonment for up to eight years”. As a result, “were mass arrests of homosexuals; some were sent to prison or the labor camps, others were exiled or executed.”[4] After the collapse of the Soviet Union, homosexuality and homosexual acts are no longer illegal in Russia as they were during the previous Soviet régime.[9]

    etc.. etc..
    https://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_the_persecution_of_homosexuals#Atheist_states

    Yet on the other hand, if you ever honestly confessed that God is really real, and then tried to base your subjective preference for homosexuality on God’s objective morality, then your argument still fails.

    I know of no Theistic religion in the world that condones homosexual behavior. Shoot, even in modern times Muslims have been known to throw homosexuals off buildings

    Persecution of gay and bisexual men by ISIL
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_gay_and_bisexual_men_by_ISIL

    No matter what Pete Buttigieg may believe, there simply is no Theistic religion in the world to which you can appeal to base your subjective moral preference for homosexual behavior on as being objectively good.

    Pete Buttigieg doesn’t get to make up his own Christianity – April 2019
    Except: “There is no record of Mr. Pence ever insulting Mr. Buttigieg or returning his mockery with similar derision. Mr. Pence has shown remarkable restraint and nothing but civility and a generous spirit of true tolerance.
    While our vice president may find it politically imprudent to respond to such provocations, some of us see less reason to remain so circumspect. Presumptuous as it might be to offer a response on behalf of our vice president, I am going to venture a try.
    Here goes
    Mr. Buttigieg, has it ever occurred to you, that the “Mike Pences of the world” don’t have a problem with “who you are,” but rather we just disagree with what you do? We believe human identity is much more than the sum total of someone’s sexual inclinations. In fact, the “creator” whom you so boldly reference makes this pretty clear.
    There is no place in His entire biblical narrative where He defines us by our desires. All of us, however, are known by our choices. We are made in His image, we have moral awareness and moral culpability. We can and should choose to not do some things we may be inclined to do. God help us if we don’t. One’s appetite for porn, polyamory, and any other heterosexual or homosexual act does not define you. Your decision as to whether or not you satiate such an appetite does.
    You see, Mr. Mayor, this is a matter of your proclivities, not your personhood. What you don’t seem to understand is that when it comes to your personal peccadillos, most all of the “Mike Pences of the world” really don’t want to know. Your sexual appetites are your business. The thing about obedient and faithful Christians is this; we consider someone else’s private life to be just that — Private. Please stop telling us what kind of sex you like. We don’t want to know. If you want us to stay out of your bedroom, please shut the door. Stop opening it up and forcing us to applaud and celebrate.
    Before I close, Mr. Buttigieg, I have to point out one more thing. Surely you are aware you just implicitly admitted you agree with all of us “Mike Pences of the world” and you, too, think sexual behavior is, indeed, a moral issue? Otherwise, why include your derogatory remarks about porn stars and those who engage in their services? Why do you disparage them? By your own logic, isn’t “your quarrel, sir, with their creator” and not them? How is it that you blame others for their sexual behavior but you hold yourself guiltless before your own sex tribunal and morality police?
    Oh, I can hear your reply before you even open your mouth, Mr. Buttigieg. It is as predictable as the sunrise. “You’re missing the point” you say. “This is not about sex. It is about marriage.” Well, aside from the transparent incongruity of this claim, let’s cut to the chase and close with this: What gives you the right to redefine a sacrament of the church? You don’t get to make up your own Christianity. You also don’t get to make up your own Jesus, and in case you missed it, He is explicitly clear on His definition of marriage: “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united with his wife, and the two will become one flesh.”
    No, our quarrel really isn’t with your creator, sir. Our quarrel is with you.”
    • Everett Piper, president of Oklahoma Wesleyan University, is the author of “Not A Day Care: The Devastating Consequences of Abandoning Truth” (Regnery 2017).
    https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/apr/14/pete-buttigieg-doesnt-get-to-make-up-his-own-chris/

    Thus your argument for homosexuality fails for both the subjective and objective precepts of morality.

    Of final note, obviously in Christian cultures, far more tolerance towards homosexuals is afforded than in Muslim cultures. Yet homosexuals are not content to live in peace with Christians but in the last few decades or so have been aggressively using the legal system to try to get Christians to not only tolerate homosexual behavior but to condone and even celebrate it. This is an egregious violation of the constitutional right to ‘freedom of religion’

    A stunning example of this was the Christian baker in Colorado who homosexuals tried to force into baking a cake for their wedding. He eventually won in the Supreme court, but even after that victory homosexuals refused to quit legally harassing him:

    Colo. baker sued a third time, for refusal to make cake signifying gender transition
    https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/colo-baker-sued-a-third-time-for-refusal-to-make-cake-signifying-gender-transition-17456

    Personally, I am very glad that Trump is appointing judges to the bench who understand that religious freedom is a fundamental constitutional right for all Americans.

    I’m sick of homosexuals trying to legally force everyone else in the country to not only tolerate but condone and celebrate what they do in the privacy of their own bedrooms. Not to mention legally trying to force everyone else to accept their insane notion that biological genders don’t really exist:

    Jordan Peterson: Gender ideology is ‘completely insane’ – March 23, 2018
    (LifeSiteNews) – “The LGBT lobby is dead set against anything that smacks of conversion therapy, the idea that you could convert someone who has a primarily homosexual identity to someone who has a primarily heterosexual [identity],” he told Trussell. “It’s illegal in Ontario and in many [American] states now to even attempt that. But if there’s complete independence between the biology, the identity, the expression and the sexual preference, then there’s no reason to assume that it can’t be changed.”
    Bolstering his argument, Peterson mentioned the ultimate conclusion of gender ideology, namely that gender is totally fluid. Some activists teach that a person can be a man one day and a woman the next, or even change sexual identity from minute to minute.
    “If it’s that fluid, and it’s only dependent on subjective choice, which is what the legislation now insists, then why can’t that argument be used by conservatives to say exactly the same thing about sexual preference?”
    https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/jordan-peterson-gender-theory-has-become-unquestionable-doctrine-thats-comp

Leave a Reply