Pharyngula

Posted by: Eileen | August 15, 2010 9:29 AM

LOL I love the on-screen text -- because in case your brain can't retain batshit, we'll put it in point form for you.

At least it's not in comic sans, eh?

Posted by: candace.columbia | August 15, 2010 9:29 AM

No one expects the inquisition.

Posted by: Armand K. | August 15, 2010 9:32 AM

Please tell me he's joking!

Whoever wants to see Catholic governments in action, and how great they are for the people, needs only look at the Europe's history over the last millenium --- up to and including today's Poland and (almost) Italy.

Who was it that said, "History never teaches anything except that we learn nothing from history", or something along these lines?

Posted by: heff.myopenid.com | August 15, 2010 9:34 AM

That has to be a Poe. Since when are Catholics against public education? On the other hand, Hitler was Catholic, so I guess they know what a Catholic dictatorship looks like.

Posted by: Null | August 15, 2010 9:40 AM

Is this actually real, and not some sort of over-the-top poe? This guy is actually suggesting that we revert to the dark ages? Because that worked soooo well the first time around.

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | August 15, 2010 9:44 AM

I think if you browse through his other offerings, you'll discover he has to have been a remarkably consistent and sustained poe. Looks like the real thing: he is a True Catholic.

But he acts so much like a parody! The OTT melodramatic style, for one thing... and most religious wingnuts aren't honest enough to admit publicly that they want to institute an elite theocracy. (At the moment they tend to take the opposite tack, accusing "liberal activist judges" of "overturning the will of the people".)

Admittedly, though, Piltdown Man expressed similar views, in apparent total sincerity. (And Piltdown was quite a bit more articulate than this guy.)

Posted by: maglione.k | August 15, 2010 9:46 AM

We had a Catholic dictatorship once. It was called the Dark Ages, oddly enough.

Posted by: Nancy New | August 15, 2010 9:48 AM

Now let's all join in a rousing chorus of "The Vatican Rag!"

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 15, 2010 9:51 AM

On the other hand, Hitler was Catholic, so I guess they know what a Catholic dictatorship looks like.

So faily.

Godwin so early in the thread and logical fallacies to boot.

Posted by: Legion | August 15, 2010 9:58 AM

Fear not Pharyngula, Legion can see the Vatican from our house.

Should a catholic monarchy ever rear it's ugly head, Legion's army of unemployed demons stands ready to fight for truth, justice and free bacon for all.

Posted by: duckphup | August 15, 2010 10:01 AM

Re: Lynne @ 18...

I wonder if Mr. Walsh offers instruction to priests on how to reverently and appropriately bugger little boys?

Ahem... Louis CK learns about the Catholic Church

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 15, 2010 10:03 AM

I wonder if this idiot has ever heard of Francisco Franco or Benito Mussolini, or is aware that all of the recent theocratic governments have turned their respective countries into literal hellholes where people are treated as living rubbish?

I guess not.

If he has, I doubt he'd care because those weren't True Catholic theocracies™ .

Posted by: hesspartacus | August 15, 2010 10:07 AM

Now what does this clip remind me of?

Ah yes, that's right, Iran.

Posted by: dfarmer1584 | August 15, 2010 10:09 AM

Hello all. This is my first comment after years of "faithfully" lurking here; and I can't say positively why I chose this time to comment for the first time when I've passed on countless many compelling topics before; other than perhaps because this video is so chilling: Is this guy-- the video narrator--anything like his historic brethren...they who burned us? Burned us alive. For thinking. Is that what they looked like? Chilling.

Below is the comment I left on the video at youtube ("comment pending approval" of course, which is a huge red flag as to the video's sincerity. Scary), and the comment contains a request I want to repeat here:

"This cannot be real. This message must be parody. Please tell me that this video is parody. PLEASE.

For the sake of all that flourishes in light, please tell me I am correct in assessing that this video must be a parody. PLEASE."

I repeat my plea: Please. This cannot be real. Is it?

Chilling.

Posted by: blf | August 15, 2010 10:12 AM

If he has, I doubt he'd care because those weren't True Catholic theocraciesmonarchies or democracies™.

“Fixed”, as per last quote in @20.

Posted by: Kirk | August 15, 2010 10:17 AM

Is the blue spiral background thing an attempt at hypnotism? Or is that just a standard catholic background motif?

Posted by: Insightful Ape | August 15, 2010 10:19 AM

To be fair, Hitler did not set up a catholic theocracy. But "benign" catholic monarchies this guy seems to desire have indeed existed, in the distant as well as recent past. Just ask the French how wonderful life under Louis XVI was, or the Spaniards what it was like under Franco, not to mention Tomas de Torquemada.
But the closing ad was the nicest: go help them deliver these messages that need to be heard!

Posted by: Insightful Ape | August 15, 2010 10:26 AM

I almost forgot.
Robert Mugabe is catholic. He should fulfill the definition of "benign" catholic monarch.

Posted by: Andyo | August 15, 2010 10:34 AM

Holy shit that letter is scary spot-on with the way the catholic congregation I used to hang out with think. From what people in my country are telling me, they've grown horrendously fast in the last years, aiming their sights at young people, preferably with money. They get a lot of donations. Holy fucking shit! Last I knew they were not even seen as a mainstream congregation, more like a fringe group, but possibly because the Opus Dei were just jealous that they were being out-catholic'ed.

Posted by: Crommunist | August 15, 2010 10:42 AM

Comment that will undoubtedly not make it through moderation:

"I think we should take it one step further. Look at Africa - those people don't know WHAT they're doing. Black people shouldn't be allowed to vote either. Or women - St. Paul was very clear that women are inferior to men. They can't vote either. We need to put in place a system to measure people's righteousness - I suggest some kind of trial. Or maybe we can drown people who are suspected of non-righteousness. If they survive, they are clearly witches and should be burned.

GREAT VIDEO!"

Posted by: PrometheusUnchained | August 15, 2010 10:48 AM

Is that the same Jim Walsh who wrote "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Being a Dick"?

Posted by: Pris | August 15, 2010 10:51 AM

This sentence:

Thank Him for allowing Him to come into your body.

Cracked me up.

It also sounds kind of dirty.

Posted by: Swarm God | August 15, 2010 10:58 AM

This is a bit of a particular focus, but what is the deal with calling atheists "adolescents"? It seems to be popping up a lot.

Posted by: False Prophet | August 15, 2010 11:04 AM

Let's see, under the Catholic monarchs of Europe, ca. 600 - 1600:

-The quality of life for the average peasant improved not one iota.

-Much of the learning of Greco-Roman civilization was lost, not to be recovered until the Crusades when the knowledge that had been kept by Jews and Muslims was rediscovered.

-That knowledge which was preserved by the Church (in monasteries, etc.) was not exploited.

-Under the pagan Romans, Europe was free of war for long periods of time (not that I recommend the method of keeping stability). Under the Catholic Church, Catholic monarchs warred with each other constantly.

-Catholic monarchs proved not to have any special immunity to greed, corruption or incompetence compared with Protestant, Orthodox, Muslim or any other monarchs.

And moving right along into the modern age:

-The vast majority of Western Catholics don't even adhere to most Church doctrine. Most can't even articulate it.

-Some of those Catholics who actually investigate the history and theology of the Church end up turning away from it (like me!).

-The leadership of the Church can't even discipline or control its own clergy who violate the Church's own moral code (as well as secular law); why should we expect it to be able to run society at large?

Posted by: duckphup | August 15, 2010 11:10 AM

Re: Pris @ #45

This sentence:

Thank Him for allowing Him to come into your body.

Cracked me up.

It also sounds kind of dirty.

Yeah... kind of dirty. I wonder if it's considered impolite to inquire as to which bodily orifice was used.

Posted by: refrigeratorjesus | August 15, 2010 11:12 AM

"Comment pending approval"

Of course. Why would he let other people publicly point out his obvious false dichotomy and flawed reasoning when he can shush you and go on pretending he's actually some hot shit political genius.

Posted by: raven | August 15, 2010 11:18 AM

There are some theories of history that link the rise of the Catholic church to the fall of the Roman empire.

They are clearly correlated in time. I haven't read enough history to know if this is correct or not. It is certainly not what they taught in school, not that they actually taught anything like real history.

At the core, Catholism is primitive superstition. The whole transubstantion of bread and wine into real flesh and blood of a god is just magic by another name. Supposedly, only the priests can do this, which makes them magicians with special powers.

It would be more impressive if they could turn people into frogs or rocks into hamburger or something more useful.

Posted by: KG | August 15, 2010 11:20 AM

This is bog-standard Catholic fascism, as was seen extensively in Europe between the world wars and in WW2. He may well be right that Catholic doctrine is incompatible with democracy - certainly Pius IX thought so when he issued his syllabus errorum in 1864. Fortunately, most actual Catholics pay very little attention to Catholic doctrine - but I'm sure the hierarchy are just waiting their chance to reimpose their dictatorship on the rest of us.

Posted by: blf | August 15, 2010 11:31 AM

I started wondering what the S.T.B. meant. Stupid That Burns?

It's probably Sacrae Theologiae Baccalaureus (Bachelor of Sacred Theology). Never head of it. The Pffft! of All Knowledge isn't too informative, but does give an example three-year course. This class stood out (third year, second semester):

TE 2393 Eucharist.

Ninety minutes, every week. Discussing a cracker. For a whole fecking semester.

Posted by: KG | August 15, 2010 11:36 AM

There are some theories of history that link the rise of the Catholic church to the fall of the Roman empire.

They are clearly correlated in time. I haven't read enough history to know if this is correct or not.

- raven

I'd have to say not. The basic cause (and let's remember it was only the Western Roman Empire that fell in the 5th century CE) was probably a shift in the balance of population and armament between the Romans and their "barbarian" enemies. The Germans increased greatly in number over the preceding centuries due to new agricultural techniques, while the Romans suffered serious disease outbreaks in the 2nd and 3rd centuries CE (possibly measles and smallpox travelling along the trade routes from the east - of course these could have been divine punishment from the Olympians for the spread of Christianity!), and cavalry became much more important relative to infantry due to new techniques and equipment. After the battle of Adrianople in 378, where the Gothic cavalry annihilated a large Roman army and killed the Emperor, the Empire could only keep going by hiring barbarian generals and troops to fight for it. Most were willing enough to enlist if paid sufficiently, but only the Eastern Empire was rich enough. The feudal system can be seen as a solution to the problem of how a relatively poor, peasant-based west European state could support sufficient cavalry to resist nomad invasions.

Posted by: Moggie | August 15, 2010 11:55 AM

You've got to admit, he's got the bible on his side. Where is the biblical support for democracy? Nowhere. Plenty in there about kings, benevolent or otherwise, but not even Jebus sees fit to suggest that ordinary people should be able to elect their rulers. No True Christian™ should support democracy.

I was amused that he opened with the complaint that the uninformed have the right to vote. Religiosity is negatively correlated with educational level, at least in the society in which he's speaking: the more informed someone is, the less likely they are to be religious. A better-informed electorate would increasingly reject his brand of primitive superstition.

Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip | August 15, 2010 11:57 AM

@Null #11: It'll work even better with nukes!

Posted by: Squiddhartha | August 15, 2010 12:00 PM

"After all, isn't that the way the universe works?"

No. No, it isn't.

Arrrrrrrrgh...

Posted by: ladyh42 | August 15, 2010 12:07 PM

I hate to say this, but it's not only Catholics who think this. My ex partner, who is atheist and was completely serious, suggested much the same thing when talking about how people should be governed. However his idea was to build a super-special benevolent computer that would only give people what they needed, and would rule with perfect justice because it was a computer and wouldn't have humanity's limitations. I laughed at the time, but he was completely convinced that it would work. Just my proof that you don't need to be religious to be an authoritarian :P This man also wanted to return to an era of 'Father knows best' Why I didn't run away at the time I will never know.

Posted by: irenedelse | August 15, 2010 12:16 PM

Wow! This Jim Walsh letter sure brings back memories! I was raised a Catholic and we did learn very early to always be respecful in churches, even outside Mass: speak softly, don't run or gesticulate, genuflect in front of the altar... And even the "don't chew the communion wafer as if it was a piece of biscuit"!

But, er, the thing about "physical presence" of Christ in the Host, for one reason or another, even my sincere Roman Catholic parents were not happy with that one. They basically told us that it was something the Church told and people believed, and that we must do as if it was true... Whatever the truth was.

And it's those little things that make a young believer wonder, planting the seed of doubt into her mind.

Posted by: AlisonS | August 15, 2010 12:26 PM

I can't imagine anything more self-absorbed, and ignorant than believing there is someone out there in the ether who gives a crap about you personally.
It is pure childish wishful thinking.

Quebec survived the Duplessis era of Catholic domination, subjugation of women and serious abuses of orphaned children. It is not something anyone in their right mind would want to return to.

Posted by: natural cynic | August 15, 2010 12:31 PM

Not Holy Shit, Wholly Shit.

@Moggie #63: Who gets to decide about who is an informed voter? Your score on the Catechism test, of course.

Posted by: futuremonkey | August 15, 2010 12:33 PM

It sounded better in the original Arabic.

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | August 15, 2010 12:41 PM

I hate to say this, but it's not only Catholics who think this. My ex partner, who is atheist and was completely serious, suggested much the same thing when talking about how people should be governed.

Of course. No one likes democracy. I don't like democracy. Hell, just yesterday I encountered at least a half-dozen people who shouldn't be trusted to decide whether to purchase a sausage vs. bacon McMuffin let alone the governance of their [ahem] peers. Winston Churchill once said, "No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

No one should like democracy. (On good days, I myself favour a specialised form of governance I like to call a Browniocracy. On bad days I think the Earth should be cleansed with fire.) But only the brain-dead and 19-year-old political science students—or is that redundant?—should ever actually campaign against it.

Posted by: rippingrich | August 15, 2010 12:44 PM

Holy fuck, can you believe he said all that with a straight face.

I wonder how does he propose paying for this monarchy? In little boys?

Tell me how many abuse victims NEEDED a priests dick up there asses...

Posted by: Physicalist | August 15, 2010 12:46 PM

Wow, I would have sworn that was a poe, but no.

Here's a bit of irony, though. Mr. pro-dictatorship railing against the arch-bishop's liberal teachings, and staging protests against the decisions of the church authorities.

This guy really hasn't thought it through, has he?

Posted by: KG | August 15, 2010 12:48 PM

There are some theories of history that link the rise of the Catholic church to the fall of the Roman empire.

They are clearly correlated in time. I haven't read enough history to know if this is correct or not.

- raven

I'd have to say not. The basic cause (and let's remember it was only the Western Roman Empire that fell in the 5th century CE) was probably a shift in the balance of population and armament between the Romans and their "barbarian" enemies. The Germans increased greatly in number over the preceding centuries due to new agricultural techniques, while the Romans suffered serious disease outbreaks in the 2nd and 3rd centuries CE (possibly measles and smallpox travelling along the trade routes from the east - of course these could have been divine punishment from the Olympians for the spread of Christianity!), and cavalry became much more important relative to infantry due to new techniques and equipment. After the battle of Adrianople in 378, where the Gothic cavalry annihilated a large Roman army and killed the Emperor, the Empire could only keep going by hiring barbarian generals and troops to fight for it. Most were willing enough to enlist if paid sufficiently, but only the Eastern Empire was rich enough. The feudal system can be seen as a solution to the problem of how a relatively poor, peasant-based west European state could support sufficient cavalry to resist nomad invasions.

Posted by: otrame | August 15, 2010 12:52 PM

Somehow I don't think my comment will get through.

"Anyone who thinks likes this is evil. Anyone who disables Like or DIslike' is a coward.

Why would you want to be ruled by evil cowards?"

Posted by: shaxanth27 | August 15, 2010 12:55 PM

After posting:
"The only protection against evil?
The Catholic church is an embodiment of evil!"

I got:
"Comment will be posted pending approval"

When I tried, a few minutes later, to post:
"Perhaps it's time for Mel Gibson to run for office"

I got: "You have been blocked by this user"

So I flagged his video for "Disgusting Content"

Am I in trouble with Youtube?
Am I going to hel?

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | August 15, 2010 12:58 PM

Quebec survived the Duplessis era of Catholic domination, subjugation of women and serious abuses of orphaned children. It is not something anyone in their right mind would want to return to.

La Grande Noirceur? Anti-union legislation, corruption, vote-fixing? Clearly, many in their Right minds look back on such times with wistful fondness. Those of us who like to keep what brains we have Left, on the other hand...

Posted by: Dave Dell | August 15, 2010 1:08 PM

However his idea was to build a super-special benevolent computer that would only give people what they needed, and would rule with perfect justice because it was a computer and wouldn't have humanity's limitations.

Sounds like ladyh42 had an ex that read Richard Brautigan's All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace

I like to think (and the sooner the better!) of a cybernetic meadow where mammels and computers live together in mutually programming harmony like pure water touching clear sky.

I like to think
(right now, please!)
of a cybernetic forest
filled with pines and electronics
where deer stroll peacefully
past computers
as if they were flowers
with spinning blossoms.

I like to think
(it has to be!)
of a cybernetic ecology
where we are free of our labors
and joined back to nature,
returned to our mammal
brothers and sisters,
and all watched over
by machines of loving grace.

Posted by: waldteufel | August 15, 2010 1:10 PM

Commenter @ #84 had better hope that the test he prays for does not include testing for grammar or spelling abilities.

Posted by: Legion | August 15, 2010 1:20 PM

I don't think Christ began his sermon on the mount with a joke.

Jesus: "blah blah blah ...The Aristocrats!"

Posted by: Robert H | August 15, 2010 1:23 PM

Is it just me or does the frenzy and frequency of these people's madness appear to be rising?

One of the difficulties of the Internet is that it tends to be a reverse-filter for this type of crazy; we are more readily exposed to the Truly Weird than ever before. It used to be you had to go down to the street corner and wait for somebody to come out with his/her soapbox. Now you just come to a site like Pharyngula and the creme de la creme is presented, gratis or turn on the radio and play spin the dial. I realize "they" do it as well; how else would they have found out that we godless liberals are plotting to take over the world and fluoridate their water? (To say nothing of inserting atheist chromosomes into their sperm as they sleep).

Is there an actual increase in their madness and that madness's frequency?

If so is it driven by a feedback process where by being exposed to someone else's delusions they feel emboldened to up the ante and out-paranoid the others?

Do they sense the difficulties our culture is experiencing and look for a millennialist solution?

I must confess to a certain degree of apprehension and am wondering if I am just self-selecting the mess or if the reality is as bleak as it seems.

Posted by: Slotos | August 15, 2010 1:33 PM

So good people are the ones that submit themselves to society without even thinking of their personal gain? I think I saw that somewhere…

Posted by: presbyope | August 15, 2010 1:38 PM

The way he says, celebrate the decision to have sex with another man, sounds like he doesn't want to celebrate. Sex without celebration is like church without goofy dresses -- lame.

Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip | August 15, 2010 1:50 PM

@Googlemess #102: The problem with putting restriction on who can vote is that those restrictions will be designed by the same people who will benefit from very...selective criteria. Poll taxes and literacy tests have been tried in the United States; they prevented those most harmed by existing policies from voting on those policies. Today, felons are often not allowed to vote, even after serving their sentence. Since racial minorities are more likely to be found guilty of crimes, for whatever reason, this restriction imparts a racial bias in elections.

Allowing everyone to vote seems like a terrible idea, but the alternatives have turned out to be worse. However, I agree that the brainless vitriol spewed at you was ludicrously over the top.

Posted by: dhanes | August 15, 2010 2:02 PM

omigoodness. Have been lurking for a while; finally had to sign up to comment.

WTF?! I tried to 'Unlike It' in Stumble on the originating site, but it hadn't been 'Liked' yet, so had to 'Like It' and then add it to humour and satire....

Posted by: shonny | August 15, 2010 2:05 PM

Didn't see anything about legalising clerical paedophilia, a time-honoured catholic tradition.
Thankfully, catlickers are restricted to mainly doing what they are best at around here, catlicking, because nobody give them much leeway.
As to Pope Herr HitlerJugend Ratzi, this would be right down his alley!

Posted by: OnePumpChump | August 15, 2010 2:12 PM

He's right about some things...unscrupulous people exploiting the ignorant via things like a false sense of liberty...but then he misses the point on that, listing off a bunch of things he thinks ought not be allowed rather than looking at how choices are constrained.

And then there's the fact that his religion is, historically, one of the grandest examples of unscrupulous people exploiting ignorance. (And it's presently a pretty respectable one, too.)

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkMeAAyLWcCyk_BQXcHl2OxQtgREvf43ts | August 15, 2010 2:20 PM

"If you want to be a stand-up comic go on Saturday Night Life."

Speaking of which, Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead.

Posted by: seanielsen | August 15, 2010 2:21 PM

I was subsequently censored and then banned from his YouTube channel for making the following comment on his video:
"Theocratic Catholic Dictatorship? Seriously? And don't tell me it wouldn't be a dictatorship as history reveals otherwise. Goodbye science, jews and children's innocence... the Catholics are taking over!"
Does this in any way reveal how a Catholic run Government would turn out? Censorship, banishment, a familiar bell rung throughout the history of human kind.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkVcYxpRewG3dRLl0BbunxBgthpYiH2KYo | August 15, 2010 2:24 PM

@KG thank you for your polite, intelligent reply. Amazing how your genious arguments actually refuted everything I argued for.
Idiot.
How about telling me, what's wrong instead of throwing around insults?

Posted by: KG | August 15, 2010 2:29 PM

Here, we're gravitating more and more toward a two-party-system, although we still have some larger third parties.

No you're not, fuckwit. The two major parties' share of the vote has been falling pretty consistently since the 1970s. See here. So you'd fail your own test, and serve you fucking well right.

Posted by: KG | August 15, 2010 2:34 PM

How about telling me, what's wrong instead of throwing around insults?

I have, fuckwit, you're just unable to read. The system would inevitably be used for political purposes - few parties will resist trying to fix the criteria to their own advantage. Those excluded would feel bitter and resentful, and would have every right to do so. And I'd be there beside them, along with all democrats.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkVcYxpRewG3dRLl0BbunxBgthpYiH2KYo | August 15, 2010 2:42 PM

@KG that just makes it important to find a way, that the control over the test is not determined by the ruling party. I'm not a political scientist, and I have no idea how to do that, but it doesn't seem so hard to me. Maybe I'm wrong, but you haven't really convinced me. Maybe it's the fact, that you seem to suffer from tourette syndrome.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkVcYxpRewG3dRLl0BbunxBgthpYiH2KYo | August 15, 2010 2:46 PM

@history punk: Thank you! Someone willing to argue the matter in a civil way.
Also, that you're on my side is a nice bonus ;-)

Posted by: Moggie | August 15, 2010 2:49 PM

#124:

Seriously, the same literacy test administered to high school students for the purposes of earning a diploma can become the next literacy test. Make it an online exam and mandate it's retaking every 10 years and upon first registering. Yes, the ill-informed, illiterate, and alliterate, and generally lazy will be screened out, but so be it.

You misused an apostrophe there.

Posted by: KG | August 15, 2010 2:55 PM

googlemess fascist,

So you're unable to read a graph as well. Colour me unsurprised. the CDU vote share peaked at 48.8% in 1983. It then fell at every election until 2002, when it rose slighty. It has since fallen in two successive elections to its lowest value since 1949. The SPD vote peaked at 45.8% in 1975. At only three elections sicne then has its vote-share risen - one of them only marginally. even before last year, its vote had fallen to 34.2% and last year it was 23.0%. In other words, the truth is the exact opposite of what you have been claiming.

You complain, rightly, about distortions in the media. That would suggest to a rational person, action to prevent or counter such distortion - not robbing people of their democratic rights.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkVcYxpRewG3dRLl0BbunxBgthpYiH2KYo | August 15, 2010 2:58 PM

@KG ok, I didn't even look closer at the graph, you're right. Must have been something in your style of arguing that hasn't convinced me of investigating your insults further. I acknowledge I was wrong concerning the development in that aspect, I was arguing from what I seemed to observe in the last couple of years.

However, that still doesn't really challenge my principle idea, does it?

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkVcYxpRewG3dRLl0BbunxBgthpYiH2KYo | August 15, 2010 3:00 PM

shaxanth27: That's also not a bad idea ^^

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkVcYxpRewG3dRLl0BbunxBgthpYiH2KYo | August 15, 2010 3:09 PM

@KG See? That's how you argue!

@rprcvl Hmmm... I'm a bit more optimistic concerning that, but I guess you're right, the danger is definitely there And if you put it that way, I don't think I'd be willing to risk that...

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkVcYxpRewG3dRLl0BbunxBgthpYiH2KYo | August 15, 2010 3:19 PM

@Janine: OK, first of all can you please stop calling me fascist? I#ve already been convinced of the flaws, and of course I absolutely want to distance myself from that tancredo guy.
I'm not a racist, I'm not a fascist, I'm not opposed to immigration. I'm much more left-wing than right.

Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM | August 15, 2010 3:30 PM

I had to laugh at Micheal Voris claiming the educated people will vote against that which will destroy civilization, LGBT marriage and abortions. Never mind that there is no prove that these issues are destroying civilization. (I will put my money on the battles over energy and resources combined with the degrading of the environment.)

But even more funny, during the time of Catholic monarchies in western Europe, roughly from the sixth to fifteenth centuries CE, most of the subjects under these ideal systems were illiterate and uneducated. Methinks that his idea of education is very different from what most of us think. His 'education' is the ability to regurgitate what bishops decree as explained by the (usually) illiterate parish priests. For most of us, an education builds the ability of critical thinking and provides the facts that can be used as out tools.

I think Micheal Voris is using English but has his own (Catholic) definition of what the words means.

Posted by: McCthulhu is taking ∞ to eat all the pi | August 15, 2010 3:32 PM

Okaaaaaay...I'm guessing that when Voris was raped by his priest as a youth that the priest popped his brain, because his brain is definitely in his ass.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/tL1MkU0ghY0gNMrxrvSjJFsEYJYQ0ZIPjQ--#5f870 | August 15, 2010 3:35 PM

...you shouldn't be surprised PZ. Just read Margaret Atwood: The Handmaid's Tale -- and keep your passport up to date.

What’s “God” got to do with religion? Nothing.
There are no "religions" only religious institutions

• Religions as institutions have two components, one imaginary and one real

1. their faith-based mythological and cultic claims — an imaginary supernatural component
2. their demands to exercise secular power — a illegitimate political component

As far as possible we should be indifferent to unprovable faith claims — we should attack secular pretensions

God has been dead since Copernicus. But, 460 years later we’re still stuck with religious institutions. They do exist, in disgusting abundance. Sincere believers do not realize that religions are Ponzi schemes perpetrated by “clerics". Priest and pastor, Pope and Supreme Ayatollah, bishop and imam are not God’s or Allah’s proxies. These fraudsters are entirely political ideologues making claims to secular power founded on utterly false supernatural claims.

Search on the word ‘Dominionism’ and you will see how many in Congress plan to overthrow the Republic to set up a "theocracy." They'll be funded by corporations.

How long do think that major transnational corporations like BP (which are quasi-empires) will put up with crap from a mere POTUS -- our demi-god President of theUS?

Their lobbyists can easily finance a coup at only pennies on the profit dollar. BP alone could completely subvert Congress in an afternoon.

the anti-supernaturalist

Posted by: Kristjan Wager | August 15, 2010 3:49 PM

OK, first of all can you please stop calling me fascist? I#ve already been convinced of the flaws, and of course I absolutely want to distance myself from that tancredo guy.

You were arguing against the basic principles of democracy, wanting to limit the right to vote to a specific block of people - this is commonly considered fascists.

So, while you might not be an actual fascist, you definitely have fascist leanings. Or are extremely naive and stupid (and thus one of the very people you would keep from voting).

BTW interesting emphasis on education - this would of course have an disproportional affect on immigrants and refugees, who often don't have an education before coming to their new home countries.

Posted by: McCthulhu is taking ∞ to eat all the pi | August 15, 2010 3:54 PM

duckphup #23: That video is freakin' priceless. Over the top for sure, but absolutely worth diverting away from the thread. The letter was signed by "THE POPE" so it must be true!

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/7IW3Q_E3tsKloSlnYxkYxNayMxiHG7hu.xyaWoTqcg--#e7f3e | August 15, 2010 4:05 PM

Googlemess *******,

IIRC, it was in Philosophy 4A where we studied Plato's Republic. Plato confronts the same questions that this thread is discussing. The contortions that he has to go through to ensure that the enlightened leader retains a philosophical and civic purity in order to govern justly are hinted at here. In the end, there is no satisfactory solution.

We do the best we can with what we've got. Perhaps Churchill's observation cited above is our best guide.

plumberbob

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkVcYxpRewG3dRLl0BbunxBgthpYiH2KYo | August 15, 2010 4:09 PM

#149 Yes, I've already been convinced, that the theory is problematic and flawed. I just still object to being called fascist.

Posted by: history punk | August 15, 2010 4:14 PM

You were arguing against the basic principles of democracy, wanting to limit the right to vote to a specific block of people - this is commonly considered fascists.

First off, we already limit voting in democracies. Children do not vote. The committed insane rarely vote. Felons do not vote. The unregistered do not vote.

Second, I am not aware of a fascist regime that allowed voting of any kind after taking power. I know Germany didn't after 33. Italy after Benito secured his reign. The Ustasha movement certainly did not and neither did any of Hitler's Balkan quisling allies. The closest thing to a fascist dictator allowing vote is Milosevic, but he never really all that fascist, so I am not sure he counts.

Third, given the commonly accepted definition of fascism, as opposed to the tea-bagger or lunatic left definitions of the word, explain how expecting voters to know the same knowledge to vote as they were expected to know to graduate high school is fascist.

Fourth, I actually know very little about local governance. I have no idea who my city councilman is, or who my state reps are, and so forth. Under my system, I'd be banned from voting in local elections. I, a white man with all privileges/conspiracy theory nonsense that unsuccessful minorities use to explain their personal failings, would not be allowed to vote because I lack adequate knowledge of local politics. Again, using the commonly accepted definition of fascism, as opposed to the tea-bagger or lunatic left definitions of the word, explain how that is fascist.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkVcYxpRewG3dRLl0BbunxBgthpYiH2KYo | August 15, 2010 4:22 PM

@Vicky: Again, I've seen the error of my ways, it is not possible to install a test in practice in an objective, secure way. I got that, ok?
And I can't believe that is necessary, but NO, I do NOT want to elect a new people. Holy shit, you guys seem to really read a lot of stuff into my idea, that was never be supposed to be there :-/

Posted by: Andrew Hall | August 15, 2010 4:30 PM

OK, is this a joke? Even evil Mormons know how to play the public with propaganda.

http://laughinginpurgatory.blogspot.com/2010/08/what-we-can-learn-from-mormons.html

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkBSMeADPoPaKK-z3uWENxvLgXZ_yotY-I | August 15, 2010 5:01 PM

The funny thing is...

I actually currently live in a system that is best described as a 'benevolent dictatorhip'. Which in this case, so far, actually works. Better then where I used to live, which was, and is, a true democracy.

The countries around include two theocratic democracies, a kingdom and a true democracy. Beyond any doubt, the country that works is this one. Some people may be unhappy aout how it works, but it actually working is beyond any doubt.

Now I would be the first to oppose any state based on religion, but a benevolent dictatorship can actually be a good thing. It's very hard to pull off though..

Posted by: Marco | August 15, 2010 5:12 PM

In post #5, Armand K. wrote:

Who was it that said, "History never teaches anything except that we learn nothing from history", or something along these lines?

That was Aldous Huxley, in "A Case of Voluntary Ignorance" ("Collected Essays", 1956).

The full quote (which opens the essay):

That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all lessons that history has to teach.

Posted by: Ichthyic | August 15, 2010 5:22 PM

The question is where are you going to find utterly dispassionate individuals to write the tests, administer them, grade them, report on the grades, give people whatever documentation they need to vote.

ya know, this whole railing against the idea of a basic education being related to the right to vote smacks of hypocrisy.

one, our society basically requires all children in the US to get at least a high school education.

two, you can't vote until you're 18.

those two things combined, right there, if properly enforced, basically already DO mean that those who vote should have a basic education.

so where are you going to find individuals to administer tests?

we already do this; just not at a polling station.

sorry, but I don't find the idea of requiring education for suffrage to be a radical one at all, since most countries I can think of essentially have that system in place already.

I find railing against the idea in principle to be almost humorous.

Posted by: Doktor Zoom | August 15, 2010 5:28 PM

Sorry, when I see this guy's name, all I can think is that it should be "Michael Vore-ish" (link NSFW).

Posted by: history punk | August 15, 2010 5:33 PM

Wow, do you really believe that? Why instead of prohibiting others to vote, you follow your own advice and not vote in the next election?

I already turn in blank ballots. I only do that much because of the dumb-dumbs who think that voting matters and will bleat that "if you don't vote, you can't complain."

The question is where are you going to find utterly dispassionate individuals to write the tests, administer them, grade them, report on the grades, give people whatever documentation they need to vote.

This is a doodle of a problem since millions of high school students already do something similar with little hassle. Seriously, make it a multiple choice test and a computer can do it. Have a drone sit in during the testing and videotape the test being taken all will be fine. Seriously, millions of college, high school, and even middle students do similar shit every year with little drama.

Posted by: Miranda Celeste Hale | August 15, 2010 5:42 PM

Oh for fuck's sake: his "St. Michael's Media" is a tax-exempt charitable organization!

Posted by: history punk | August 15, 2010 5:44 PM

but there are very good reasons why the U.S. Constitution now forbids any sort of literacy test for voting.

The 24th amendment (I presume that is what you are referencing)bans poll taxes. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 restricts the use of literacy tests, but that is a law, not an amendment, a restriction, not a ban.

I also like to point out that naturalized Americans are generally required to take a literacy test before becoming citizens and thus gaining the right to vote.

I hardly see what is so fascist or unfair about making people who became American citizens the baby way submit to something similar.

Posted by: Birger Johansson | August 15, 2010 5:56 PM

Presumably, an ideal society should be set up like a Catholic version of Alphaville :) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0058898/

Posted by: Ichthyic | August 15, 2010 6:09 PM

Helen Keller fangirl

??

Posted by: mercury613 | August 15, 2010 6:13 PM

Those who look at god *are* staring in the mirror; they are simply too brainwashed to realize it.

Posted by: BeyondKen | August 15, 2010 6:27 PM

We have already created a "Catholic dictatorship". It was called the Republic of Vietnam. 58,148 Americans died in the process.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | August 15, 2010 6:32 PM

Googlemess #148

And I can't believe that is necessary, but NO, I do NOT want to elect a new people. Holy shit, you guys seem to really read a lot of stuff into my idea, that was never be supposed to be there :-/

The problem is we've seen "literacy tests" in the US. They were used for decades to keep Blacks and other untermenschen from voting. That's what we were reading into your idea.

Posted by: Moggie | August 15, 2010 6:36 PM

#168:

did you never see "Idiocracy"?

There must be a documentary with that title, because surely you wouldn't cite a comedy as evidence?

Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies | August 15, 2010 6:43 PM

Ichthyic:

the US is defacto a country that requires its citizens to have a certain level of education to be able to vote.

Which would be a great point, except the US isn't very good at educating anyone.

In 2003, 14% of adults had below basic literacy skills, while 29% only had enough skills to perform "basic literary activities". (National Assessment of Adult Literacy)

Posted by: Robert H | August 15, 2010 6:47 PM

Voris seems blithely ignorant of the history of Catholicism in this country and the reasons behind why so many colonies had laws on their books restricting the rights of Catholics. I would (kinda sorta) love to see the reaction of the fundamentalist Protestants if and when they get a glimpse of this video. It would play perfectly into their hatred of Hispanic immigrants, the vast majority of whom are also Catholic. If I were an agent provocateur I couldn't have done a better job of stirring up hatred of Catholics amongst a group already noted for hating just about everything and everybody.

Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM | August 15, 2010 6:50 PM

Posted by: history punk| August 15, 2010 6:30 PM

Wow, history punk, you sure pulled that mis-aimed insult out of you puckered little asshole. Just one of the many reasons why many people here dismiss you.

Nobody likes you. Geez, like I don't hear that like ten fucking times a day at one of my jobs. But like I tell my kids, first off, lots of people like me, particularly those responsible for my employment. Second, whether people like me or not has no bearing on the correctness of what I say or do. Third, you lied when you said nobody likes me, lies mean lunch detention.

So much condensed stupidity. First, I said that "many people here dismiss you", not that "no one likes you". Damn, you cannot even comprehend what you quote.

Second, I know nothing about you in meat space and said nothing about it. I do not care if you are handsome, smart, charming and the life of every party you attend. On this blog and others, like Dispatches From The Culture Wars, you come off as an idiot. And I will stand by my statement that many of the regulars refrain from interacting with you.

Third, the reason I dislike you is because you post foolish shit.

Fourth, "you lied when you said nobody likes you". How did I lie when I said no such thing. Refer to my first comment.

Fuck you.

Posted by: nikephorius | August 15, 2010 6:53 PM

Hey could Voris be breaking the terms of his organisations charitable status? Hello IRS?
It seems he is advocating overthrow of the political system of the USA. Hello FBI?

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | August 15, 2010 6:59 PM

What's a Helen Keller Fangirl? How can I become one?

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | August 15, 2010 7:08 PM

But, but, . . I long to be a HKFG. I shall now force my best friend to dress in a frumpy bustle and wear excessively large spectacles while I call him "teacher" and wiggle my fingers in the palms of strangers I pass on the street.

Posted by: Robert H | August 15, 2010 7:24 PM

How does one go about educating all the populace in this society? It never was done historically and is virtually impossible based on the state of the culture at this time. Although we claim a high literacy rate (99%) functional literacy is significantly lower, often pegged at between 65% and 85% of the population. Couple that with the indication that 40% of college graduates never read another book after they graduate and we are presented with a bleak picture of America. With this knowledge what type of filter is to be devised to determine who votes? I would rather see mass suffrage in this country, in spite of its inherent risks, than rule by the aristos, or (gagging as he types) a Catholic (or any other religionist) theocrat. All forms of government are flawed; the question arises as to which set of flaws will afford the greatest level of freedom.

Posted by: dfarmer1584 | August 15, 2010 7:33 PM

@169:

Oh for fuck's sake: his "St. Michael's Media" is a tax-exempt charitable organization!

Now THAT is interesting. I am certainly not a US tax attorney thus I can only speak as an informed layman; however I do know as a matter of fact that when an organization seeks and accepts a tax exemption under 501(c)3, that organization is making specific declarations about the nature of the organization, and the organization is accepting several restrictions on the organizations activities. Based on my humble layman’s understanding of the tax code it seems to me that publicly advocating for the complete overthrow of our Republic by installing a narrow sectarian theocratic dictatorship, while, at the very same time requesting 501(c)3 tax exempt donations to “help spread (that) important message” is a complete deal breaker.

I am not a litigious person by nature….but damn (face-palm)--This guy and his group get a tax exemption to assist their crusade? Really.

Something ought to be done about that.

Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom | August 15, 2010 7:40 PM

Re: Idiocracy

It's suggestive, AND funny.

why not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dysgenics

Because the only evidence on the matter is against it?

Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies | August 15, 2010 7:52 PM

Ichthyic:

The US has become a failure as a democracy, IMO, in large part BECAUSE of the failure to educate its citizens properly.

Oh. I think we're on the same page, then.

Posted by: Miranda Celeste Hale | August 15, 2010 8:08 PM

More on the tax-exempt status thing: their tax records can be found here (at the bottom of the page). The organization claims that its main purpose is: "Educating individuals about the Catholic faith and organizing people to help in charitable endeavors." Riiiiiight.

Posted by: Ichthyic | August 15, 2010 8:17 PM

....as a "real world" example, do you think the reason that the US is composed of 40% creationists, and essentially has been since gallup started taking poll data on the issue, has more to do with biology, or culture?

I'm gonna go with the latter.

...and the science supports me on that:

http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~deenasw/Assets/bloom&weisberg%20science.pdf

Posted by: Muskiet | August 15, 2010 8:22 PM

Hey... didn't we try that kind of civilization before?
Wait... what did they call it?... "The dark ages"?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 15, 2010 8:48 PM

Oh wow, HKFG? Talk about your obscure references. But maybe that is as clear as History Punk gets. I put him in the same class as SS. Here to shake things up more than persuade us with evidence.

Posted by: fbudinichd | August 15, 2010 8:57 PM

We should denounce their videos as religious based hate speech.

We can say that he is discriminating against protestants, and let them battle it out :-p

Posted by: Nick | August 15, 2010 9:09 PM

I bet Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani loves living in a country run by religious extremists. Different bottle, same vinegar.
Given that the Holy Babble is rife with stonings, smitings and sundry nasties, I take it that this buffoons ideal of a Catholic-ran society would soon have the hangmen fully employed. It did last time they were at the helm.

Posted by: Nebula99 | August 15, 2010 9:16 PM

Okay, just watched the video and now I'm scared. So I sent the fascists a PM:

I just watched one of your videos: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3A-cWrs5mwE& . I wanted to point out the flaws in your plan to deny people their right to vote, the philosophical and moral problems with dictatorship, your baseless slander of everyone who disagrees with you, or at least the homophobic bigotry so casually spewing from your lips. I wanted to respond in the comments, but you censored your comments. I wanted to respond with the like/dislike voting, but you censored that too. I see that you are already trying to put your dictatorship into action by preventing an actual conversation.

You know what, I was going to be polite and reasonable in this PM. But forget it: you are the worst bunch of homophobic dictatorial America-hating censorship-advocating free-speech-blocking disgraces to the Catholic church I have had the misfortune to be linked to in a long time.

How do you live with yourselves?

Posted by: dfarmer1584 | August 15, 2010 9:56 PM

@205

Thank you. That was a very helpful link.

I am going to make some more inquiries about the tax issue and then perhaps notify the proper regulating authorities. I don’t know what or if anything can be done about this issue, a tax code exploitation that seems to me to be an outrage. Further, if some legal action can be taken I am not confident that I am the proper person to do it. However, the 501(c)(3) status of this organization smells very, very wrong. And it offends me; so I’ll pursue the issue a little bit in the simple capacity of a concerned tax paying citizen.

If anyone reading this has more experience or expertise than I do in bringing scoundrel tax cheats to justice, well, please, go get ‘em!

(It really just blows my mind: “Please help overthrow the Republic by contributing your tax-exempt donations today!” Seriously?)

Posted by: Ichthyic | August 15, 2010 10:04 PM

Is someone actually arguing that the fact that we have outlawed literacy tests because they were used as part of systematic racial discrimination and oppression means that the laws against them aren't important?

*looks*

no.

Posted by: satansnickerelastic | August 15, 2010 10:24 PM

[ Nogbert ]

For what it's worth I've just posted a short comment on another of Voldemort's ridiculous videos.

Some conspiracy about Obama secretly plotting to divide the Catholic church.

My riposte if only . Comment Pending Approval!

I don't think I'll wait. It's 3:20 am here and I'm of to beddy byes.

Posted by: Raye | August 15, 2010 10:33 PM

@ladyh42 #69 - Your ex proposed the plot of the game Fallout 3. It's fiction of course, but uh, yeah, didn't work out so well...

Posted by: DK Fennell | August 15, 2010 10:57 PM

Here's some of those benevolent Catholic monarchs he was talking about:

Leopold II of Belgium -- enforced slave labor; killed about 15 million people in Congo, but sent Catholic missionaries

Ferdinand II of Aragon -- whose edict of expulsion of 1492 expelled Jews on pain of death; established Spanish Inquisition

Louis XIV of France -- revoked Edict of Nantes, required children to be raised Catholics resulting in civil war and exile of 180,000 Huguenots

Charles Emmanuel II of Savoy: ordered massacre of Waldenses (including women and children by smashing skulls and impaling) as heretics

Philip IV of Spain -- extended Christian "hospitality" for much of the 17th Century to the new world natives who worked silver and gold mines in South America for his Christian comfort

Ferdinand II of Austria -- conducted the Catholic crusade against protestantism and other "heretics" during the 30 Years War, the greatest devastation of Europe before the 20th Century

This doesn't even include the ones who weren't royal (i.e., technically monarchs), like Franco, Mussolini, Ngo Dinh Diem, Catherine de' Medici, and the numerous Popes Dante place in various circles of hell.

Posted by: Usagichan | August 16, 2010 1:15 AM

From my perspective, the point about democracy is not the element of choice of leadership, but the facility to remove an undesirable leadership. The choices available is almost always unpalatable (if they haven't already sold their allegiance to various 'Special Interest' groups upon their election, they will have shortly afterwards); however the threat of electoral retribution acts as a curb to the most unpalatable excesses - this is not always the case (especially where the leadership is confident of hoodwinking a majority of its population), but when the truth finally does out, the facility to change leaderships remains.

Of all the forms of Government that are not in the umbrella 'Democracy' classification, Theocracies strike me as the most frightening, as they espouse an arbitrary set of moral standards designed to suppress and eliminate difference. This I think eliminates (or at least very much reduces) the possibility of a 'Benign Theocracy' - Religious government seems to me to be harmful by design.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkBSMeADPoPaKK-z3uWENxvLgXZ_yotY-I | August 16, 2010 5:01 AM

@Janine: Singapore actually. Officially it's a democracy but, not really. It is more of a technocracy, actually. And in all honesty this country does work pretty well.

Mind you, I'm not saying this is the best solution. It is however, one that does work. In this particular case at least.

Posted by: Miki Z | August 16, 2010 5:45 AM

Ashoka seems to have run a benevolent theocracy by dictatorship, which evolved into several non-benevolent theocratic systems not long after his death. I can't think of any religious group, as a group, actually maintaining their benevolence after obtaining power.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkVcYxpRewG3dRLl0BbunxBgthpYiH2KYo | August 16, 2010 6:21 AM

@KG I've already noticed that, and his comments about "conspiracy theory" concerning underachieving minorities seems to point towards an explanation, why. Sound pretty right-wing to me, which - again - I am not.
However, that should make you even more think about the fact, that someone considered being "regarded with contempt" and a "ignorant bigot" actually seemed way more reasonable and civil than your insult-throwing ass. Actually, as long as you don't get down from your fucking high horse, *snorting* and calling me fascist, he still seems way more intelligent than you are.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkVcYxpRewG3dRLl0BbunxBgthpYiH2KYo | August 16, 2010 6:48 AM

@John Morales: "Because civility is such a clear indicator of intelligence. :)"

It is not, but KG has done nothing to advance the discussion. He has continually insulted me, distracting me from the actual flaws.

OTHERS have made me aware of the fact, that literacy tests have been used to systematically exclude certain groups of the population from voting.
I did not know that.

OTHERS have pointed out, that such a test could be abused in such a way, which I would have considered a small danger before.
I've been convinced by people arguing in a calm and rational manner.
KG hasn't helped the slightest bit. All he's done is acting like a jackass.

Posted by: John Morales | August 16, 2010 7:19 AM

Googlemess id=AItOawkVcYxpRewG3dRLl0BbunxBgthpYiH2KYo:

@John Morales: "Because civility is such a clear indicator of intelligence. :)"

It is not, but KG has done nothing to advance the discussion. He has continually insulted me, distracting me from the actual flaws.

Indeed, it is not. But that was the specific reason you gave for your supposition.

KG hasn't helped the slightest bit. All he's done is acting like a jackass.

Your consideration that KG is somehow obligated to pander to your expectations is quaint, but unjustified.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 16, 2010 7:20 AM

He has continually insulted me, distracting me from the actual flaws.

I've been convinced by people arguing in a calm and rational manner.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkVcYxpRewG3dRLl0BbunxBgthpYiH2KYo | August 16, 2010 7:43 AM

@Nerd of Redhead: "That just shows how utterly fucking stupid you are.", "You're a fascistic arsehole.", "fuckwit".
Is it so surprising, that that kind of tone does not lead me to even consider his viewpoint?

"We are convinced by folks using real evidence and cogency, along with non-bigotry, rather than tone."
So am I. However, he didn't present any evidence (except concerning the development of the voting results in germany, which has not much to do with the point I was making).
Somehow, others seemed to be able to point out the flaws in my argument WITHOUT throwing insults around.

"That makes you a wimp"
Why? Because I don't like being insulted? Who does?

"You failed on all accounts." Yes, thank you. We already reached that conclusion.
As I pointed out a dozend times already, you have convinced me.

Just tell me, what else I'm supposed to do to make clear, that I was not arguing from any fascistic principles? Maybe that's different in the states, but considering our history, in germany it's not a small thing being called a fascist.
So again: It was a utopian idea, trying to fix something which I see as a problem in our country, which has turned out to be impractical in practice. I still don't see how that makes me a deserving target of fascist-accusations and insults.

Posted by: Andyo | August 16, 2010 7:54 AM

I believe only atheist members of the NAS should be able to run for president.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 16, 2010 8:10 AM

It was a utopian idea

"That just shows how utterly fucking stupid you are.", "You're a fascistic arsehole.", "fuckwit".

Somehow, others seemed to be able to point out the flaws in my argument WITHOUT throwing insults around.

Because I don't like being insulted? Who does?

Posted by: Andyo | August 16, 2010 8:23 AM

John thanks.

I guess in Spanish we don't call them "pastores", or maybe that's just my country. Or maybe I just didn't pay enough attention, since my congregation didn't have their own chapel or church.

Posted by: John Morales | August 16, 2010 8:34 AM

Andyo, I guess it's deprecated because it's so obvious in Spanish, but, still: Pastor (ministro religioso).

(That said, I don't recall hearing the terms other than as 'shepherd' when I was living in Spain).

Posted by: Ray Moscow | August 16, 2010 8:36 AM

Ignatius Reilly lives!

Posted by: KG | August 16, 2010 8:54 AM

googlemess fascist,
I most certainly did not! (Complain about Nerd, that is.)

Look, people who want to rob others of their democratic rights make me bloody angry. I couldn't give a shit whether you're a real fascist, or just a fascistic idiot.

If your stupid proposal resulted in a lot of people losing their votes then it would (a) distort election results and (b) create a mass of disaffected people. If it only disenfranchises a few, then it's pointless. That's quite apart from the massive potential for political manipulation, the financial costs, and the way it distracts attention from the real problems of political ignorance and misinformation.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkVcYxpRewG3dRLl0BbunxBgthpYiH2KYo | August 16, 2010 9:15 AM

Ok, @KG i didn't mean you were complainig about Nerd. I meant YOU were the one throwing insults, and the above quotes didn't come from nerd, but from you.

And now to clarify things: I didn't want to rob anyone of their right to vote. I didn't want to install a literacy test to exclude people from voting, my idea was to install such a test to make people first look at the rough ideals and goals of the available partys. I wasn't even thinking of a high-school-equivalent test, it wasn't supposed to be hard in any way. What I was thinking was a test equivalent to the (german, I don't know how things are in the states) theoretical driver's license test, where you're provided with all the necessary material beforehand and then do an easy multiple-choice-test where it's impossible to fail unless you're simply to lazy to read.

Unfortunately, I seem to have pinched a nerve here, because I wasn't aware of the historical connotations of such tests. I simply didn't know better, and I'm sorry if I came across like a fascist who wants to disenfranchise people, that was never my intention.

The right way to counter my arguments - as was done by some - would have been to make me aware of those facts. I now realise the problems with that and as a result I have changed my mind.

KG on the other hand went straight to insults and ad-hominem attacks, which did of course accomplish nothing except pissing me off. And THAT's what I'm criticising. I'm not a crank who's impossible to convince. I am a rational person, easily to be convinced by rational arguments, which I think I made clear by repeatedly pointing out, that I in fact changed my mind already.

Do I make myself clear now?

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkVcYxpRewG3dRLl0BbunxBgthpYiH2KYo | August 16, 2010 9:36 AM

@KG Obviously you know my intentions better than I do.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkVcYxpRewG3dRLl0BbunxBgthpYiH2KYo | August 16, 2010 9:43 AM

@Bjarne: Yes. Again, I've already been convinced of the flaws. And again: I didn't want to discriminate against dumb people, I just wanted to ensure, that people know who they're voting for. That that idea is impractical is obvious to me now, too.

Posted by: Robert H | August 16, 2010 10:02 AM

A pastor is a parish priest, in Catholic terminology.
(That is, a shepherd. Parishioners are the sheep.)

And shepherds keep sheep to eat them or to fleece them.

Posted by: Flapjack | August 16, 2010 11:07 AM

On reflection, I've given it some thought and I now welcome Michael Voris's 'benevolent Catholic dictatorship' concept.
How else could we justify the 'benevolent bloody revolution of the downtrodden masses' which would naturally follow, during which his head may or may not end up on a spike?

Posted by: btj | August 16, 2010 11:49 AM

To accentuate the positive, his understanding of religion's role in government is more accurate than that of our US Religious Right, who somehow imagine that their Constitutional Rights came from the bible. Quite the opposite.

Last I checked, Jeebus was coming back to establish a monarchy, not a constitutional democracy. And the penalty for dissent is fairly severe (eternal damnation). So, if you actually believe this foolishness, it's a small step to think, "Why not set up this system now, with 'godly men' standing in until JC gets back?"

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/K2PNji0at.txAjzTShOlxwLuFcVVFwbnng--#bd813 | August 16, 2010 12:27 PM

The real trouble with literacy tests as used in the US South was that it was subjective. 'To the satisfaction of the examiner.' You can guess how hard it was to satisfy the examiner
I can remember from my childhood seeing our local school principal( an election official) showing an elderly black man how to use a voting machine. This was in a small south east Texas town, before the civil rights era.

Posted by: John Scanlon FCD | August 16, 2010 12:35 PM

I remember the 'literacy test for voting' coming up here a couple of years back, and was astonished then (the tone!!!) at the emotional response from many USAians. Like here, e.g. the Nerd:

No, it was bigoted idea. Once you chose any item to disenfranchise people, anything can be on the table. Being German, being black, or watching Faux news. Anyone with half a mind could see that. And bigots hide behind your "utopian" idea all the time. To avoid looking like a bigot.

Well fuck that sideways with a rusty chainsaw. You live in a country where minors, felons, homeless, and "illegal" (officially tolerated sub-minimum-wage-slave) immigrants already don't get to vote. You can lose the vote in many states for puffing on a joint. However long or short you make that list, you are talking bullshit. If you're concerned about racial/religious discrimination... well, isn't there something already in the law about that? It's orthogonal to literacy.

Ichthyic was the one talking the most sense on the question, and I agree with all his points. But just for the hell of it, maybe some party over there really should push for a literacy test, so we (non- and ex-USians) can all point and laugh at the fuckwits who'd then start screaming about 'fascism'.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkVcYxpRewG3dRLl0BbunxBgthpYiH2KYo | August 16, 2010 12:42 PM

@KG oh, and if you hadn't started spewing insults, I probably would have looked closer at the graph the first time. However, a reply covered in "fucks" naturally doesn't get much of my attention.

Posted by: Bjarne | August 16, 2010 12:51 PM

@Googlemess

The two major partys are not the main problem, it was an error on my part, that seemed to illustrate the actual problem, which is that most people here seem to vote without knowing anything about the party they're voting for.

And it is still a very common opinion here, that voting for a third party "doesn't accomplish anything", as they only get into parliament in a coalition with one of the bigger partys anyway.

Posted by: KG | August 16, 2010 12:53 PM

googlemess idiot,

You confirm your idiocy. First, only an idiot is so concerned with tone they ignore content. If you're going to stay here stop whining about tone. All it will get you is justified contempt. Second, you didn't have to look at it closely. It's completely fucking obvious at first glance. I don't believe you looked at it at all until I described it in detail.

Posted by: Tom Coward | August 16, 2010 1:09 PM

"Adding comments has been disabled for this video. "

COWARD!!

Could this guy be an Edward Current wannabe? If not, check under his bed for a well thumbed copy of Mein Kampf, as he seems to have taken more than a few pages out of the Hitlerian playbook.

(Sorry if this sounds like a manifestation of Godwin's law, but in this guy's case I think there are some really remarkable parallels.)

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 16, 2010 1:39 PM

I see Googlemess can't put up, but can't shut up. Guess what Googlemess, you confirm your liar and bullshitter status with every post.

'Tis better to keep your mouth shut and have folks think of you as dumb, than to open it and prove them right beyond a shadow of a doubt.'

Posted by: DK Fennell | August 16, 2010 2:07 PM

Here's what America's deepest thinker said about monarchies and religion:

Monarchies, aristocracies, and religions are all based upon that large defect in your race—the individual's distrust of his neighbor, and his desire, for safety's or comfort's sake, to stand well in his neighbor's eye. These institutions will always remain, and always flourish, and always oppress you, affront you, and degrade you, because you will always be and remain slaves of minorities. There was never a country where the majority of the people were in their secret hearts loyal to any of these institutions

--Mark Twain, The Mysterious Stranger, Chapter 9.

Posted by: David Marjanović | August 16, 2010 6:39 PM

Man. What a stunning demonstration of Poe's Law.

Is the blue spiral background thing an attempt at hypnotism? Or is that just a standard catholic background motif?

It's not the latter. And it doesn't work as the former...

They seem to do best where they're ruling a country with a lot of internal tensions. Probably because people find a "strong leader" less unpleasant than the turmoil that proceeded them. Tito might be a good example of this, in Yugoslavia. As we all know, things went quite badly after his death.

Titostalgia is indeed a flourishing industry. Millions of people would like to have him back. But... that thing with the internal tensions... you see, instead of trying to resolve them, he just put a lid on them without removing the kettle from the fire. It was an article of faith that all problems between the nationalities had been resolved in the best possible way; heresy landed you in jail. Soon after Tito was dead, the kettle exploded.

President Kagame of Rwanda is a current example, maybe, (for extremely flexible definitions of benevolant!). He claims to be a democrat: time will tell.

Time has told. The good man was just reelected with 92.4 % because police officers went into the polling places before the election, took the ballot boxes away, and returned them stuffed. Kagame is just another kleptocrat.

The difference is that it's not his own country he's plundering! It's the More or Less Democratic Republic of Congo, where kleptocracy has a long, proud tradition.

As an ex-catholic, Michael Voris, let me say very quickly that you are the _most_ delusional catholic I've ever seen, and that your delusion has made you suggest treason.

Just think on that.

Are you yet another American who believes it's treason to suggest that the big-C Constitution should be amended?

Because those people give me SIWOTI syndrome.

That said, if he's serious, Voris will gladly and knowingly commit treason whenever he thinks he should. "Thou shalt obey God more than men", it is written. :-| If you accuse him of treason, all he's going to say is "yes, and?".

BP alone could completely subvert Congress in an afternoon.

If it were that easy, they'd have done it long ago...

First off, we already limit voting in democracies. Children do not vote. The committed insane rarely vote. Felons do not vote. The unregistered do not vote.

Whether felons are allowed to vote differs between countries (and, IIRC, even between US states), and in many countries you are registered simply by virtue of being a citizen over the required age.

Some conspiracy about Obama secretly plotting to divide the Catholic church.

ROTFL! The Pope is doing that all on his own. He doesn't need help, and Obama is probably smart enough to know that, assuming he cares at all (which is not likely).

From my perspective, the point about democracy is not the element of choice of leadership, but the facility to remove an undesirable leadership.

Cannot be said often enough.

Benevolent theocracies on the other hand...can anyone come up with an example of one? Anywhere? Any time? Bonus points if it's an actual Catholic theocracy but I'll settle for any at all.

The Holy Experiment – Paraguay under the Jesuits.

Maybe one of the more enlightened medieval Islamic governments?

None of them was theocratic enough.

Posted by: Robert H | August 16, 2010 7:20 PM

Wouldn't subverting Congress be a bit of a redundancy, or are there levels of corruption? I look upon corruption like pregnancy: either you are or you aren't; there's no grey area.

Posted by: Robert H | August 16, 2010 7:43 PM

It's like Bingo: the first person to be corrupted in five categories wins!

Posted by: dxv515 | August 17, 2010 2:23 AM

ha ha ha ha

have at it!

Roman Catholic Imperialist

Dante Alighieri wanted the world to be governed by Universal Monarchy - The Holy Roman Emperor.

Aristotle wrote that the best form of government is Universal Monarchy.

All of you that post on this site are no where near the intellectual capacity of these two men. Yet you know better than Dante & Aristotle. Ha ha... Most all of you are not capable of governing your life accordingly, so what makes any of you think you know how to govern the world properly? You don't know.

All of you have been brainwashed into thinking that modern democracy is the best form of governing the world. Clue for you clueless... Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini & George W. were not Monarchs they were all democratically elected. Hey, what form of government is occupying Afghanistan at the moment? Monarchy? No, it is modern democracy. Most of you are clueless in governing your personal lives let alone discerning how the world should be governed. Am I too harsh? Yeah right how many of you are ex-Catholics? Yeah again you know better than the parents that raised you as Catholics.

Hey one last question does man evolved intellectual? Cause I'm pretty sure that the way that evolution is supposed to work would mean that most of you should be 10 times smarter than Dante Alighieri and Aristotle...ha ha ha ha...

So hey if you want to attack A Roman Catholic Imperialist using all your intellectual strength & scientific might then make a visit.. BTW none of you will win as Dante has said it is written in the stars...

Posted by: Miki Z | August 17, 2010 2:49 AM

Oh man. With Dante as our opponent, we might as well just give up in despair lest we end up like Branca Doria. That would be a fate worse than obscurity!

Posted by: Bjarne | August 17, 2010 7:17 AM

Lets see, what does Dante and Aristotle have in common? Well, they are both dead and buried.

Posted by: Robert H | August 17, 2010 4:54 PM

johnnie-gray @291

Why should the plebiscite have been held in VietNam? You ask this in retrospect, knowing what we now know about the consequences of preventing it? 2,000,000 dead VietNamese, 55,000 dead Americans, the incineration of $750 billion (adjusted for inflation) of our capital, the loss of Cambodia (and another 500,000+ humans) and the rise of Pol Pot (with perhaps another 1.5 million people), a deeply divided nation that still hasn't recovered (nor does it look like it shall), Richard Nixon-shall I go on? The war was immoral, illegal, and a complete disaster. We accomplished none of our goals after expending capital and blood. There were no dominoes! We didn't save South East Asia from the Communist Menace. If nothing we empowered our enemies. Remember we used to call Afghanistan Russia's VietNam? Or do you think that we gained something worth the lives of almost 5 million humans? Pray, tell me what that might be.

Elections either are free or they are not; the fact that a Communist would have been freely elected was unpalatable to the US so we disavowed any necessity of having the mandated elections by July of 1956. So much for democracy. We weren't able to thwart Allende's election in Chile so we had him assassinated by our stooges and a brutal military dictatorship put in the stead of the government that the Chilean people chose. So much for democracy.

I can't answer whether or not a freely-elected communist VietNam would have respected the religious rights of the Catholics and neither can you. I can tell you, however, that Buddhism, by far the dominant religion of South VietNam, was bloodily repressed by Diem (whose brother happened to be the arch-bishop), as was, to a lesser extent, Cao Dai.

You suggest that since we didn't know what the Communists would have done we were justified in acting the way we did, even though our actions led to the same consequences you are concerned would have happened had we not acted in the first place. I can't imagine a worse outcome would have occurred had the elections been permitted and strong reason to believe it would have been orders of magnitude less brutal. Our ability as humans, to justify any atrocity, is stunning but your seeming to be so devoid of logic or empathy in the face of such butchery is unnerving to me.

You want to fuck the UN? Are you striving to appear that childish or is it just your natural tendencies rising to the surface?

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 17, 2010 5:17 PM

Clue for you clueless... Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini & George W. were not Monarchs they were all democratically elected.

um...

Posted by: Robert H | August 17, 2010 7:46 PM

Hey, don't knock basket-weaving! And the degree probably wouldn't be a BA, it would be a BFA. Gotta get this stuff right!

Posted by: Ichthyic | August 18, 2010 2:25 AM

Correct me if I'm wrong but the East Timor referendum involved the people of East Timor, not the people of East Timor + the people of Indonesia, whereas the Vietnamese elections would have involved the people of both North and South Vietnam. See the difference?

nope, it involved riot gangs from Indonesia trying to influence the vote.

You aren't familiar with this, or with the role the UN played?

Maybe they did the right thing there. Fuck 'em anyway.

oh, nevermind, you're just an ass.

got it.

Posted by: Joe Bloe | August 18, 2010 8:39 AM

The original video is no longer available to the general public but it has been uploaded here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSnJi6SpzLo

Posted by: Robert H | August 19, 2010 3:16 PM

Out of curiosity, as an armchair general...
Forgive me, I never meant to imply you were an armchair general.
Sorry for being less than clear: I'm not an armchair general. Whereas you (at least to me) appear to be one.

You can't assure a victory. But perhaps the US could have learned from the British tactics against the Communist insurgency in Malaya.

There are very few real similarities between the British in Malaya and the US in VietNam. Malaya's conflict was more akin to Sri Lanka's struggle against the Tamil Tigers. In both cases the insurgency was driven by ethnic divisions (the vast majority of the Communists in Malaya being ethnic Chinese), with the minority party resorting to violent means to attempt to gain their political objectives. In both cases the insurgency failed, ultimately because of a lack of widespread popular support. VietNam's struggle was more akin to a civil war; a case of course could be made for it being a proxy war but without the support of either the Communist bloc or the US the VietMinh would have been victorious. This victory would have been rapid and far less bloody than the carnage that ensued because of our involvement.

BTW Ho Chi Minh reckoned the US made a fatal error in getting rid of Diem.
He couldn't believe we would be so stupid.

You rue the loss of Cambodia and Laos. You argue that it is two too many. I am not a great fan of Communism so we share common ground in that area but I am not a supporter of monarchies either, and both Cambodia and Laos were in fact monarchies. Were I to have to choose I would be hard-pressed (I don't much care for "lesser of two evils" arguments). Your attitude toward governance is antithetical to mine. In the end I would rather be involved in a participatory government than one that ruled by ukase.

I don't really care if the Communists would have won by fair means or foul. Stopping them winning was what mattered.

This is way too Machiavellian for my tastes. Every atrocity committed by humanity can be shielded by the belief that the ends justify the means. This includes 9/11, Lockerbie, Tim McVeigh and so on. I won't get into this point other than to say that in my eyes it robs your arguments of any possible moral authority; it is the hallmark of fanaticism.

Buddhism was too deeply entrenched to be overcome by his (diem's) hamfisted tactics.

Entrenched, as in Buddhism being in VetNam for as long as Christianity has been in Rome? That kind of entrenched? I wonder what you mean by "overcome" here? As if it were an inimical threat, by use of force? Overcome by persuasion? Converted to your belief system?

Forced conversion is only ever justifiable in self-defense.

Perhaps it's my lack of imagination but I fail to see how forced conversion can ever be a means of self-defense. Perhaps you're just yanking the proverbial chain...

1) Did you serve in VietNam?

No sir. I don't pretend to be a military man.

2) Are you catholic?

Yep. I'm also Catholic.

3) At what point does a people have the right to determine for themselves the form of governance under which they will live?

Good question... As a general principle, ultimate authority comes from God.

The Law of God overrules the laws of men.

An immoral law is null and void no matter what percentage of the people vote for it. BUT equally it's null and void no matter how many kings decree it, so it's legitimate to rebel against and overthrow a tyrant.

What would be put up in that tyrant's stead? Who would decide it? By whose authority?

The US revolution went wrong when it declared that a government derives its authority from the consent of the governed rather than from God. Mr dxv515 would I guess say the same. "If this be treason, then make the most of it!"

The same people who declared that authority comes from the consent of the governed are the same people who stated that no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. Some of the main benefactors of their beliefs were the Catholics, the history of whom in the Colonies I trust you are familiar. You bite the hand that feeds you, which is at the least ungracious and at worst an invitation to a return of the religious wars of the 16th and 17th centuries and our mutual annihilation. You will not be able to convince the majority of Americans to renounce their beliefs and their freedoms, one of which is freedom of (and from) religion. You do not now have the necessary force (nor will you within your lifetime) to take over this country and impose your vision on your defeated enemies. Your victories will be those of the assassin skulking about in the night. Assuming you are living in America there are 45 million human beings who desperately need your help-they're hungry, they're exposed to the elements, they are devoid of hope. Would it not be more Christian to tend to their needs rather than to spin treason on the Internet?

Posted by: Ichthyic | August 19, 2010 7:47 PM

The US revolution went wrong when it declared that a government derives its authority from the consent of the governed rather than from God.

define God.

Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier | August 19, 2010 8:02 PM

I pretty sure dxv515 is a Poe. From his/her site Roman Catholic Imperialist:

Jumping For Jesus Ministries: Trampolines Save Souls

Start your own jumping for Jesus ministries by ordering or renting a trampoline from the Roman Catholic Imperialist. Set up the trampoline anywhere in the church and start jumping for Jesus!

Also,

Paris Hilton Potential Roman Empress?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 19, 2010 8:19 PM

Sigh, Poe's should be taken out subjected to ministrations by Lady Heather...or not a Lady Heather. But sincere and heart felt apologies are called for...

Posted by: Ichthyic | August 19, 2010 8:44 PM

aahh the guy who created you....

which one? many have made the claim that their deities are the ones responsible.

hey, if you're gonna poe, you might as well practice up.

Posted by: dxv515 | August 19, 2010 8:59 PM

lack of moral character due to the pedophile scandals

At least if Catholic priests were ruling 'the rest' they'd be so busy they wouldn't be able to rape as many kids.

hey babe pedophile is a perverted act that involves a grown man and a little boy. You and your defenders of homosexua perversions deny this, but when a man rapes a little boy it is a homosexual act... got that babe? Now for the rest of you Godless twits watch this and tell all your freinds because you will be a amazed.... ready??

I can do something that none of you can do... here goes... homosexuality is wrong, it is a perversion, it is contrary to nature... Wow! got that? None of you perverts can say it, type it out, or even think that homosexuality is wrong! ha ha ha..

Go ahead try it! Think to yourself that homosexaulity is wrong! Say out loud that homosexuality is wrong! Please type it out on this site that homosexuality is wrong.... ha ha ha. What an amazing trick I just pulled on the lot of you...BTW hey those pedophile homosexual priests are about as Roman Catholic as the lot of you....ta ta...hey WowbaggerOM hows the porn addiction coming along?

Posted by: dxv515 | August 19, 2010 9:13 PM

How do you know it's a guy, exactly? Have you held his Glorious God-Nards™ in your hands?

And what porn site did you get this from? Clorox wipes are good for cleaning your computer! You don't know this yet, but you will soon enough, when a person is addicted to porn he finds himself getting angry and furstrated, he cant control his twisted desires and he then takes out on others, usually with angry words and actions... Mel Gibson is a fine example... So my question to you WowbaggerOM is .. are you going Mel Gibson on me?

Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula | August 19, 2010 9:21 PM

And what porn site did you get this from? Clorox wipes are good for cleaning your computer!

Are you speaking from experience? I'm sure there are some juicy Jesus-on-Mary sites out there for you Papists to jack off to.

Mel Gibson is a fine example

Not for me - I'm not a Catholic.

Posted by: Ichthyic | August 19, 2010 9:32 PM

hey babe pedophile is a perverted act that involves a grown man and a little boy.

except when it involves a grown man and a little girl, or a grown woman and a little boy, or...

Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula | August 19, 2010 9:34 PM

Jizzmopper for Jesus wrote:

Let me get this straight.. your telling me that many have told you that their deities are the ones responsible for your being... Is that like a Legion or something?? hmmm... I bet it is....

Like Father, Son and Holy Ghost? That's three. Three ≠ 1. Legion indeed.

Posted by: Ichthyic | August 19, 2010 9:38 PM

So tell us, dxv515, how can you possibly justify your church's immoral behavior?

recall the earlier operational theory that this person is a parody.

it's so hard to tell anymore. Hell, they might really think trampolines save souls.

Posted by: dxv515 | August 19, 2010 9:52 PM

If it's contrary to nature, how come there are examples of it occurring in almost every species of mammal?

So WowbaggerOM you spend your computer time watching and studying animal homo porn? Is that really homo porn? Rated G? So now we all know that WowbaggerOM is a beast and takes his homosexual lessons by watching animals go at it..As for the Blasphemy.... it is expected that you would take this route, it is another sign of the frustration that you feel because you can not control your twisted desires, so you want to shock others, really now WowbaggerOM you can't pull down your pants here to show everyone your frustration so you uses Blasphemy to get yourself off. How is that working for you WowbaggerOM... Are you able to sleep without taking medications? No, probably not, WowbaggerOM you have a deformed conscience and it shows you take meds to ease the pain, but they don't work as the doc said they would...sweet dreams....

Posted by: Ichthyic | August 19, 2010 10:00 PM

where's our resident parodist (and his partner, Floyd Rubber), to provide a good example when you need them?

Posted by: Robert H | August 19, 2010 10:12 PM

A lonely voice cries out in the Wilderness! Good luck, dxv 515. It's not everyone who can jerk off and type at the same time. With that skill I'm sure you'll go far! Why not start now...

Posted by: dxv515 | August 19, 2010 10:39 PM

'Tis Himself, OM said this

I notice the Papist apologist whines about homosexuals but doesn't say a word about Pope Benny Ratzi's support and protection of child rapists. Is it because dxv515 can't actually admit his Holy Father is an rape enabler?
So tell us, dxv515, how can you possibly justify your church's immoral behavior?

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 19, 2010 10:45 PM

FUCK RATZI

you can quote me on that, too.

Will you make him wear the Prada shoes?

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 19, 2010 10:48 PM

'Tis Himself, OM....oooh please do tell... please....paaaweeesse...what o what would you have the penalty be for one who is a rape enabler??

Care you explain why you think they shouldn't be punished?

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | August 19, 2010 10:53 PM

Will you make him wear the Prada shoes?

Fuck that shit. Let the old child-rapist protector deal with Payless. I'm taking the Prada.

Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula | August 19, 2010 10:58 PM

Jizzmopper for Jesus wrote:

WowbaggerOM do you understand the power that I have over you at this very mment?

About as much as you have over the sky and the planets, i.e. none whatsoever.

I will not let you say homosexuality is wrong.

You won't 'let' me? Bad news, I'm afraid - me not saying something because it isn't true ≠ you not letting me say it, anymore than me claiming you won't say Jesus is a lie, the Pope is a rape enabler and God doesn't exist is me not letting you say it.

I told you ahead of time that I will make you refuse to say that homosexuality is wrong...WowbaggerOM you can not bring yourself to say this... ha ha ha ha.. go ahead try to say it again prove to me that I have no power over you at this very moment. Call yourself a liar to deny my power over you....

You're a fucking idiot. You didn't 'make' me do anything. I won't say homosexuality is wrong for the simple reason that homosexuality isn't wrong - and not saying that has nothing whatsoever to do with you; I've not said it before and I'll almost certainly not say it again, whether you're involved or not.

Try again.

Posted by: Ichthyic | August 19, 2010 10:58 PM

Self abuse or as you term it jerking off is wrong!

how hairy are your palms?

Posted by: dxv515 | August 19, 2010 11:05 PM

In a fit of insane rage Ichthyic punched out the following on his keyboard:

I want to kill the Pope.
you can quote me on that.
FUCK RATZI
you can quote me on that, too.

gotcha! you guys are fucked now! Good Night Paris! hey station chief I win! These guys were to easy... ha ha ha.. I like working for you know who......you guys should have checked my blog a little more closely

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 19, 2010 11:08 PM

Posted by: Ichthyic | August 19, 2010 11:13 PM

Let's not talk about killing the pope.

What the f*ck happened to the Delta I used to know? Where’s the spirit? Where’s the guts?! This could be the best day of our lives, but you’re gonna make it the worst. (Mockingly) Oh, we’re afraid to go with you, Bluto, we might get in trouble. Well then just kiss my ass from now on! Not me, I’m not gonna take this! Wormer, he’s a dead man! Marmalade, dead! NEIDERMYER…

Posted by: Robert H | August 19, 2010 11:16 PM

I give up, dvx. Your wit is truly the equal of your logic. Against such dazzling verbal pyrotechnics how can anyone hope to defeat you? I bow before you as if you were the Porcelain God Himself.

Posted by: Ichthyic | August 19, 2010 11:20 PM

Rev:

I keep thinking the caption under that pic should be:

"Gotchya!"

but:

"YOU GUYS ARE FUCKED NOW!"

works too.

Posted by: Ichthyic | August 20, 2010 12:17 AM

We gots to get us some better trolls.

it's hard, given the material we have to work with.

still, this one prompted the Rev to put up that pic, which I'm still laughing at.

Posted by: John Morales | August 20, 2010 7:51 AM

dxv515, a troll anglin' for the banhammer.

No need to apply the genital plethysmograph to it, its obsession with (male) gay sex is proudly apparent. :)

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | August 20, 2010 8:06 AM

@326

Maybe because one is rape and the other's aren't? How tight did you tie your white hood?

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | August 20, 2010 8:12 AM

mornin bitches

none of you will condemn negros

none of you will comdemn interracial sex

none of you will condemn interracial fucking an older black and younger white

therefore since rape is interracial fucking between an older black and younger white none of you can condemn rape

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 20, 2010 8:29 AM

Am I the only one who thinks dxv515 got a stiffy typing out #362? Especially the descriptions the homosexual sex...

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | August 20, 2010 8:43 AM

Jonnie sounds like a terrorist to me.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | August 20, 2010 8:57 AM

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

C. S. Lewis

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | August 20, 2010 9:20 AM

Ok KG, that's not LITERAL!

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 20, 2010 9:22 AM

The same people who declared that authority comes from the consent of the governed are the same people who stated that no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

Which is why democracy is leading us into a vortex of self-destruction.

Um, exactly how?

Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier | August 20, 2010 9:34 AM

I pretty sure dxv515 is a Poe.

I'm pretty sure he's not.

He's having a dig at vulgar Protestantism.

Yes, but it seems to over-the-top be real (well,at least to me). Also, if you take a look at his blog he seems to focus far more on Lady Gaga and Paris Hilton than you'd expect the average Catholic monarchist to.

But who knows? Poe's law and all.

Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier | August 20, 2010 9:49 AM

Pilty johnnie-gray,

Here are some some posts from dxv515's blog:

Thursday, July 22, 2010
Paris Hilton Will One Day Be The Modern Day St Mary Magdalen?

So to your main point about the cooperation of Paris in bringing about the restoration of all things in Christ by helping to restore the Divinely Ordained Authority of the Holy Roman Emperor. Will she help or won't she help? I really do not know....If Paris does take up the cause to elect the next Holy Roman Emperor it will be a truely heroic act on her part. Everyone will probably mock her more than they do now. Paris will earn her own eternal reward if she takes up this cause.

Sunday, July 18, 2010
The Power Of Paris Helping To Restore The Divinely Ordained Authority Of The Holy Roman Emperor

Sunday, August 1, 2010
Paris Hilton Una Lonza Is Still Number 1 On Dante’s ‘Skinny Bitches, Well Trained And Obedient’ Corner
_ _ _

The obsession with Lady Gaga, Paris Hilton, Dante's Divine Comedy and restoration of Holy Roman Emperor just seem too bizarre. Still think it's not a Poe, Pilty johnnie-gray ?

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 20, 2010 10:05 AM

Do I sound angry to you? You sure sound angry to me. Since we've lost all our power and the world is in such great shape, why aren't you cool and calm and superior instead of ranting and raving and defensive?

Classic example of argumentum ad you're upsetum therefore I'm rightum.

Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier | August 20, 2010 10:10 AM

lol, now I see why Pilty johnnie-gray doesn't want dxv515 to be a Poe:

When it comes to democracy I'm more in line with dxv515 the Roman Catholic Imperialist who puts that bleeding heart liberal Mr Voris in his place. Loved this quote from his blog:

"I would say that only seven Catholics should be allowed to vote. That is - only the seven Imperial Electors should be allowed to vote in the only election that truly matters, the Imperial Election for the next Holy Roman Emperor."

Now that's hardcore.

Posted by: David Marjanović | August 20, 2010 11:04 AM

Been boring while I've been away hasn't it?

<headdesk>

I stand corrected. I must have repressed the memory of how sick, sick, sick your sense of humor is.

Anyway, I need to go. See you in a few hours, if any traces of you will be left by then.

Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier | August 20, 2010 11:14 AM

I know he's not a Poe.

How do you know? Is he your sock puppet?

If so, then looking at that blog then you're even more fucked up than I thought (and that's quite an accomplishment).

If not, please explain how someone with many posts about Paris Hilton being the next Holy Roman Empress is not a Poe.

Posted by: MinnieTheFinn, kaamea ateistifeministinarttu | August 20, 2010 11:37 AM

David M @321:

Finland.

Dude, I so heart you :D

I get all warm and fuzzy thinking how good we have it here, after all.

Sure, we have the odd pedophile, but they are not operating under institutional protection.

We can all vote, and we do use the priviledge quite often to the extent that we have three major parties and a handful of smaller ones, of which any can act as a decision-breaker, since the big three are all pretty much the same size. We can simulate a true democracy quite a lot better than any country with bi-party politics.

Oh, and we're functionally atheist. As a society, and quite extensively as individuals, too.

Posted by: KG | August 20, 2010 11:48 AM

So I'll leave you

- Piltdown Scumbag@397

PS...

PIltdown Scumbag@399

As I said, you're a liar.

Posted by: MinnieTheFinn, kaamea ateistifeministinarttu | August 20, 2010 12:00 PM

Apparently, Colbert wasn't impressed either.

Posted by: MinnieTheFinn, kaamea ateistifeministinarttu | August 20, 2010 12:25 PM

not true.

Not interested.

Posted by: Robert H | August 20, 2010 3:30 PM

johnnie-gray
It seems our little colloquy is drawing to a close. You are a bit too much a casuist (educated by the Jesuits perhaps?) for there to be any reason to continue on this topic. You are the stereotype by which most readers of this site judge all religious people. That you are forthright about your contempt for all beliefs other than your own (which are, to be polite, antic in the extreme) is beneficial in that it brings into sharp relief the specific menace you present to those who cherish the freedom to think and believe as they will, and who would sacrifice to protect those rights for others, including those who think differently than themselves. You, however, seem to have placed yourself beyond the pale. Unless I read you wrong (and if so pardon me) you envision a world perfectly attuned to (your interpretation of) the Word of God. The Catholic Church had a 1200 year run of western Europe, from Constantine to Luther, and made an undeniable mess of things. From persecution of other beliefs to suppression of knowledge they are longitudinally the greatest butchers and tyrants in human history. What makes you think they will do any better next time? I know you do not speak for the Pope or for the vast majority of Catholics but you by your beliefs taint them all the same. It is too much to hope that reason and decency awaken in your heart but I wish it all the same.

Posted by: Ichthyic | August 20, 2010 5:17 PM

You're probably right.

but of course, that won't stop you from coming back and feeling proud as a puppy that you can piss on the carpet before someone hits you with a broom.

deluded asswipe.

Posted by: Ichthyic | August 20, 2010 5:45 PM

Oh, Pilty is a regular troll who was banned long ago (see the dungeon) and comes back at least once a month under another nym to "tuant" us with his inanity. Any nutritional value was lost, long ago. The other clown is just a parody of itself, and has quickly made me lose interest.

btw, thanks for your commentary in this thread, Robert.

gave me some things to think about.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 20, 2010 6:12 PM

Yawn, I agree with Ichthyic. Johnnie-gray is a whiner, third class. Can't even whine well. And still no evidence for his imaginary deity. Loser written all over his posts...

Posted by: David Marjanović | August 20, 2010 6:33 PM

Piltdown Man, johnnie-gray and dvx515 are three different persons, but only the first two share the same substance.

Okay, that was actually pretty good.

Admittedly, yes. And so deliciously blasphemous...

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | August 20, 2010 7:24 PM

...erm... where? Where did PZ post such a thing? I can't remember any, and there isn't any on the front page. Please help me out.

Posted by: dxv515 | August 21, 2010 4:53 AM

Posted by: "scientist" KG | August 20, 2010 9:22 AM

Many (probably most) regulars here are heterosexual

truly pathetic that you feel the need to tell the blog sphere what the sexual preferences are for the vast majority of "scientists" who post here on this site, you should not have to clarify anything in this area, unless of course if there was a huge perception problem in the area of your sexual preferences in the first place. Apparently you "scientists" have a perception problem ha ha ha

Posted by: dxv515 | August 21, 2010 5:15 AM

'But the heaviest burden your shoulders must bear shall be the companions, wicked and witless, among whom you shall fall in your descent.They, utterly ungrateful, mad, and faithless, shall turn against you. But soon enough they, not you, shall feel their faces blushing past their brows.Of their brutish state the results shall offer proof. And it shall bring you honor to have made a single party of yourself alone.' Dante Alighieri

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 21, 2010 11:53 AM

Yawn, all the troll dxv515 can offer is a quote to mean authority. Opinion, not evidence, but the loser thinks it is. Wouldn't recognize a real fact if it tripped over one and it bit it in the ass.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | August 21, 2010 11:58 AM

@422

"You will bow down before! First you and then, one day, YOUR HEIRS!"~Zod

Posted by: Robert H | August 21, 2010 12:47 PM

Hey! What if these Johnnie and his evil numerical twin believe that The Divine Comedy isn't fiction?

Posted by: Robert H | August 21, 2010 12:57 PM

Oh, it's getting worse by the minute! Strike these. Why do I always break my play toys!