Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Joseph Farah, grand poobah of the Worldnutdaily, has a frightening column calling for a theocracy to be established in the United States. He doesn't do so openly, of course, but what else could this possibly mean:
The Bible clearly identifies homosexual behavior, as opposed to homosexual thoughts or predilections, as sin.The issue Christians and Jews should be focused upon is whether it can ever be acceptable for the government to condone sin - or, worse yet, encourage it by making it a "right."
I don't believe government can do that without dire consequences.
And then he launches into the tired old "God will destroy America if we don't do what he says" nonsense. But think about this. He's arguing that it is never acceptable for a government to allow people to commit "sin" as defined in the Bible and that if it does allow that to happen, God will punish that country. Ladies and gentlemen, this is a rationale for a theocratic dictatorship.
Imagine what it would take to prevent people from sinning, both in terms of the laws needed to criminalize "sin" and the tools needed to enforce those laws. Premarital sex must be banned. Good luck enforcing that one without Orwellian-level interference, including cameras in everyone's house. Or heck, just go back to the Old Testament where God allows women to be stoned to death if they don't bleed on their wedding day (men who weren't virgins can't be detected, of course, so they can't be punished in that manner; quite a coincidence, that).
We'll have to disband Red Lobster, of course, because the eating of shellfish is declared a sin. Come to think of it, that's not such a bad idea anyway. America can probably survive without those glorified Long John Silver's joints. And no one will be able to wear mixed fabrics anymore. For once, the fashion police won't be just a metaphor.
Then again, Mr. Farah may well be indicting himself here. A government that forbids sin would have to forbid lying. And given that Farah makes a habit of lying -- like his lies about his involvement with Rev. Moon -- that might get him in some hot water too.
Politics
Comments
Lying lines the coffers with gelt. If Farah could make a living honestly, I suspect he would.
Posted by: MikeMa | November 24, 2009 9:28 AM
Posted by: Herod the Freemason | November 24, 2009 9:34 AM
My favorite is divorce... Jesus (not the OT) was very clear on that. My next favorite is the death penalty. How many pro-lifers are picketing there.
Problem is, you can get people crazy enough to support all these changes.
Posted by: Phaedrus | November 24, 2009 9:34 AM
Whew! I thought for a second that my shirt was a cotton-poly blend, but it is in fact 100% cotton. Close one!
Posted by: Adrian W. | November 24, 2009 9:41 AM
So I guess Farah would prefer the imposition of sharia law to a secular democracy.
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | November 24, 2009 9:45 AM
Farah is worthy of our monitoring given his ability to get many of the 2008 GOP Presidential primary candidates to attend a debate broadcast nationally. In addition Mike Huckabee, a strong contender for the 2012 nomination and second only to Mitt Romney, has expressed equivalent arguments as a candidate running for President. And while Sarah Palin has little chance of winning a GOP presidential primary*, I think it's very reasonable to believe she either takes this position or would if she believed it would increase, in some combination: her financial status, her celebrity, or her chance of electoral victory.
*44% of Republicans think she's unqualified according to a CNN poll done within the past month.
Posted by: Michael Heath | November 24, 2009 9:53 AM
Does this mean he wants all those family values Republicans that have been divorced to be forcibly reunited with their original wives?
And the theocrats can have my bacon when they pry it out of my cold, greasy dead hands.
Posted by: Rob Jase | November 24, 2009 9:54 AM
I'm glad Farah specifically mentions Jews in his column, since most people tend to ignore that stuff in the Book of Leviticus. It's like he's trying point out the flaws in his own argument.
Posted by: Imrryr | November 24, 2009 9:58 AM
I hope the other 56% are undecided as opposed to being in the "think she's qualified" camp.
Posted by: Mandrake | November 24, 2009 10:00 AM
I grew up with people like this. The trick is that none of them think of their ideal, Bible-based government as a "theocracy." It's like there's a missing connection in their heads. They know what a theocracy is, and they know that it's bad, but somehow they can't figure out that a government with laws taken straight from Christian tradition would qualify. I suspect it's because so many of them lead very insular lives, so they consider their own particular brand of Protestantism to be "normal." And something that's normal certainly can't be theocratic.
Posted by: D Johnston | November 24, 2009 10:04 AM
What's Farah's position on picking up kindling on Saturday?
If one then all, right Joe? - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | November 24, 2009 10:08 AM
You can mock Farah all you want, but he is absolutely right! Nothing good comes to a nation that replaces traditional values with values that are deviod of an ethical religious foundation. The nihilists that want to destroy the institution of marriage--with their obscene obsession of having their abnormal life style accepted as morally right--will lead this nation towards a path of destruction when people begin to question the values that keep this country together.
The morality of this country is based on a Judeo-Christian foundation that has existed since Jamestown was established as a colony. This Judeo-Christian foundation guided that colony, and the other colonies that followed and ultimately the nation these colonies gave birth to. When we start to accept gay "marriage," all we are doing is undermining the moral foundation of the country. Remember, the road to hell was paved with good intentions. The good intentions of the gay rightist will lead to our down fall, and that is what Farah was talking about, not creating a "theocracy".
Posted by: Reeves | November 24, 2009 10:08 AM
Yes, Fundie Protestant God's destruction countries that fail to properly grovel would explain why Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia, and the Catholic Americas are barren wastelands, devoid of human life...oh, wait, that's stupid.
Posted by: schism | November 24, 2009 10:08 AM
@Michael Heath #6
Ah but can Farah land the latest big fish to enter the pond, Lou Dobbs?
Posted by: Abby Normal | November 24, 2009 10:10 AM
I always knew Satan was in league with that mediocre eatery!
Posted by: FishyFred | November 24, 2009 10:14 AM
D Johnston,
Because it doesn't qulaify. If we elect officials who enact laws against gay marriage, that's democracy, not theocracy. The laws can be challenged for constitutionality, and/or the officials can be voted out and new laws enacted. Now if Joseph Farah takes over the government, disbands congress, suspends the constitution, and issues an edict against gay marriage—that's theocracy. Do you really see no difference?
Posted by: heddle | November 24, 2009 10:17 AM
Well, let the righteous rise up already. I mean, all those bigots clamoring about gay marriage and all the other idiots talking about getting rid of the government. Let them gather under the banner of Orson Scott Card and Joseph Farah and march against Washington. It'd be fun to see how they'd get their asses handed to them, and hopefully they'd be quiet for once.
Posted by: Patrick | November 24, 2009 10:19 AM
Reeves: didn't people like you say the same thing about interracial marriage back in the day?
Nothing good comes to a nation that replaces traditional values with values that are deviod of an ethical religious foundation.
What about nations that replace one set of "traditinal values" with another? Will we all go to Hell if (for example) we replace Old Testament values with values based on the teachings of Jesus?
(BTW, Jesus himself said nothing about Teh Ghey, and neither did the Ten commandments. Do try to stay focused on what's important, 'k?)
Posted by: Raging Bee | November 24, 2009 10:19 AM
"Premarital sex must be banned. Good luck enforcing that one without Orwellian-level interference, including cameras in everyone's house."
This is a ludicrous strawman. Premarital sex was, in fact, illegal up until relatively recently. Sodomy laws were on the books up until 1993. Prostitution (in Biblical terms, no different from premarital sex) is still illegal in 49 out of 50 states. And yet the United States is no East Germany-esque surveillance state, and never has been.
The purpose of morality laws - of laws against sin - is not to prevent every single act of sin, without exception. The rights guaranteed by the Constitution make the enforcement techniques necessary for that impossible to carry out, which is a good thing, and what distinguishes the United States under Christian law (which it had, again, until very recently - remember 'blue laws'?) from a totalitarian theocracy which gives all power to the State in the name of giving all power to God. Instead, the point is to send a signal about our morality; even though we can't stop private homosexual or adulterous activities, we can send the message that such activities are immoral and discouraged by our government, and we can punish anyone who brings those activities into the public sphere and tries to claim that they are acceptable forms of behavior.
Posted by: Pat Donohue | November 24, 2009 10:21 AM
And then he launches into the tired old "God will destroy America if we don't do what he says" nonsense.
Last time I checked, Western Europe was in better shape than we are.
The nihilists that want to destroy the institution of marriage--with their obscene obsession of having their abnormal life style accepted as morally right--will lead this nation towards a path of destruction when people begin to question the values that keep this country together.
And recognizing same sex marriage will destroy the institution of marriage HOW, precisely?
Posted by: Jeff Eyges | November 24, 2009 10:24 AM
If we elect officials who enact laws against gay marriage, that's democracy, not theocracy.
Laws against gay marriage do not a theocracy make. BUT if we elect officials who enact laws that are entirely based on the rules of their religion, regardless of what the Constitution says, that's theocracy, or a reasonable facsimile thereof, regardless of how the officials get to power.
Posted by: Raging Bee | November 24, 2009 10:24 AM
How? Be specific.
Posted by: MartinM | November 24, 2009 10:25 AM
Or, what Heddle said. There's an enormous difference between a democracy that chooses to enact Biblical law because the vast majority of individuals in that democracy support Biblical law (a situation which could change - and did, in this very country - when a majority of individuals ceased to support Biblical law in re, eg, divorce) and a theocracy like Iran, where law is determined by the interpretation of God's will (as expressed by an unaccountable, black-robed religious judiciary) and the will of the people is held in contempt.
Posted by: Pat Donohue | November 24, 2009 10:26 AM
Shorter Pat: it's not really oppression if the majority supports it!
Posted by: MartinM | November 24, 2009 10:29 AM
Reeves:
Same-sex marriage has been legally recognized in BC since 2003. Oh well, what do a bunch of potheads like us know? You probably figure we're too baked to give a shit. Maybe.
However, same sex marriage was recognized federally in 2005. However, we're still waiting for Downfall, Doom and Destruction. It's been over 4 years now. We're getting impatient.
Posted by: T. Bruce McNeely | November 24, 2009 10:30 AM
Reeves -
a)"values that are [sic] deviod of an ethical religious foundation"
Do ethic have to be based on a religion? Do you have any evidence at all for this assertion?
b)"The nihilists that want to destroy the institution of marriage"
Do you have any evidence that those who want equality under the law (like America promises at the beginning of every school day) are promising 'nihilism'? Do you even have the vaguest ideas what nihilism is?
c)"abnormal life style".
Any evidence of this? There is a mountain of evidence that such 'abnormal' behaviour is observed in a great number of human and non-human populations, any explanation for this?
e)"The morality of this country is based on a Judeo-Christian foundation that has existed since Jamestown was established as a colony."
Any evidence of this assertion?
f)"When we start to accept gay {sic} 'marriage,' all we are doing is undermining the moral foundation of the country."
Again evidence? It certainly hasn't occurred anywhere else, why do you imagine it would in America, precisely?
That'll do for now. I know you won;t even attempt to answer, just go to persecution and swearing, but at least try to come up with some lame excuse. -DJ.
Posted by: DingoJack | November 24, 2009 10:30 AM
Instead, the point is to send a signal about our morality...
"Watch what we say, not what we do?"
...we can send the message that such activities are immoral and discouraged by our government, and we can punish anyone who brings those activities into the public sphere and tries to claim that they are acceptable forms of behavior.
Translation: "we" can selectively enforce such laws when it suits "our" short-term political interests. "We," of course, being defined as "whoever currrently controls our law-enforcement apparatus."
Posted by: Raging Bee | November 24, 2009 10:33 AM
If you seriously want to protect marriage, I recommend following the example of the U.S. state that has the lowest divorce rate.
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts is that state. It has also recognized same-sex marriage for the last few years, without an increase in the divorce rate. It appears that, at least in Massachusetts, men and women marry each other because they want to, not because they are forbidden to marry someone of their own sex.
The same is true of many mixed-sex marriages I have observed elsewhere, including my own.
Posted by: Vicki | November 24, 2009 10:38 AM
@ T. Bruce McNeely #25:
I think I prefer that interpretation of "gays should be stoned" ;)
Posted by: Adrian W. | November 24, 2009 10:38 AM
Pat Donahue,
So having unenforceable and laughable laws on the books makes us moral how exactly? It makes us hypocrites and we have enough of that in the legislature alone. What a waste of time, money and effort to make bibble edicts into laws no one will follow. Another 55mph debacle. And I can almost guarantee that your moral ideas will not include many of my moral ideas. The christian bible is NOT the law for many good reasons.
Posted by: MikeMa | November 24, 2009 10:40 AM
Somebody smart said this (or something like it): The first amendment to U.S. Constitution directly contradicts the first commandment in the bible, and it has never been a serious legal controversy as to which of the two holds force of law.
I think this person is correct. Even if 99% of the population wanted to institute some sort of theocracy, they would still be acting un-democratically. What we have is not a radical democracy, like the Athenians had; instead we have a liberal democracy, a situation in which the majority does not always get its way. I think this is where something should be said along the lines of "we are nation of laws and not a nation of men".
Posted by: jws | November 24, 2009 10:43 AM
Last I checked, divorce and remarriage = adultery according to the teachings of the Rabbi Jesus of Nazareth. Therefore, this statement:
implies that men such as John McCain must be somehow punished for leaving their wives and taking up with concubines. Yet it is funny that the ability to "remarry" after a legal divorce is never brought up as something that should be barred in order to save marriage and the family. Undoubtedly a lot of people might stay in their current marriage if they did not have the option to jump to a friendlier ship, so why don't we have laws - in fact why have we NEVER had laws that prevented such remarriages?
Hmm, I guess we were never that Christian after all. And whatever the religious beliefs of those at Jamestown or Plymouth, we know for certain that none of the Founders was Southern Baptist, Mormon, Christian Scientist or a member of any of the other "religions" that have been created since the First Amendment was ratified.
Posted by: CPT_Doom | November 24, 2009 10:45 AM
...and a theocracy like Iran, where law is determined by the interpretation of God's will (as expressed by an unaccountable, black-robed religious judiciary) and the will of the people is held in contempt.
And that, Mr. Donohue, is where ALL attempts to enshrine ANY religion's absolute morality will lead. Your own deliberate ignorance proves it: you speak of "Biblical law" as if there's only one interpretation, and only one "tradition" that never changed anywhere in Christendom in all the 2000+ years of its existence. So what will happen to the significant numbers of Christians who see "Biblical law" differently from you?
Posted by: Raging Bee | November 24, 2009 10:46 AM
Reeves seems ignorant of the fact that the DofI and Constitution, both post-Jamestown, were supportive of enlightenment ideals, not Biblical ones, where both are also contra a literalist interpretation of the Bible.
Posted by: Michael Heath | November 24, 2009 10:50 AM
Heddle wrote:
Agree in part, disagree in part. No, I don't think that having laws against same-sex marriage, by itself, makes America a theocracy. But I don't think the distinction between a theocracy and a non-theocracy is predicated on how the laws were passed. One of the key elements of the Jefferson/Madison conception of rightful liberty is that laws which violate the rights of the individual are unjust regardless of how they were passed. A law that violates your rights does not violate them any less by virtue of being passed by majority vote rather than by royal decree. Thus Jefferson's clear statement:
I would argue that even if a majority decided it was okay to rule society based on their interpretation of the Bible's requirements, that would constitute a theocracy regardless of its democratic nature. Of course, we have something of a mixture now, a few laws here and there that are based largely on religious beliefs, even if someone can invent other justifications for them, and we certainly have not crossed the line into theocracy yet (and yes, I know this is vague - that's just the nature of such thing). But at some point, pile up enough such laws and I think one could reasonably call it that.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | November 24, 2009 11:02 AM
Haven't people learned that imaginary friends are a figment of people's childhoods, not real?
Posted by: Katharine | November 24, 2009 11:15 AM
Two things:
1) I invite you to live in any of the several other states that have enacted such laws... Iran being a great example.
2) Why are people who say we ought to go back to the Bible (as it where) some of the first ones to get caught in sin.
Let me give you an example. Of the several dozen couples I know... the only ones that have been married for more than 3 years are ones that were not married in any church (in fact two of the longest marriages were married by pagan priests). Compare to the ones I know that have had a Catholic (for example wedding), the average length of the marriage is about 2 years and the average number of marriages is 3.
I don't buy it and I seriously doubt you can sell it to me.
Posted by: OgreMkV | November 24, 2009 11:17 AM
Bruce T said: "Same-sex marriage has been legally recognized in BC since 2003. SNIP same sex marriage was recognized federally in 2005. However, we're still waiting for Downfall, Doom and Destruction. It's been over 4 years now. We're getting impatient."
Don't worry - we must get a winner someday - see this timely and timeless sketch
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSZ2by7M9NI
Oh, and a shout out to a fellow BCer!
Posted by: Philip T | November 24, 2009 11:55 AM
Heddle,
I believe we've had this argument regarding the definition of theocracy in the past. The problem with your definition is that even if the laws are passed democratically, if their motivation and source are religious in origin, they qualify as theocratic. If, ultimately, the source of your legal code is religious, if you can infringe upon the rights of others based upon your religious beliefs, if you can suppress and manipulate non-destructive behavior, and all of this comes from a religious source, then your government is a theocracy.
Posted by: dogmeatib | November 24, 2009 11:56 AM
It comes as no surprise to me that Farah and his ilk ultimately wish for the implementation of a theocratic dictatorship. These people are authoritarian and tribalistic to the core; freedom is viewed by them as a threat, and they would like nothing more than to see it eradicated in favor of their vision of society.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | November 24, 2009 11:58 AM
Alternately, there's a gay church now? When did this happen?
Do you know what else the bible identifies as sin? Everything! No matter what you are, straight out of the box you're already broken. And you're supposed to feel guilty about, y'know, not being perfect. That's why Christians throw the shittiest orgies (and you just know that Farrah does. How could he get away with that moustache otherwise?).Jeff Eyges "Last time I checked, Western Europe was in better shape than we are."
But do you really want to be like them? Do you want to enjoy European "football"? Do you really want to know more than one language? Do you?! 'Cause that's where this is headed, Mister Smartypants!
"And recognizing same sex marriage will destroy the institution of marriage HOW, precisely?"
When the Popular Majority sees gay people being happy, that's bad enough, but when they see "the gays" being happy and married, it will expose the sham of their own loveless, claustrophobic and empty marriages.
Raging Bee "BUT if we elect officials who enact laws that are entirely based on the rules of their religion, regardless of what the Constitution says, that's theocracy, or a reasonable facsimile thereof, regardless of how the officials get to power."
It's more like biblical theonomy, I think.
"So what will happen to the significant numbers of Christians who see "Biblical law" differently from you?"
Why, they get purged, of course. The only thing that God hates more than a member of an unpopular minority is a heretic.
dingojack "There is a mountain of evidence that such 'abnormal' behaviour is observed in a great number of human and non-human populations, any explanation for this?"
The definition of "normal behavior" is: the way they would like to think they are and/or the way they remember the memory of their childhood (the version without drunk dad hitting medicated mom while pregnant sister hides in the shed).
OgreMkV "I invite you to live in any of the several other states that have enacted such laws... Iran being a great example."
Wrong. That's ridiculous. Iran is Muslamical and, therefore, wrong. Obviously.
"Let me give you an example."
The Law is mostly there simply to screw over the people who are having more fun that you.
Pot is illegal (while booze is not) for this very reason. Pot junkies. you see, have the audacity to enjoy injecting "the marihuana" into their veins, rather than being proper Christian folk who drink alone in the dark in the den.
I can't see "them" actually banning divorce. Before Prop 8 I tended to tell the anti-civil rights activists that if they wanted to protect the sanctity of marriage, they should get their own house in order first and ban divorce, which received replies like "...but that's completely different!" Preventing others from getting their rights is much better than restricting your own, as the former option doesn't, y'know, restrict your own options.
"I don't buy it and I seriously doubt you can sell it to me."
You'll get on board. You'll have no choice. America is a melting pot; a cosmopolitan society filled with a wide range of ideas, of which most must be rooted out and crushed.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | November 24, 2009 12:00 PM
The issue Christians and Jews should be focused upon is whether it can ever be acceptable for the government to condone sin - or, worse yet, encourage it by making it a "right."
It has to be acceptable as long as what individual citizens view as "sin" is different and/or contradictory.
"Its God's will" is often used as an excuse by those in power to make arbitrary rules. "Its sinful" is often code for "I have no better reason I can articulate, so I'm going to claim God favors my opinion."
Forcing rulers to come up with a justification other than "its God's will" helps ensure that any law we pass has some understandable, rational civil purpose behind it.
Bottom line - if you can't articulate a better reason for outlawing a behavior than "its sinful," there's probably no civil reason to outlaw it. And if you CAN articulate a better reason, then you should be doing that instead of worrying about whether its sinful or not.
Posted by: eric | November 24, 2009 12:07 PM
Please allow seven years for maximum tribulation effect.
Posted by: Scott Hanley | November 24, 2009 12:25 PM
Fixed it for ya.
Posted by: Azkyroth | November 24, 2009 12:31 PM
Does this guy realize that gay sex is already legal? (There are laws against it in some states, but it's rarely enforced.) Does he think that gay people can only have sex if they get married?
Posted by: catgirl | November 24, 2009 12:40 PM
heddle:
Democracy and theocracy are not mutually exclusive.
Posted by: catgirl | November 24, 2009 12:47 PM
catgirl,
I think that's kind of the point. He doesn't want sex to be legal. He doesn't want anything that he can't have to be legal. Actually, more likely, he wants it illegal for everyone but him.
Posted by: OgreMkV | November 24, 2009 12:48 PM
Farah is trying to use the abortion use and gays as wedges issues to force America's descent into Communist Fascism. Sound crazy? It should because it is complete nonsense as Farah lacks the education or intelligence to know what either really is. However, that aside, you know who else banned abortion? Hitler. Stalin. Ceausescu of Romania. All either fascist or commie. Hitler and Commies also hated the gays. They thought gays were evil and immoral. Sound familiar? It should because that was the Nazi viewpoint.
Maybe Farah is a closted Hitler fan? Maybe he loves Stalin? He seems a fan of Ceausescu's policies toward gays and abortion, doesn't he? Perhaps, he has posters of them in his bedroom? Perhaps? However, as shown by all the inappropriately placed question marks, I am just a state-school dolt asking questions in bad parody form.
Posted by: History Punk | November 24, 2009 1:01 PM
catgirl @45:
Those laws aren't just "rarely enforced," they are legally unenforceable. Lawrence v. Texas. Somehow, all those "conservatives" who want to keep the government out of our lives and business did not rejoice at the Supreme Court keeping it out of our bedrooms.
Posted by: Vicki | November 24, 2009 1:07 PM
Does Farah realize that the OT was writtern for a polygamist -- actually polygynist -- culture, so much so that there has to be a specific warning against marrying both a woman and her mother? (No, Heddle, that was not a 'special exemption for the Patriarchs.' Read the whole list of prohibitions and see that the various qualifications about sisters 'the child of either your father or your mother' and other similar distinctions.)
In fact, the brief fragment we have of Josephus' autobiography shows that this was true as of the time of Jesus -- and there is no way of understanding the special rules for Church leaders in 1 Timothy and Titus -- demanding that they be 'the husband of one wife' -- than that this was not a 'general rule' for Christians as a whole.
Oh, and when Farahocracy comes in, how's he going to enforce the 'exile' demanded for any couple who has sex during the wife's period? Lev 20:18, if you want to check.
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | November 24, 2009 1:10 PM
Prup (aka Jim Benton)
Let's try "Parenthetical responses to an objections heddle never made and never would make for $400."
Posted by: heddle | November 24, 2009 1:15 PM
As for there being a gay church, well, there are several, the first one being the MCC, founded in about 1970 -- I remember reading about it as early as then, it might have been earlier.
Interestingly, in other matters it started out somewhat theologically conservative, since it's founder was the pupil of a rather famous evangelist -- and his vocal intonations and style of preaching were so similar that, without listening to the words you can't tell them apart. Try listening to a sermon from Troy Perry and you'll hear the sound of Billy Graham.
(Can't resist one Troy Perry story. Someone asked him if he considered himself the Martin Luther King of the gay movement. "Shouldn't you make that Martin Luther Queen?" was his reply.)
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | November 24, 2009 1:15 PM
Glad to hear that, heddle, because I have heard that from many preachers. Sorry, and I mean that sincerely. We may disagree, but you are both a strong and sensible proponent of a point of view I disagree with. I usually do respect you.
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | November 24, 2009 1:18 PM
Prup (aka Jim Benton),
No harm, no foul! Happy Thanksgiving. (Whether or not you're American.)
Posted by: heddle | November 24, 2009 1:33 PM
even though we can't stop private homosexual or adulterous activities, we can send the message that such activities are immoral and discouraged by our government, and we can punish anyone who brings those activities into the public sphere and tries to claim that they are acceptable forms of behavior.
even though we can't stop private Hindu or Muslim activities, we can send the message that such activities are immoral and discouraged by our government, and we can punish anyone who brings those activities into the public sphere and tries to claim that they are acceptable forms of behavior.
Pat Donohue: Do you agree with your statement AND mine?
Posted by: Donalbain | November 24, 2009 1:34 PM
Yeah, good luck with that. Almost no one under age forty believes anymore that homosexual behavior is immoral.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | November 24, 2009 1:47 PM
"If we elect officials who enact laws against gay marriage, that's democracy, not theocracy"
No, that is NOT democracy. That is mob rule, or majority dictatorship.
The key feature of democracy is that power is distributed, checked, and balanced. All authority, of every branch of government, including the authority of the majority itself, is circumscribed. Quite simply, in a democracy, the majority is NOT ALLOWED to oppress a minority using the strength of numbers as a bullying tactic. The rights of all minorities (and the individual is the ultimate minority) are equally protected. The moment an elected body uses the power of majority numbers to enact laws discriminatory of a minority, that system of government ceases to be democratic, even if the representatives are elected.
Posted by: amphiox | November 24, 2009 2:10 PM
Pat Donohue: Do you agree with your statement AND mine?
Too late -- he and Reeves have already run away.
Posted by: Raging Bee | November 24, 2009 2:20 PM
Sadie:
At the risk of making this another game of My Anecdotes Are Better Than Yours!, I think your qualifier of "Almost no one under age forty" is wrong. My 24-year-old wife thinks this is true (on Biblical grounds), and I know plenty of other young people who think so (and I live in a rural area in a blue state in the Midwest - take a guess where I'm at).
Now, I have seen more permissive or accepting attitudes from my high school students, specifically my seniors (and mostly from girls, oddly enough, although I think there is still a societal stigma for most guys to be openly accepting of homosexuality), so I agree that the tide is turning. But let's not get ahead of ourselves here.
Posted by: Mr. B | November 24, 2009 2:30 PM
Posted by: James Hanley | November 24, 2009 2:37 PM
amphiox,
Exactly--which is why I said that if a ban on gay marriage is passed and it survives challenges in the court then, well, you're screwed, assuming you support gay marriage. Deal with it. Vote the bastards out--and vote new bastards in who will change the law and appoint different judges.
That is our democracy, and yes it is tantamount to majority rule subject to the court's approval. I don't want to fund the war--but here I am "bullied" (to use your term) into funding the war, and perhaps "bullied" by the current administration into funding a ramp-up in Afghanistan. And there will be other laws passed, some of which some may feel are oppressive, unjust, unfair, or immoral because the majority elected Obama. Same thing if McCain had won. Well, them's the breaks for those of us who didn't vote for Obama. We can try voting him out next time. And sometimes crazy things like prohibition happen. Fortunately the system seems to be resilient on reasonable timescales to such aberrations.
Posted by: heddle | November 24, 2009 2:41 PM
I think this is very revealing regarding WND and by extension Farah's views regarding homosexuality:
http://moronality.blogspot.com/2009/11/pure-concentrated-hate.html
I stress that these comments full of hate and calls for gays to be stoned to death are from a *moderated* page.
Posted by: Suricou Raven | November 24, 2009 3:15 PM
If God was going to destroy America for violating his commandments, one would wonder why it wasn't done in the 1780's or 1790's when we enshrined the right to (among other things) take the Lord's name in vain, make graven images, and have other gods before god in our highest legal document.
Posted by: GBM | November 24, 2009 4:09 PM
Deuteronomy 25:11-12 (NKJV)
Ah, biblical justice! An eye for an eye and a, uh, hand for a ball? Can't wait for the theocracy to come to town...
Posted by: marnk | November 24, 2009 4:59 PM
If I'm understanding this correctly, we're talking activist judges here. I don't want judges with a personal agenda. I want judges who judge as objectively as possible, regardless of their personal likes or dislikes. This seems particularly important when we're talking about Constitutional rights and is different than voting legislators in our out depending on our biases on non-Constitutional rights-related issues.
Posted by: Mandrake | November 24, 2009 5:05 PM
So many Farah jokes....so little time.
Posted by: Phil | November 24, 2009 5:28 PM
Who gives a flying fuck about marriage rights? It doesn't mean anything anymore since anyone can just get married and divorced to anyone at any time for any reason. The whole gay marriage bullshit is just a nationwide troll, and I seriously _doubt_ that any homosexuals care about the real values of marriage anyways.
Posted by: Longpoke | November 24, 2009 7:27 PM
Yeah, I'll bet that's why thousands of them seek the right to marry. The whole gay marriage movement is just a front!
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | November 24, 2009 7:30 PM
Yeah! They, like all civil rights movements, are just doing it on a lark!
Posted by: Modusoperandi | November 24, 2009 7:43 PM
Not exactly, lots of material on this one and the sentence is passive-but thats for another discussion.
heddle has many friends here who feel the same way. I must admit to kinda liking the little fellow myself. He's a member of Steeler nation afterall. Happy Thanksgiving Prof!
Posted by: JimC | November 24, 2009 7:45 PM
#60:
True democracies have an equivalent of a constitution, a law that among other things protects minorities from the power of the majority. In practice, of course, the constitution can be changed, but typically the constitution cannot be changed by a simple majority vote.
But, there is a difference between being a democracy and being democratic. The first is a specific theoretical label with very strict criteria. The second is a spectrum. There are lots of democratic governments, but there are, actually, no true democracies in the world today, and there never have been any.
#61: IF a law is passed in the United States that is truly discriminatory (whether a ban on gay marriage is truly discriminatory is a different question) AND it is upheld by the Supreme Court, then the United State will no longer qualify as a democratic country.
Posted by: amphiox | November 24, 2009 7:50 PM
Ah, amphiox, I see you're using the "no true democracy" fallacy.
Very simply, there's no single, consistent, definition of what is a "true" democracy. Start with Athens, for example. They invented the concept, but it's not what we would recognize as acceptably democratic today. Try reading Federalist 10, in which Madison discusses how a "true" democracy wouldn't provide any protection for the rights of the minority, so what he and his follow conventioneers designed is not in fact, by his understanding, a democracy.
Again, I want those constitutional protections, too. I believe having them is more important than having democratic forms. So it's not your overall values I'm disputing. I'm just disputing what is a rather naive view of what democracy means.
Posted by: James Hanley | November 24, 2009 8:16 PM
Joseph Farah reminds me faintly of Nicolae Ceausescu.
Posted by: Katharine | November 24, 2009 8:26 PM
JimC
This is a tough time for Steeler fans. Losing to KC. Arrrgh. (How can I say that? Six Lombardi Trophies! Truly I am an ingrate.)
Happy Thanksgiving!
(You too Hanley--have a good one.)
Posted by: heddle | November 24, 2009 8:28 PM
And you, Mr. H. Have a good laugh at our Lions while you're gnawing leftover drumsticks. (Thank god I'm originally from Indiana, and a Colts fan.)
Posted by: James Hanley | November 24, 2009 8:59 PM
"If we elect officials who enact laws against gay marriage, that's democracy, not theocracy."
Does that sort of reasoning support elected officials like Mr. Hitler?
Posted by: democommie | November 24, 2009 9:05 PM
Come on, democommie, there've got to be some other Nazis or other fascists you can cite.
Ceausescu, perhaps? Mussolini?
Posted by: Katharine | November 24, 2009 9:19 PM
Hitler was not elected into power.
The NSDAP peaked during the 1932 election with 37.4% of the electorate.
Hitler, as leader of the strongest party in the Reichstag, was asked to form a government by Hindenburg on 5 January 1933. Thus he came to power by appointment. [/pedant] -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | November 24, 2009 10:13 PM
DingoJack:
I stand chastened and corrected. I will hate you for-- oh, look, something shiny!
Seriously, I was mistaken in thinking he was elected to the lower post. I knew that he was appointed Chancellor.
This guy: http://able2know.org/topic/125181-1 HE could use a history lesson.
Katharine:
Mussolini was elected, but he's not really crazy enough. Ceacescu is crazy enough, but he wasn't elected. Rats!!
Posted by: democommie | November 24, 2009 10:44 PM
Dude, Mussolini was insane.
Regrettably, he's one of those cases where a person's atheism doesn't necessarily make them a sane, well-adjusted human being.
Then again, that's only a handful of nutty dictators compared to we sane, rational, peaceful, non-bigoted atheists.
Posted by: Katharine | November 24, 2009 11:14 PM
Katharine:
Shit. Twice in one thread I'm slapped down. It's a good thing that I've got a strong ego. It's even better that it's just between you, me and DingoJack. I don't believe in GOD but that doesn't make me a good person.
Posted by: democommie | November 24, 2009 11:25 PM
Demo - Sorry just a personal bête noire. I often hear people say that Hitler was elected into power*, it's just not true. -DJ
-----------
* the most recent argument I had with some random guy in a pub, he argued along the lines of: "when fascism comes to America, it'll be by the ballot-box. Hitler was elected you know." Last time I get a drink in Newtown. :(
Posted by: DingoJack | November 24, 2009 11:55 PM
So we just have to make sure not to appoint anybody, and if we keep elections we only run the risk of getting a thug who's only strong enough to fight Ethiopia to a draw. Whew. Dodged a bullet there.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | November 25, 2009 12:01 AM
MO - Yeah, but at least the trains will run on time. :) - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | November 25, 2009 12:03 AM
Unlike under SOCIALISM!
Posted by: Modusoperandi | November 25, 2009 12:48 AM
DingoJack:
That is actually a myth. Mussolini didn't make the trains run on time.
In actual fact, he was an early pioneer of biofuel technology. He made the trains run on thyme.
Posted by: Donalbain | November 25, 2009 2:33 AM
Ceausescu was a commie, but one the Reagan administration liked.
Posted by: History Punk | November 25, 2009 3:28 AM
I defer to the Donalbain, wisest herb of all, Sage of heaven!* - DJ
-------------
* sorry about that, when god was in short-pants that pun was freshly minted.
Posted by: DingoJack | November 25, 2009 7:16 AM
I don't think your review of Mr. Farah's article is entirely fair:
1. He said that we can't have the government "condoning" sinful activities - we already accept this as a function of government. There are many things our governments endorse and promote and many things they discourage. For example: the "sin tax" on items like alcohol and tobacco products. Perfectly legal products but their use is discouraged. We confer certain benefits on couples who are married which single people cannot receive - isn't that an example of government condoning one behavior over another? This isn't/wouldn't be an unprecedented act in America.
2. Mr. Farah did not say we should "punish" sinful acts but only that we don't condone them. You simply brushed aside that to start dwelling on the Mosaic covenant (which I might inform you was done away with at the cross by Jesus Christ who enacted the covenant of Grace).
The question to debate is - Is homosexuality a benefit, hinderance, or non-issue to the health of the United States culture?
Mr. Farah believes that God will judge the country based in large part on our culture but whether you believe that or not the debate is still - Is homosexuality and similar "sinful" activity damaging to the U.S.?
Posted by: J. | November 25, 2009 8:30 AM
The government does not "discourage" the use of alcohol and tobacco, anymore than it "discourages" the practice of making money by collecting income taxes (it actually rewards the practice of accumulating disproportionate wealth by lowering the wealthiest peoples' effective tax rate. In some states, sales tax is charged on groceries; do you suppose the governments in those states are trying to discourage eating?
"The question to debate is - Is homosexuality a benefit, hinderance, or non-issue to the health of the United States culture?"
No, the question to debate is why the hell do you care what other adults do with themselves and their loved, consenting partners?
Farah is lying sack of shit who makes MONEY by stoking the flames of divisiveness. You're one of the credulous boobs who allows him to do so.
Posted by: democommie | November 25, 2009 8:46 AM
Who gave you, (or Farah) the authority to define what is "sinful?"
Posted by: Chilidog | November 25, 2009 8:51 AM
1. There is no evidence that gay marriage is in anyway morally wrong. It hurts no-one else, it's an activity conducted between consenting adults and, most significantly, marriage is an activity the government already condones in a majority of the adult population.
2. Since Farah himself bases his argument on Mosaic Law (since this is the only argument he has, apart form "it's icky") reviewing of said laws in perfectly reasonable. (and BTW it's really not clear that the semi-mythical person called Jesus existed, let alone did anything all all to challenge the validity of any laws).
The answer to your question, as demonstrated in parts of the US and overseas, is Homosexuality is completely neutral to society as a whole (and I re-stress perfectly morally acceptable), and any move to strengthen the value of 'equality under the law' would only benefit the US. -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | November 25, 2009 8:59 AM
J.,
There is a huge difference between a "sin tax" discouraging behavior that is detrimental to society and a prohibition against a specific group denying them a right enjoyed by the remaining 90%+ of the majority. To try to claim that this is in any way similar is rather ludicrous.
Second, as Chilidog has pointed out, who gave anyone the authority to determine that homosexuality is a "sin?" That isn't based on any actual evidence beyond some (mostly obscure) religious objections. For alcohol, Tobacco, etc., there are mountains of evidence showing the detrimental effects they can have on both individuals and society. The "sin tax" also isn't a prohibition, but an attempt to persuade. People can still smoke and drink themselves to death if they so wish, we, as a nation, do not prohibit them from doing so (another huge difference).
Finally, and this is absolutely critical, has been mentioned before, and has yet to be effectively addressed. WHO decides what is sinful? What basis do we establish? If you go to PZ Myers, he would argue that going to church is "sinful;" that it is damaging to both the individual and society. So, based on this rather loose and utterly ridiculous "framework" we should have laws also prohibiting religion, right?
Posted by: dogmeatib | November 25, 2009 9:08 AM
Classic comment Demo' ;o)
Posted by: dogmeatib | November 25, 2009 9:15 AM
For clarification purposes, there are about six verses in the Bible about homosexuality (and that's if you stretch the definition of a few Greek words, while the others reference pagan rituals no longer practiced, and can be considered irrelevant), but hundreds about giving to the poor, being honest in one's business dealings, caring for the widows, orphans, and foreigners. Perhaps people like Farah should focus on the spirit of the law instead of the letter of it. Of course, that would require actual work and sacrifice, and it's so much easier to ritually follow Bronze Age rules...
Posted by: Gray Falcon | November 25, 2009 9:18 AM
"and it's so much easier to ritually follow CHERRY PICKED Bronze Age rules..."
Sorry, Gray Falcon, it was beyond my willpower to resist adding that.
Posted by: demcommie | November 25, 2009 9:39 AM
Gee, Farah is calling for a Judeo-Christian theocracy? Must be smokin' good Mary Jane there, Ed. You gave a pass to the most virulent, murderous, and hateful death cult on the planet -- Islam. Of course, in the world of the liberals and Leftists, Islam and Muslims are seen as victims and so you've joined forces to destroy Western Civilization.
Unfortunately for you, Islam only recognizes Muslim "believers" as legitimate. All others, including you Ed, are "unbeliever" Infidels. Muslims believe there are only three things that can be done with Infidels: (1) kill them; (2) convert them; or (3) enslave them. To this end, Muslims have been killing "unbeleiver" Christians, Jews, and anyone else they don't like (when they're not killing each other) for the last 1,400 years.
If the Muslims are successful in destroying Western Civilization and establish their new Islamic caliphate, which one of the three choices -- death, conversion, or enslavement -- would you prefer Ed? Perhaps your new friends won't give you that choice and just behead you. Allahu Akbar!
Posted by: MasterGunner | November 25, 2009 10:25 AM
You are a fool, Mr. Brayton, because those with a face like yours and mine are in need of mercy, that mercy which is taught in the scriptures you seem to denigrate. However, it is true that our society choosing a government like that of our founders is based on Liberty. Liberty is that freedom to do that which is right, and, as stated in the Proverbs, "there is a way that seemeth right unto a man but the ends thereof are the ways of death," the Jew/Christian is compelled to add, "that which is right in the eyes of God." You should be happy in the way our current government is going away from the Theocracy. Because the people under this administration of government (I am beating up on the Republicans as well as the Democrats) is acting like a master over slaves. Consider that God's benchmark for slavery concerning government is when that authority taxes a farmer or rancher ten percent of their increase. God speakes in 1 Samuel 8 when the people demand a King to fight their battles and He tells them the manner of the king:
1 Samuel 8:15-17 ( KJV )
15 And he [THE KING] will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants.
16 And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work.
17 He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants [READ THAT AS SLAVE].
For the Christian, God does not WANT us to be slaves, though if we are forced to be slaves, we are taught how to be GOOD slaves. But show me the constitutional precept that says we are slaves, and if we are not then we are to act the part of free men, which means we are to MAINTAIN that freedom were we to be made free.
1 Corinthians 7:20-23 ( KJV )
20 Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called.
21 Art thou called being a servant? care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather.
22 For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord’s freeman: likewise also he that is called, being free, is Christ’s servant.
23 Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men.
Jesus says to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s and to God that which is God’s, and, for free men, that means our Federal, State, and Local governments should fight over up to 9.99% of our increase, and that God, to whom we ARE slaves or servants, we offer freely 10 or more percent. You see the disservice you offer the citizen in criticizing the Biblical ways when you “diss” the founder’s efforts to minimize government intrusion in our lives to that, according to John Locke our founder’s mentor, of protecting the Life, Liberty, and Possessions of the People for their good, which is EXACTLY what the Bible says in Romans 13, concerning our submission to government, but that which is doing God’s purpose to NOT BE A TERROR TO GOOD WORKS, but to the evil as seen in verse 4. The government should NOT be protecting the sin of homosexuality by suppressing the GOOD WORK of private individuals in warning them concerning their sin, or to protect the evil industry of murdering unborn children. In other words government should IGNORE Homo folk altogether, so that they can have an opportunity to reform, and if they don’t to allow them to die a natural death in their sin since it is more properly a “death style” as opposed to an odd “life style.” The mercy part is allowing concerned fellow citizens to point to a remedy for the sin that will kill the offender and the society that promotes the sin, and NOT have positive laws condemning the sin. The normal right for a person to LIVE should be protected as usual as per LOCKE and the founders, but not for government to protect a promotion of a sin such as homosexuality. Abortion, however, is simply murder, and there should be a government remedy for that.
The Bible injunctions during the time of the law of Moses was basically to show the Hebrews that they could NOT live up to their boast to Moses that he should teach them all the words of God and that they would DO it. (Deuteronomy 5:23-33) God was offended that they refused to look upon Him when He was going to give them an opportunity to do it, so He said, basically, “OK go ahead and TRY to see if you can do that.” And he went about to give them some difficult tasks to fulfill IN THE LAND to test their boasting. The caveat was that failure to live up to their boast will mean they would die before the time in the land if they can even maintain living in that land in the first place. This is NOT the Christian commission nor that of their government’s God was going to give them. Currently, the government is only to protect the right of the Christian to do that which is right and for the non-Christian to have sufficient mercy to allow them to reform in their own or God’s time. The likes of you have shipwrecked our government, not excusing our own Christian brethren who failed to understand the type of government we were given by our founders.
Posted by: Stephen Ray Hale | November 25, 2009 10:28 AM
Mastergunner - "Unfortunately for you, Islam only recognizes Muslim "believers" as legitimate. All others, including you Ed, are "unbeliever" Infidels. Muslims believe there are only three things that can be done with Infidels: (1) kill them; (2) convert them; or (3) enslave them. To this end, Muslims have been killing "unbeleiver" Christians, Jews, and anyone else they don't like (when they're not killing each other) for the last 1,400 years."
You don't much about history do you? The little you do know you don't understand. I'd recommend reading a little about Islamic History before you open your mouth next time. -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | November 25, 2009 10:36 AM
Christians have a wonderful tendency to assume that everyone is as bloodthirsty in conversion as they are.
Posted by: jws | November 25, 2009 10:48 AM
Mr. Hale,
You've written far too much for most of us to bother addressing. Just be warned Mr. Brayton and I have probably forgotten more about America's Founders, religion and their original plans for government than you'll ever know.
Their idea, as per Locke, had nothing to do with granting Christians only the right to do what the Bible says is not sinful.
Likewise their concept of political liberty was not taken from the Bible because such does not exist in the Bible. The Bible, in case you have noticed, is a thick book complete with lots of "dos." To say one has a right only do to what the says is not sin is an impossible standard to put into action and America's Founders understood this: They put their imprimatur on a right to sin when they recognized religious liberty for all, thereby granting men an unalienable "right" to break the first half of the ten commandments and many other parts of the Bible, even that for which the Bible demands the death penalty.
Finally, you misunderstand Romans 13. That text is most certainly not "EXACTLY" what John Locke wrote in his theories of government. Romans 13 instructs believers to submit to government period, even if they are pagan tyrants like Nero, the leader to whom Paul instructed believers to submit to.
Posted by: Jon Rowe | November 25, 2009 11:01 AM
Stephen Ray Hale "Liberty is that freedom to do that which is right, and, as stated in the Proverbs, 'there is a way that seemeth right unto a man but the ends thereof are the ways of death,' the Jew/Christian is compelled to add, 'that which is right in the eyes of God.'"
I'll make you a deal. I won't use the dictionary as a bible if you don't use the bible as a dictionary.
"The government should NOT be protecting the sin of homosexuality by suppressing the GOOD WORK of private individuals in warning them concerning their sin…"
Oh, you're mistaken. You can "warn them" all you want. You just aren't supposed to be suckling at the teat of State while doing it.
"Currently, the government is only to protect the right of the Christian to do that which is right and for the non-Christian to have sufficient mercy to allow them to reform in their own or God’s time."
I'll make you a deal. I won't use the Constitution as a bible if you don't use the bible as the Constitution.
"The likes of you have shipwrecked our government…"
Oh. Let me take this time to apologize for insisting that the Constitution protects all Americans, not just the ones you approve of.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | November 25, 2009 11:04 AM
Stephen Ray Hale wrote:
That's really all one needs to read to conclude that you are a ridiculous simpleton who isn't worth bothering to debunk. That statement is astonishingly stupid.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | November 25, 2009 11:14 AM
Nobody's going to reach Hale with sanity; he's gone off the deep end while jumping the shark.
This stuff is only treated with therapy, Valium, and a good dose of education.
Posted by: Katharine | November 25, 2009 11:19 AM
Stephen - First a few style tips. Firstly, if you want to persuade someone about something, don't start with passive-aggressive insult, start out with something that is good about the person(s) you are trying to persuade, it just works better. Secondly, lose the long, personally interpreted, selections from your "great big book of fairy-tales" lest someone starts quoting slabs of 'Beowulf' or 'The Illiad' at you. You don't care about the myths of Denmark and Peloponnesians (respectively), why do you think we care about your mythos? Give us solid logical arguments back-up with real facts. And thirdly, learn the meaning of TL;DR (as Shakespeare would say 'brevity is soul of wit').
As to your arguments (such as they are)
a) The founders were certainly NOT Christians as you would like. Some were Theists, some were Deists, and other near atheists. They gave America a SECULAR government where a man's religion (or lack thereof) was A PERSONAL MATTER, unrelated to the exercise of government.
b) Homosexuality is not a 'sin' that can be 'reformed'. Firstly because Homosexuality is just one place on a continuum of human sexuality. No moral position can be inferred from this. There is no evidence of any correlation between immorality and human sexuality. Secondly, there is no evidence that attempts to modify human sexuality have any success, none whatsoever.
c) Homosexuality is found in many animals species, including humans, at a constant percentage of the population as a whole. They ain't gonna 'die out' ever. Indeed Homosexuality is a NATURAL state of sexuality. (Did god ordain it? Who are you to condemn it?)
d) Abortion isn't murder for these reasons 1.) If it is legal it can't be illegal 2.) Fetuses are not recognized as people legally (they are clumps of cells, like a cyst, a melanoma or intestinal polyp) 3.) You'd have prove that there was some ill-feeling toward the fetus, which would be difficult as it is not a person , plus there are plenty of mitigating circumstances. If abortion is murder you should direct your anger toward the number one abortionist. Most abortions occur early in the pregnancy spontaneously. Guess that makes god the biggest 'baby killer' of them all then?
And my last point (being mindful of TL;DR) is that studies have shown that the freest, happiest and most equal societies tend to be be those that have low levels of religiosity. Liberals like us aren't 'shipwrecking' the country; they are piloting it away from the rocks that religious-types seem to want to steer into.
Hope that explains reality a little better for you. -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | November 25, 2009 11:20 AM
I'd imagine we are going to be getting a number of Mr. Hales because WND has linked to Ed's post.
Posted by: Jon Rowe | November 25, 2009 11:24 AM
All these things I listed incidentally also being sanity.
Mr. Stupefyingly Ridiculous Hick, do you have a college education? Have you ever taken a biology class? Have you ever read any philosophy besides your buy-bull?
Posted by: Katharine | November 25, 2009 11:25 AM
Oh no, they posted a link to Ed's post?
I hear the theme from 'Deliverance' playing.
Posted by: Katharine | November 25, 2009 11:26 AM
Off topic, but my inner policy-wonk was inadvertantly stimulated. Re: Democommie @90
Love the last line, but I must make a slight correction. The federal government, and many state governments, are indeed discouraging the use of tobacco through taxes. In the '80s, researchers recognized that most nicotine addicts were those who began smoking in adolescence (people who first smoke as adults tend not to get addicted, due to differences in the brain), and theorizing that adolescents were price-sensitive to cigarettes began advocating higher tobacco taxes as a way of reducing the number of people who become addicted. It took a while for governments to get on board, but as they have, the results have been just as predicted, with smoking rates plummeting. (Then a process of crowding out also kicks in, as having fewer smokers makes it less socially acceptable). It counts as one of our better--more straightforward, less convoluted, and unequivocably successful--public policies.Which isn't to say there isn't some conflict of interest for states, as they also rely on tobacco excise taxes for revenue, the raising of which taxes leads to a decline of such revenue (a Laffer curve for excise taxes--perhaps there's an "optimal" tax on tobacco that keeps just enough people smoking to maximize revenue!).
But as to the taxes on liquor, you are certainly correct. And god forbid they ever adopt the tobacco policy to scotch and bourbon. There'll be a new whiskey rebellion then!
Posted by: James Hanley | November 25, 2009 11:42 AM
Stephen Ray Hale: You are a fool, Mr. Brayton
Matthew 5:22: But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
Sometimes they just write the material for you.
Posted by: Jeff Eyges | November 25, 2009 12:16 PM
Haloperidol. In massive dosage.
Posted by: T. Bruce McNeely | November 25, 2009 12:17 PM
James Hanley:
I agree that taxing cigarettes at ever higer rates has the appearance/effect of the government trying to curb smoking, but I think it's really due to the fact that as fewer people smoke, the state has to ramp up the rates to have the income streams they're projecting from sin taxes.
We can certainly agree to disagree on this. I want a drumstick--that is NOT negotiable.
Posted by: democommie | November 25, 2009 12:54 PM
Joseph Farrah is correct...history has proven over and over the Nation that forgets GOD will not survive. America will go down and the dumb liberals will never understand why. You Liberals can say and mock GOD and his Prophets all you want to but one things for sure; GOD is going to win this game and nothing you can do can stop him. He is ALPHA and OMEGA, the beginning and the end. You all will see and soon. You are going to be begging for the REAL KING, KING OF KINGS, to forgive you; but he is going to say "Depart from me, I never knew you". There is going to be a whole lot of groaning and begging but; so sad, too late. Laugh on you idiots. Your day is coming.
Posted by: Elaine | November 25, 2009 1:27 PM
Really, Elaine? Really?
How about three examples of this?
I love the smell of Christian love in the morning.
Posted by: Josh | November 25, 2009 1:31 PM
I can't wait until Science finds a cure for homosexuality. Then we won't have to listen to disgusting and repugnant pervert buttfvcks like Ed Brayton whine about being a filthy aberrant nanciboi.
Posted by: Atlas Collins | November 25, 2009 1:41 PM
"I can't wait until Science finds a cure for homosexuality. Then we won't have to listen to disgusting and repugnant pervert buttfvcks like Ed Brayton whine about being a filthy aberrant nanciboi."
Atlas:
How you do go on!
I can't wait till someone discovers the method for time travel and people can be sent back in time to ensure that someone with your degree of KKKristian lovingness can be protected from the real world by being sealed up in a nice latex condom.
Posted by: democommie | November 25, 2009 1:47 PM
"Atlas:
How you do go on!
I can't wait till someone discovers the method for time travel and people can be sent back in time to ensure that someone with your degree of KKKristian lovingness can be protected from the real world by being sealed up in a nice latex condom."
Hello disgusting homosexuall. Can you please show me where i made reference to " KKKristian(ity)"?
Thanks
Posted by: Atlas Collins | November 25, 2009 2:09 PM
"Hello disgusting homosexuall [sic]."
How very Christian of you.
Posted by: Jon Rowe | November 25, 2009 2:13 PM
"Homosexuall"? Sounds like a stereotypical gay cowboy. "I reckon that I'm a-lookin' for some homo-sex, y'all."
Posted by: Modusoperandi | November 25, 2009 2:24 PM
"Hello disgusting homosexuall. Can you please show me where i made reference to " KKKristian(ity)"?
Thanks"
You didn't have to fuckface, it's written all over you.
Posted by: democommie | November 25, 2009 2:26 PM
Let's set up a fund to create a Bible boot-camp where Mr. Farah can see what it would be like to live with Leviticus (not just the cherry-picked parts).
My guess is he wouldn't make it past the first day.
Posted by: Shay | November 25, 2009 2:31 PM
Say goodbye, Atlas Collins.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | November 25, 2009 2:32 PM
OK, who left the door unlocked at the asylum?
Elaine- "America will go down and the dumb liberals will never understand why. You Liberals can say and mock GOD".
It's a twofer, really. Watching a political party AND a religion burn itself to a crisp. I must say, I'm enjoying it immensely.
Posted by: Rick R | November 25, 2009 2:33 PM
Rick R,
Just make sure you don't get too close. The collateral damage can be a bitch.
Posted by: Shawn Smith | November 25, 2009 3:39 PM
I think this thread contains more dishonest, hateful, ignorant, idiotic, deluded people than I've ever encountered in any other blog post thread of Ed's.
It feels like Scotty messed up and beamed me over to Fred Phelp's church when all I wanted was him to beam over some fried kelp.
Posted by: Michael Heath | November 25, 2009 4:35 PM
"all I wanted was him to beam over some fried kelp."
All I wanted was an order of fried zucchini with some ranch dressing to dip it in. But then, I'm an elitist.
Posted by: Rick R | November 25, 2009 4:41 PM
Jesus Christ, what's with the recent spate of absolute morons bumping into this blog?? I'm not even talking exclusively about the trolls that have commented in this thread today; over the past week or so there have been a number of really stupid people commenting in multiple threads.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | November 25, 2009 4:42 PM
Atlas Collins is an asshole! I think even God can see that.
I agree with what Ed said to Heddle way back. The whole idea is individual rights. God gave Adam and Eve a choice. Though I do believe this is an allegory is still demonstrates a principle that most of these fundementalists cannot see.
Ed,
Use their own Bible against them and they will shut up.
Posted by: King of Ireland | November 25, 2009 4:48 PM
What I love about the blogs I read is that, occasionally you come across someone who nails an essential point in one sentence, where it might have taken paragraphs to try to get across the same idea yourself.
Copypasta, from Glen Davidson on Pharyngula-
"This country wouldn't exist without the belief that we don't need religion to make us be good."
Suck on that, hyperkristians.
Posted by: Rick R | November 25, 2009 4:48 PM
I find it truly amusing how homophobes use homosexuality as an insult. Yes, calling us gay is so upsetting, boo, hoo, hoo, whatever shall we do?
I know, we'll laugh at your pathetic, small-minded bigotry!
We could also suggest that the loudest and most annoying homophobes are probably denying their inner fag... ;o)
Posted by: dogmeatib | November 25, 2009 6:56 PM
Idiotic name-calling? That's all they got?
Not even a foot-long, quote soaked, evidence-free, one paragraph, randomly capitalised screed, devoid of logic, grammar and spelling?
I must say, I'm truly disappointed in Xtians. - DJ
Posted by: DingoJAck | November 25, 2009 7:17 PM
We could also suggest that the loudest and most annoying homophobes are probably denying their inner fag... ;o)
I'm absolutely convinced that this is the case. The ones who are most vocal against it are the most conflicted about their own sexuality. Ted Haggard Syndrome.
Posted by: Jeff Eyges | November 25, 2009 7:33 PM
Joseph Farrah is correct...history has proven over and over the Nation that forgets GOD will not survive.
Heh - again, that's why Western Europe has been flourishing these past few decades. But don't let facts get in the way.
Posted by: Jeff Eyges | November 25, 2009 7:34 PM
The article uses the same type of fallacy of logic that has become common place today, that of false dichotomy.
To condone is to put a stamp of approval on an act. To not condone means to not put a stamp of approval on it.
Not condoning does not require prohibiting. I don’t condone people putting nails in their noses, but I don’t think it needs to be prohibited.
The same is available to governments. Just because it’s not approved or condoned does not mean it needs to be prohibited.
Take away the rhetoric and the article is blank.
Posted by: Robert Miller | November 25, 2009 7:46 PM
"Take away the rhetoric and the
articleWND is blank."Fixed.
Posted by: Rick R | November 25, 2009 7:57 PM
"Take away the rhetoric and the
articleWND is as blank as a Fundie's mind."There fixed your fix Rick R. ;) - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | November 25, 2009 8:02 PM
I really can't figure out why so many people assume that because a band of crazy Muslims wants to take over and enslave the world, we should actually be worried that it's a real possibility.
Yes, if radical Islamic terror groups really did have the ability to sweep into Washington and take over, I'd definitely be considering it a high priority item. As it is, nuts like Farah have a much greater chance of instituting their policies here than nuts like Bin Laden do. Policies based on Farah's nuttiness may be slightly less disastrous, but they're also quite a bit more likely.
Posted by: Troublesome Frog | November 25, 2009 8:53 PM
Troublesome Frog- "I really can't figure out why so many people assume that because a band of crazy Muslims wants to take over and enslave the world, we should actually be worried that it's a real possibility."
I've even heard this from "Xian nation" wingnuts, used as an excuse for why the U.S. needs to be more christianized.
My response- "These are the choices?"
Posted by: Rick R | November 25, 2009 9:07 PM
ACTUALLY theocracy is not automatically bad. Yes I know the old "every Theocracy that now exists is a dictatorship" claim, and its wrong. Only one Theocracy actually exists in the world, and it isn't a Dictatorship. Its the Vatican.
The rest, like Iran, aren't Theocracies at all. A Theocracy is not, by the way, rule by religious leaders, but rule by God. It is a Form of Government in which God, or a god, is thought to directly govern the nation. Iran is ruled by Clerics who would find it against Ha-Islam to declare themselves Prophets, and go only by written tradition. This makes it an Eccleseocracy, not a Theocracy.
That said, the assumption that Theocracy is automatically tyrannical is itself patently absurd. Then again we assume that Democracy is automatically good, and Democracy is also automatically secular. It not.
What makes a Government good or bad is how free and prosperous its people are, and how much stirfe and tension are reduced, and happiness encouraged. Political systems are not automatically bad, including Theocracy.
That said, don't you think your misrepresenting Mr. Farah and his ideas? He didn't say all sin should be outlawed, he merely said that which is sin should not be condoned by the Government. There is a difference between withholding approval of an action, and criminalising it.
So when you mention all the sins that would have obe outlawed and the Orwellian means needed to ensure they aren't violated, your guilty of exaggerating Mr. Farah's position, which is remarkably unjust o you.
Not all sin can be made Criminal, nor does Farah, who is Libertarian last time I checked, want to impose such laws. He simply doesn't think the United States Government, or any state Government within the United States, should actively encourage support for Homosexuality, or any other sin, as he see's it as socially destructive.
This isn't the same thing as seeking to criminalise all sins.
Also, since Farah is a Christian, the Shellfish and mixed fabrics comments are not really valid, are they?
For a post on a site called "Science Blogs" in which we are told only evidence-based claims will be made, and in an environment in which we are told constantly how Scientists seek truth through objective means, I find it disturbing that you'd make such a blustering and incompetent post.
then again, studying Psychology and talking to many Scientists really just proves that its nonsense to think of Scientists as above the frey and seeking only objective truth based on altruism, and as being beyond petty ideological divisions. They aren't. Indeed, the recent Hacker whose spoils included the fact that Global Warming was largely coaxed into existence by...shall we say massaged Data, comes to mind.
I would ask you however to show some integrity and intellectual honesty, for this post against Mr. Farah is egregiously misrepresentitive of his actual views, and is reliant on old cobbler claims use don the net for years.
Posted by: Zar | November 25, 2009 10:42 PM
OgreMkV, I can't speak for who you know, but I know several Christian couples who have been married for several years. Some decades.
In fact, I know one couple who are celebrating their 64th Wedding Anniversary this year, and where married in, of all the horrible places, a Fundamental Baptist Church!
Most Active, practicing Christians I know don't tend to stay married for only two or three years, and the average is one marriage. Some have two, but of those some because of the death of a former spouse. Those who do divorce still constitute less than half of the Churchgoing couples I know.
In fact, both Pagan and Atheist couples tend to fair far, far less well in my experience, with the only reason for them having a lower divorce rate being that they don;t bother to get married in the first place.
So you'll have to forgive me for not taking your rather bizarre claim from personal experience as indicative of Christians in general.
In fact I find your numbers themselves bizzare. I mean, most couples ho married in Church lasted only two or three years? Most of them had three or so marriages? Thats beyond even the average American. Most marriages last 7 to 10 years, amongst the general population, and most people tend not to marry more than twice.
I strongly suspect that your statements are based mor ein fiction than in any reality you observed, designed to bolster an image you want to foist onto the world about how horribly corrupt Christians are.
Either that, or you live in an insular community, which functions differently than the vast majority of N. America.
Posted by: Zar | November 25, 2009 10:52 PM
EDIT: I meant, most Marriages that end in Divorce tend to last betwen 7 and ten years. Not most Marriages in general. Most Marriages do not actually end in Divorce. (And the statistic that says half do was cooked. Only about 25% do.)
So I don't really think your marriage claims are valid.
Posted by: Zar | November 25, 2009 10:54 PM
*head spinning*
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | November 25, 2009 10:56 PM
One last comment.
To the above posters who think Western Europe is in better shape than the USA, please read p on factual information. They rely totally on the Untied States to remain a viable economic power, have no military base to defend themselves and again rely on the United States, and ultimately where harder hit than the United States by the Economic Recession. America also has better Health Care, while this is mocked of course, better paying jobs, and a wider range of job selection. Americans also have a higher quality of life.
So Im not sure why you think Western Europe is doing better than America.
Posted by: Zar | November 25, 2009 11:03 PM
I didn't notice Sadie Morrison's comment, but woudl liek to ask why saying "Head spinning" is considered by you a reasoned responce?
What I said is true. The Vatican is the worlds only actual Theocracy, as it is the only Government on Earth though to be governed direclty by God. It i also not a Dictatorship.
So, actlign like what I said was obviously stupid, so stupid as ot leave toyou spinning, doens't really address anythign I've said, does it?
Please try to read the full post and actually comment on what I've actually said.
Posted by: Zar | November 25, 2009 11:08 PM
My Dear Zar,
As I have earlier in this thread:
a) Increased religiosity is correlated to lower levels of freedom, happiness and equality. Thus theocratic tendendencies are more likely to be harmful to a nation than helpful.
b) Homosexuality is not in any way immoral, being a natural state found in many animals, including humans.
c) There is no evidence that homosexuality per se is harmful to either indivuals or the nation. Therefore there is not productive to have anything but a neutral attitude toward it, legally. Besides which, it is the very essence of what America is supposed to be: a nation where there is 'equal treatment under the law', not 'one law for us, one law for them'. Denying a right granted to a majority of the population for no better reason that you find the thought of gay sex 'icky' is not justice or equality.
d) The only the people can decide what policies to follow in a democracy. Farah doesn't get veto rights on the rights of others because he finds the concept of homosexuality offensive. It doesn't work that way.
e) Since the only justification for Farah's position is Mosaic Law, then pointing out the hypocrisy of his cherry-picking through Leviticus is germane to the argument.
Finally, if your going to criticise Ed for not having any evidence (despite the evidence of Farah's own words), then how about you bring a modicum of evidence to back-up your reply? - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | November 25, 2009 11:10 PM
Zar wrote:
No. Look at what he said:
Making something a right means allowing someone to do it, which he calls even worse than condoning it. The only way to prevent people from having the right to engage in an action is to criminalize that action. I did not misrepresent him a bit.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | November 25, 2009 11:24 PM
" Only one Theocracy actually exists in the world, and it isn't a Dictatorship. Its the Vatican."
Was this supposed to support the proposition that theocracy isn't automatically bad? Wow. Argument Fail in the very first paragraph.
Also, what is it with fundies and the Random Capitalization of words?
Posted by: Leigh Williams | November 25, 2009 11:26 PM
Zar "That said, don't you think your misrepresenting Mr. Farah and his ideas? He didn't say all sin should be outlawed, he merely said that which is sin should not be condoned by the Government."
It's not criminalization, but specifically banning gay marriage (and, in some states, a wide variety of benefits to coupled homosexuals, from anything resembling civil unions all the way to adoption) is, what, considered "not condoning" now? I'm not a big fan of the general hyperbole on hot button issues, but the opposite, hypobole, seems just as bad.
"Indeed, the recent Hacker whose spoils included the fact that Global Warming was largely coaxed into existence by...shall we say massaged Data, comes to mind."
Uh. Huh. There's a page here on that if you want to weigh in.
"America also has better Health Care..."
...for those who can afford it...and pay twice as much per person as other developed countries for the same level of care...and don't get screwed by their insurance company...and don't...
Posted by: Modusoperandi | November 25, 2009 11:27 PM
My Daer Zar,
You really don't get out much do you?
Secular marriages tend to last slightly longer than religious one (by 2-3 years), although this is not considered significant, statistically.
Rates of divorce, spousal violence, teen pregnancy, STD prevalence and sexual assault/rape are higher in areas with stronger religiosity in the US*.
The economy of the EU area is growing faster than the US, and is around 7/8ths of the size. While the EU has been hit hard by the GFC the EU is in better shape than the moribund US economy.
BTW European states have militaries that are quite capable of defending themselves, if required. The extra back-up from the US, for free, is an added bonus.
The US healthcare system cost more per patient than any other heathcare system in the developed word, and delivers poorer patient outcomes. Of 15 recently reviewed healthcare systems from Europe, Canada, Australia and South America, the US ranked 15th.
America ranks at about 7th in quality of life surveys, behind places such as Norway, Sweden, The Netherlands, Australia and New Zealand.
Hope that helps - DJ
--------
* To be fair though such areas tend to be less White, poorer, more blue collar, have higher unemployment and so on.
Posted by: DingoJack | November 25, 2009 11:29 PM
I see the fundies have trotted out the 'anecdote=data' fallacy.
Fuck your experience, we want to see citations.
Posted by: Katharine | November 25, 2009 11:54 PM
Zar, there is no way to make a "reasoned response" to your posts, which are frankly so garbled (both with regards to content and spelling) that I honestly can't discern what you're trying to say. My head is truly spinning.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | November 25, 2009 11:54 PM
Also, I see they seem to have forgotten the definition of theocracy, which is by definition rule by religious leaders since as yet there is no proof for any sort of deity. It's rule by people who think their imaginary friend dictates things.
Zar, you're an anencephalic cretin. Come back when you have facts.
Posted by: Katharine | November 25, 2009 11:56 PM
Here's what they seem to be doing: they're saying something so absurd that it threatens to shift everyone's Overton window.
Zar is so far out in right field that he is pulling the whole blackwhite gimmick.
Posted by: Katharine | November 25, 2009 11:57 PM
I wonder how many atheists or pagans Zar actually knows. Probably zero.
Posted by: Katharine | November 26, 2009 12:01 AM
Katharine "I see the fundies have trotted out the 'anecdote=data' fallacy. Fuck your experience, we want to see citations."
To be fair, Zar's anecdotes were a reply to OgreMkV's ones.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | November 26, 2009 12:10 AM
Katherine - No, no, I'm sure he'll trot back in here declaring that: 'some of my best friends are atheists. Heck, I even grant the favor of letting 'em in to use the bathroom! (Before getting the maid to scrub it out with industrial-grade bleach & a toothbrush)' - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | November 26, 2009 12:11 AM
On the one hand, "Zar" is the tradename for a line of pretty decent finishing products both solvent and water based.
On the other hand, "Zar" is the nom de blog for a nitwit who thinks that stringing together sentences full of non-sequitirs and nonsense will somehow (alchemically) turn them into a coherent philosophy.
The Vatican IS a theocracy. It is for fucking damned sure a dictatorship.
Posted by: democommie | November 26, 2009 7:46 AM
Just, for the record: any nation that prohibits the use of birth control to all but married couples is at least a de facto dictatorship.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | November 26, 2009 8:39 AM
Sorry for the misplaced comma after "Just."
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | November 26, 2009 8:41 AM
Sadie Morrison:
Which nation are we speaking of that prohibits the use of birth control for all but married couples? Not the Vatican, surely. They prohibit birth control except by the "rhythm method" for which my mother (and several of eleven siblings) apparently had a "tin ear".
Posted by: democommie | November 26, 2009 9:25 AM
How does one claim to be a Libertarian and propose to live by laws that no one has ever been able to live by? It says clearly that the law was given to show us our sin. In other words, God knows we cannot keep the law. Mr.Farah is swallowing a camel as he strains out his nats. Libertarian my ass.
Posted by: King of Ireland | November 26, 2009 10:39 AM
I think fundies think Europe has the same function as do the fossils - to test their faith.
Posted by: Jeff Eyges | November 26, 2009 12:01 PM
Elaine:
Typical nonsense. You capitalize random words, issue threats to atheists, make sweeping claims without even the slightest ounce of evidence, and then end it by boasting about how you will "laugh" when your beloved deity descends. Are we talking about Zeus, Allah, a member of the Greek Pantheon, etc...?
Religious individuals have been making sweeping claims about the return of their favored deity for decades. They want fear to dictate all of our beliefs.
Posted by: Matt | November 28, 2009 3:42 AM
Matt- Religious individuals have been making sweeping claims about the return of their favored deity for
decadesmillenia.Fixed.
Posted by: Rick R | November 28, 2009 6:08 AM
Matt's comment - referred to the wonderfully condensed piece of nonsense* here (if you dare) - DJ
-------
* No, Ed in this case, not in the sense of being the personification of pure evil à la Time Bandits
Posted by: DingoJack | November 28, 2009 6:39 AM
Zar,
I live in the U.K. If I'm ill, I go to a doctor, maybe get referred to a specialist at my choice of hospital. No sweat, no danger of bankruptcy. If the U.S. doesn't pull its finger out its ass, in 20 years' time if your kids get ill you better hope their Chinese boss is in the market for a mistress, capice?
Posted by: Irenaeus | November 29, 2009 8:34 PM