Our Sentiments Exactly

I agree with you that a conference held for the purpose of enabling unmarried heterosexuals to celebrate their sexuality and sexual urges would be just as likely to run the risk of the participants jumping into bed together. But I’m not aware of any church that organizes that kind of conference.

Hope you and your dear son are also well. My daughter has flown the coop and gone to school in the UK. I expect that, before long, I will have either a foster child or a whole new passel of cats!

That Joseph Sciambra link was heartbreaking. “In our overwhelming desire to understand the world and ourselves, we were willing to go against Nature and God Himself. We disregarded the fundamentals of physiology and for that violation we paid dearly on an unbelievably devastating collective and individual basis. In the process, we threw our bodies and the surrounding culture into chaos; in a feeble attempt to right ourselves we demanded that society recognize our rebellion. But a law instituted by men hasn’t changed our physical structure.” Homosexuality is not a minor sin and it is not a victimless crime. It is… Read more »

It would have had to be gay pride parades in the early days. Now that the mayor, the governor, the police chief (and in the case of Canada, the prime minister) all participate, the ones I have seen have become much tamer events. Something that gets very little media attention is the problem of domestic violence. The incidence of domestic abuse among lesbian women is very high–significantly higher than for women living with men. There are now so many reputable studies conducted by people who have no moral issue with gays that it would be unreasonable to dismiss their findings.… Read more »

Have you been to a gay pride parade?

I am from tame lil ole Dayton, Ohio and even their promotional website has some pretty shocking pictures.

https://www.dayton.com/entertainment/ultimate-guide-dayton-gay-pride-2018/paE9NddN4UNHVN1x81Q8fM/

They also advertise for a Pride Stripperfest.

If this is what they show in the media, I can’t imagine what happens live. Mayor or no mayor, the drag queens, strippers, and simulated sex acts would shock any soft pastor into questioning their soft stance on homosexuality.

I love that part of that link is “LGBT agenda.”. Our agenda is literally like to have coffee and go to the store, like the scary gay agenda is such a weird concept. Gay people are probably the least sinister people in the world. I promise we don’t recruit lol.
Also I love pride, but even if you think being gay is wrong you can totally go. Like my church thinks being gay is wrong and so to them it’s like the perfect place for out reach.

I’m not discussing any of it, I didn’t actually open it, but the whole idea of a gay agenda is funny.

The gay mafia, lmao. The deep state and the gay mafia are taking over murica.

Yeah, the courts ruled in favor of the bakeries, or did you peace out on keeping up with that. And reparative therapy (I assume you mean conversation therapy) is horrible. The agenda is to be left alone and live our lives. Not have bakers discriminating against is or being “converted”. (Side not I’m actually on the bakery’s side, legally they should be allowed to do what they did, and I feel relatively strongly that way, however I do think they are horrible for doing it.)

Kong, SCOTUS hasn’t actually ruled that bakeries, in general, must provide cakes to gay weddings. It ruled that the Colorado Human Right Commission had shown an impermissible level of hostility to Jack Phillips’ religious beliefs, and that the ruling applies only to him. Even the question placed before the court was very narrow and applied only to wedding vendors whose work can be seen as “artistic”. The court also suggested that had Phillips been treated differently, the outcome might not have been the same. So nobody has “peaced out” (whatever that means) on keeping up with the news. Reparative therapy… Read more »

Also the mafia idea is still stupid. At most it’s a policial elite group. They aren’t a dark secret organization of rainbow wearing ninjas.

Kong, liberal as I am, I have trouble swallowing that one. Gays are completely free in most parts of the US to have coffee and go to the store without encountering even a dirty look. Certainly, in the cities, gays are free to get married and live their lives in peace without facing any threat to their ability to earn a living. Where I live, gay tolerance is taught from kindergarten through twelfth grade. You can march in gay parades and the police will go after anyone who tries to stop you. If you lived near me, I could direct… Read more »

No, Jill he cannot, and the reason he cannot not is that he really does know there is something wrong. Guilt, like misery, loves company.

This is what I’m saying, literally living life is the very not sinister “agenda” of most gay people. My agenda is class tomorrow, there isn’t some sinister agenda as it is always talked about. Also unfortunately where I live being harassed for being gay is common, but most of the country isn’t like that anymore.

Drag Queens make your list of shock?

May I say without intentional harshness that you are being a little bit childish? I live in Los Angeles and it takes a lot to shock me. But it doesn’t take much to bore me, and I think that drag queens outside entertainment venues are very tiresome indeed. Keep it indoors where it doesn’t frighten the horses.

Yes, the very purpose of dressing in drag is to shock.

Why would that change their opinion?
Also we treat each other better than the church treats us. So why should we leave our space and come to church?
Of all my issues with the church tats my biggest and if that doesn’t challenge people in the church there is a problem. Why are people who are according to you some of the most sinful and evil people outdoing the church in love.

No ofc the church is much better in that area, and of course it is amazing work and I would be stupid to question it, not to mention completely unworthy. I’m simply taking about interpersonal relations.

Kong, the Anglicans and the United Methodists would welcome you with open arms with no pesky demands about celibacy. You are asking people to do something that they can’t do without violating their sincere religious beliefs. You are free to think those beliefs are mistaken, outdated, and deliberately nasty. But you’re not free to demand that they change for your benefit, any more than they are free to demand that the Anglicans stop ordaining gays. If you sincerely think your church is wrong in its treatment of LBGT people, why not do what other people do–find a church that is… Read more »

No like people can think it’s wrong, ofc. Ofc people can think whatever they want, believe whatever they want and who am I to question it. I’m just saying that the church has consistently chased young gay people out with pitchforks, right into the waiting arms of the LGBT community. People I know have been kicked out of their houses at very young ages (less than 15), for being gay, not practicing, not having a significant other, just for (to use your words, not mine) having the temptation. This is what I have the issue with. And again the church… Read more »

So you are saying that it is routine, in your church, for a young person who confides homosexual feelings to a pastor to be expelled with metaphorical pitchforks? I am sure there are such churches (I am aware of only one, and it is run by a lunatic), but I find it very hard to believe that a normal church would react that way. I have never heard of a church expelling someone for merely having sinful temptations. I agree that a church that did that is acting unwisely. I think it is far more usual for people to bend… Read more »

Not in my church, in churches here, yeah. Unfortunately the Midwest hasn’t caught up to LA in acceptance yet. I haven’t even seen any same sex couples in public here.
And I’m specifically talking about young kids, not having really any idea of what’s going on, often still trying to pray away the gay being left homeless or (better but bad) being sent to conversion therapy, yelled at, ridiculed etc.

St Louis isn’t it? I used to live in the metro area. I do know what it is and isn’t like. Even if I’m mistaken about that, I have lived most of my life in the Midwest and still do, I know the region. Here, homosexuals, if less broadly approved than in some places, are no more persecuted than anywhere else in the country, and no more in hiding nowadays. Most of what you’re talking about sounds more like what families might do than anything a church would do, or could make happen. Can you name which churches have thrown… Read more »

Love = not making anyone feel bad about their life choices, especially the sexual ones. (Surely it’s only a matter of time until we’re expected to treat adulterers that way.) Not love = suggesting that scripture has anything valid or useful to say about our sex lives. I am personally very prone to “loving” people in the first sense. Often it is because I don’t care enough about them to take the trouble. Not a comfortable piece of self-analysis!

No, that’s not the job of the church at all. But again, it’s a society full of humans, and if the humans decide to all treat of of the other humans poorly that’s an issue, and one that happens a lot. I’m not saying not to tell them what they are doing is wrong. But that’s doesn’t mean bully them out of the church, those are different things.

Kavanaugh wrote the Starr report and worked as a lawyer for the Bush White House planning how to combat the Democratic agenda, even using documents illegally stolen from Democratic congressmen while doing so. What positions did Garland, Kagan, or Sotomayor hold that were even close to as nakedly partisan as that? And that’s before we get into his actions during this nomination, which even some of his previous friends and supporters have said disqualifies him from the nomination. “I cannot condone the partisanship—which was raw, undisguised, naked, and conspiratorial—from someone who asks for public faith as a dispassionate and impartial… Read more »

What on earth does “conspiratorial partisanship” even mean? It’s not even a coherent phrase! It’s just a manipulative word-salad of negative connotations. Nor, for the matter of that, is it “partisan” to defend yourself. It isn’t as though K was fighting against high marginal tax rates. He was pushing back against a character assassination. That his would-be assassins were all Democrats was their choice, not his.

I read the article, and I don’t buy this guy as any kind of friend. If that word means anything, it means “not writing articles like this”.

“Conspiratorial partisanship” is the use of conspiracy theories based on partisan politics to play to your base. If you know what partisanship is and you know what conspiratorial is, it’s nothing more than those two things being done together – there’s nothing incoherent or “word salad” about that. And Wittes is a member at Hoover and a senior fellow at Brookings, he’s a known public quantity with a long-standing, positive relationship with Kavanaugh who can’t be dismissed lightly. He’s not the only one. Michael Proctor and Mark Osler, former law school classmates of Kavanaugh and current law school professors who… Read more »

Okay, I’ll grant that with imagination one can contrive a definition of the phrase, but it doesn’t have anything to do with Kavanaugh. Kavanaugh did not advance a partisan agenda – he just defended himself. And he didn’t advance a conspiracy theory – he was obviously conspired against. Nor does Kavanaugh even have “a base” to play to – he’s a judge, not an elected politician. The charge is nonsense. It’s mere negative-sounding bafflegab.

Your claims that Kavanaugh could only defend himself in partisan and conspiratorial tones fly in the face of what we saw from several of the committee Republicans, who were able to question Mrs. Ford and consider her testimony, yet still defend Kavanaugh, without devolving into partisan and conspiratorial terms. (Not all the Senate Republicans managed this, but some did and did it well.) Your claims that his partisan bias and poor temperament during the hearing are obviously not disqualifying fly in the face of prominent, qualified, former supporters of Kavanaugh who are on the record as having supported his nomination… Read more »

“Your claims that Kavanaugh could only defend himself in partisan and conspiratorial tones…” I’ll stop you right there. That isn’t what I said. I said the opposite. I said he was not partisan, not that he had to be. This remains the case: nothing he said was related to the platform of any political party. He defended himself and his own reputation. I repeat, again, in case you missed it the first three times: the charge of partisanship is poppycock. It is bafflegab. It is, to put the thing in briefest terms, so nonsensical, that to exceed its null-quotient of… Read more »

And yet even the very conservative Senator Flake said that the remarks were partisan.

You can insult me however you want and get away with it here, but your entire insult is immediately disproven by Senator Flake’s assertions. Senator Flake knows full well that he is going to vote for Kavenaugh’s confirmation, and still characterized his remarks in that way and found issue with it. And he was not alone in that regard. You’re going to need to reach for a better argument.

The fact that someone somewhere said a different thing does not “disprove” anything. If I am right, it would merely show that he, like you, is using the term “partisan” asb an all-purpose slur because saying “full of righteous anger” would require too much empathy. I notice, by the way, that you don’t offer any actual argument in refuting the claim I made; namely that there is no sensible definition of partisan that applies to Kavanaugh’s behavior in the hearings. That would actually be a disproof, at least potentially.

I actually think it is a pretty good phrase because it gave me an immediate mental image of toga-clad, sandal-wearing Romans urging Brutus to sharpen his knife. But it needs to be applied equally to anyone, on either side, who thinks that when you aren’t going to win on the merits, you should scheme with your fellows to win through trickery and deceit. Self-defense, and the defense your friends make for you, is clearly not partisanship. But I wish we could discuss an issue here that, because of Kavanaugh’s denials, hasn’t really come up. Does anyone normal really think that… Read more »

Of course it shouldn’t be. Sensible people know this, and are generally willing to maintain that standard when it applies to themselves…

Jilly, I would say that even murder would not be disqualifying if followed by acceptance of blame and repentance and a sufficient display of reformed life to follow. With Kavanaugh specifically, if the allegations had been limited to the most credible ones (physically molesting a girl against her will in high school, exposing himself in college, getting in a bar fight in law school, and generally being kind of a nasty drunk in his teens and twenties), then I could imagine scenarios in which clear repentance and reformed life could allow forgiveness that would allow a role in the Supreme… Read more »

“Why should I care about the subjective opinion of someone I’ve never met, who’s personal relationship with Kavanaugh I don’t know the details involved? Why don’t you actually give an example of his behavior and we can discuss that, rather than taking a random third party’s description of his undefined behavior as being evidence somehow. Honestly, the construction of this argument is so poor, it gives the impression that the only one here being naked partisan is you Jonathan” Those two paragraphs are at odds with each other. You claim that my argument alone suggests I am “naked partisan”, yet… Read more »

Justin, I thought of those lost family relationships when I found myself, for the first time, having really serious disagreements with my friends about this candidate. Three of my friends have experienced past sexual abuse of a very serious nature, and none was successful in obtaining justice. I think my friends, who are ordinarily intelligent and rational, probably represent a large number of women out there. What they seem to be saying is that because justice was denied them, if there is a chance that Kavanaugh did this, then he must pay. This is a purely emotional reaction, and while… Read more »

You should be non-neutral in regards to the truth, you should be neutral in regards to political affiliation. Kavanaugh appears far too partisan in terms of the Democrat/Republican divide, not the truth/falsehood divide. Instead of trying to taint my reputation, work on Senator Jeff Flake’s instead. Because Jeff Flake is as committed a conservative as you will find, and he also denounced Kavanaugh’s words as partisan and inappropriate for the court. Senator Murkowski refused to vote him for the court. Like I said, I believe that Justice John Roberts is a fine example of the kind of justice I wish… Read more »

At what point will you realize that your insistence on doubling-down on the joint funding of a single local Thanksgiving event for kids at some college campus 15 years ago is in itself evidence for how weak your case is? Is Jonathan suggesting that Democrats are permitted to go back 35 years to dig up dirt on Kavanaugh, but we are beyond the pale to reference back 50 years when discussing Sotomayor? Nice double-standard Jonathan has going there. No, I’m suggesting that Sotomayor has nothing to do with a 50-year-old document for an organization she has never belonged to. But… Read more »

And I will completely agree with your argument that the NCLR’s attempt to soften and reinterpret José Vasconcelos’s original 1925 use of the term was a bridge too far and somewhat ridiculous. Vasconcelos was very much a product of the early 20th century and the Mexican Revolution, like many Mexicans at the time he felt degraded by the scientific racism of his day which attempted to build on Darwin to prove White superiority, and was attempting to create a combative narrative that would unite Mexicans around a different racial theory. But his new theory itself was disturbing (and Vasconcelos himself… Read more »

Very noteworthy to point out that you have now written over 1500 words worth of comments focused on the fact that you don’t like La Raza’s name and think that you can draw some sort of tenuous affiliation between them and MEChA. And you admit the MEChA claims are peripheral….so we’re left with the entire centerpiece of your argument against them being…their name. Newsflash for Jonathan: that same G. W. Bush White House also approved $2.2 billion directly to Planned Parenthood. Does Jonathan somehow conclude from this fact that Planned Parenthood, therefore, cannot be a partisan, blood-guilty, and evil organization?… Read more »

Yes, your case apparently depended on not liking their name, and quoting as “their affiliate slogan” a line pulled from a 50-year-old document by some other organization who you didn’t even refer to was just a little red herring to beef up a case that otherwise relies almost entirely on…you don’t like their name.

Again, you appear to be trying to pretend that translation and context are meaningless when using words, and that it’s okay to “Bork” a Supreme Court Justice simply because you don’t like the name of an organization she once belonged to even though your entire argument for not liking that name has absolutely nothing to do with the actual organization or Sotomayor herself, but how the word was used by someone else nearly 100 years ago and what it would look like if it were translated into a different word and applied to an entirely different context. “La Raza” is… Read more »

I do care slightly about the meaning and context of the term “La Raza” when Sotomayor joined an organization called “La Raza”, as that is the only context that matters. I have explicitly said so, and when you claim I have not you are lying. I am personally aware of what it meant during that time period to people of both Hispanic and non-Hispanic origin, I have verified that personal experience with encyclopedia citations, and you have not provided the slightest evidence to dispute it. I don’t actually care at all what it meant to some Mexican philosopher some 100… Read more »

At any rate, Jonathan is the one who seems to be disputing the origin and meaning of the term “La Raza” that was on their own website FAQ That’s untrue, you are the one doing that. You are the one who is claiming that their meaning of the term as they describe in the website is wrong, and that only documents from the 1920s tell you the true meaning. Just like in your example of the Confederates that you made the mistake of bringing up. If a Southerner in 2018 tells you that his flying of the Confederate Flag has… Read more »

And on the “ink blot type thing”, isn’t that exactly how you view Confederate Flag symbolism? Isn’t it true that people ascribe their own meanings to why they fly the Confederate Flag, and it is useless and false to ascribe to them meanings which were held by other people decades ago, but not by them? I’m interested to know whether you believe the League of the South is a racist organization. They are certainly affiliated with racist organizations, far more closely that La Raza and MEChA are associated. And Pastor Wilson is certainly affiliated with the League of the South… Read more »

I just responded point-by-point to every claim you had made in the previous comment, and you respond by ignoring all my points and repeating your old talking points about MEChA, an issue neither of us had mentioned anywhere in the previous four comments. In fact, the last time you referred to MEChA, it was to say “My case never depended on MEChA though, which is why their slogan was only referenced parenthetically by me.” But apparently MEChA, an organization that Sotomayor never belonged to or was affiliated with in any way, becomes important to your case again when your other… Read more »

I will not admit that because it is not more important to me, and that has never been my position, and I don’t spit out “Democrat talking points.” I’m not going to waste more time on logical fallacies or lies. If you have an actual argument that can be made on the topic at hand without delving into ad hominem attacks or straight falsehoods, then make it. I supported Justice Roberts’ candidacy for many of the same reasons I oppose Kavanaugh’s – because I felt that Justice Roberts would be a strong, honest judge who would fulfill his duties and… Read more »

There’s a disconnect between the claim that Democrats refuse to accept pro-life candidates (as Mr. Wilson stated just days ago) and the claim that I would be “admirably suited” to run as a Democrat and fit there. One or both of you are obviously wrong. Or one or both of you doesn’t even believe what you are saying and just uses what works for the purposes of poisoning the well in the current argument. I would not be well-suited for public office, in fact would probably find it just about impossible to run, as my views on money, power, and… Read more »

OKR, I think Jonathan’s ethical stances would disqualify him from representing any political party we currently have. Democrats refuse to run pro-life candidates, and a platform of refusal to use lethal force against an invader is a complete non-starter. Our current political set-up means that a lot of people, including myself, can’t find a home in any of the major parties.

“I doubt you’re very familiar with game or systems design” Why would you throw in a ridiculous statement like that? I think that using game theory to determine strategy in something so important can lead far too easily to an overvaluing of ends over the means. The number of times I can imagine someone using game theory to oppose any number of directives from Jesus are numerous. We are to practice obedience even when our limited knowledge makes us scared of the consequences, not shy from the right decision just because we think that doing the right thing puts us… Read more »

Your charge against K has three elements: 1) you charge him with insufficient deference toward a lynch mob, 2) you feel that he is a “partisan”, a term which in your use seems to include “not being sufficiently deferential toward lynch mobs.”
3) You accuse him of dishonesty by linking to a page full of lies and tendentious half-truths.

Sorry, not buying it.

No, those were not my charges.

If you allow that lynch mobs can be composed of Senators, yeah, they pretty much were.

Yeah, but come on! Answer questions… what questions? Leading, loaded, dishonest questions from people who were obviously out to get him? To pretend that the hearing was an honest inquiry into the truth of anything would have manifested, not judicial temperment, but disqualifying naivete. The response you want from Kavanaugh is to meekly accept being bullied. I grant that there are moments when we should absorb slander and ill-treatment and count it all joy. But that is not always the case. It is not the universal response of Christ and his apostles. Sometimes, it is perfectly righteous to speak out… Read more »

He didn’t attack anyone else? “The behavior of several of the Democratic members of this committee at my hearing a few weeks ago was an embarrassment, but at least it was a good old-fashioned attempt at Borking. Those efforts didn’t work. When I did at least okay enough at the hearings that it looked like I might actually get confirmed a new tactic was needed. Some of you were lying in wait and had it ready.” “This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit, fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election.… Read more »

Kavanaugh spoke the truth – it is, transparent as the very air, a politically-based character assassination. The only excuse for not seeing it is little wit or willful blindness. You, I think, display the latter – you don’t think it matters that people were grilling K about the inside jokes in his high school yearbook. You think that is fine and dandy. You don’t think it matters that they turned his life upside down, threatened his marriage and family, with a public circus of unfalsifiable accusations, when the opportunities for doing otherwise were legion. No, the only thing you care… Read more »

I would think that grilling Kavanaugh about his actual behavior and comments, however long ago, would be vastly more relevant than disqualifying Sotomayor based on how some 1920s intellectual defined a term or because some 50-year-old words from an organization she never belonged to were repugnant. But no, I don’t think that anyone who I would ever defend turned Kavanaugh’s life “upside down” or “threatened his marriage and family”. A few weeks ago he was a powerful appeals court judge and now he’s an even more powerful Supreme Court justice for life, and I seriously doubt that his marriage or… Read more »

I’m not disqualifying Kavanaugh’s statements about the memos based on their “lack of corroboration.” I’m dismissing them based on Kavanaugh’s own emails and the clear content of the documents, which is now public. Even reading the emails it’s obvious that claiming he didn’t know the documents had to have been stolen from the Democrats defies credulity. When someone receives stolen property from a friend, the police don’t need to get your confession to charge you with receipt of stolen property, if the context makes it obvious that what you were receiving was only available through underhanded means. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/09/20/brett-kavanaughs-unlikely-story-about-democrats-stolen-documents/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.8b68b4285060 https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/09/judge-brett-kavanaugh-should-be-impeached-for-lying-during-his-confirmation-hearings.html Which… Read more »

The idea that Kavanaugh just assumed the Democrats were freely sharing their most confidential strategy deliberations and confidential documents goes beyond any reasonable deniability. The emails that the thief sent to Kavanaugh with the Democratic strategy points in them had subject lines like “Highly Confidential” and “Not for Distribution”. Why would the Democrats’ strategy points be “highly confidential” and then be distributed to the very people planning the counter-strategy, literally the #1 WORST people in the world to have those documents? One of the emails was literally titled “Spying”, as if you couldn’t get more obvious. email from Miranda to… Read more »

But this is the worst right here. Forget about Kavanaugh hypothetically receiving all that inside information with all innocence. Imagine now that in the midst of this process, this happens: In response to the fact that Democratic Senators’ confidential staff files were obviously improperly accessed for the Wall Street Journal’s editorials attacking the Democrats, the Capitol Police were called to seize the Senate Judiciary Committee’s computer servers, and the United States Senate Sergeant at Arms commenced a forensic investigation into what became known as “Memogate.” Miranda resigned in disgrace from Senator Frist’s staff, and the politically independent Sergeant at Arms… Read more »

There is nothing wrong with the little old widow saying, “That person who swindled me is a swindler and a crook.” However, if the little old widow said in this current social context, “Those Jews who swindled me are swindlers and crooks that are going to use my money to fund the International Zionist Conspiracy!” then yeah, I’d consider that partisan even if she really felt that the bankers had swindled her. There’s a difference between calling out specific actions by individuals and labeling those actions with partisan terms and then attributing them to partisan conspiracies. The attempt at a… Read more »

OKR, can you tell me why Kavanaugh wouldn’t be your first choice? I had never heard of him until he was nominated, and I have very little sense of what he stands for.

adad, in misreading who made the borking comment and doubling down on how bad borking is, you support my position that it was one (of several) insults made by Kananaugh towards the committee. Senator Murkowski has decided that Kavanaugh is not appropriate for the bench. She is a Republican, in an extreme solid Republican state, which suggests that her decision is one of personal principles and has nothing to do with political maneuvering. Yet another data point showing that there are principled reasons to oppose the nomination. I don’t believe that Murkowski or Flake are offering “fake excuses” when they… Read more »

I don’t remember the Bork hearings very well, but wasn’t the essence of Borking trying to unfairly paint him as more extremist in his views than he actually was? I don’t remember attacks on his sexual morality. I think the sad residual of Borking in the original case was the lengths to which SCOTUS candidates now have to go to conceal their true opinions until they’re on the bench. This has happened with both liberal and conservative candidates.

If I understand correctly, Bork really did oppose the Civil Rights Amendment, argue that it was unconstitutional, and was instrumental in getting Goldwater to vote against it, right? He fully believed that racial segregation was the right of the business owner? His arguments indeed had been picked up on and used by segregationists? And he first made a public statement suggesting he had changed his mind about 10 years afterwards? That’s what I read It is also true that Bork was personally anti-segregation even when he opposed the Civil Rights Act. But he felt that segregation in private business should… Read more »

No, adad, I don’t think Bork simply saying “that’s not accurate” is enough. As far as I can tell, this is undisputed as the series of events. 1. Bork opposed the Civil Rights Act, opposed any law that would force private businesses to stop segregating their lunch counters, and wrote an extensive document supporting that position which convinced Goldwater to vote against the Civil Rights Act and was used by segregationists to support their position. He was not a segregationist himself, he abhorred the idea of segregation but he abhorred the government enforcing integration of private business even more. 2.… Read more »

If borking has to be happen, it is infinitely preferable to do it on the basis of a candidate’s written judgments, public speeches, and articles for law reviews. I haven’t read anywhere near enough to know how fairly or unfairly he was treated. But at least the battle was fought on the basis of interpreting evidence available to everyone, and the candidate was responding to specific questions about whether certain writings accurately reflected his beliefs. It may still be dirty pool but the candidate has a better chance to defend himself.

In an anonymous obituary, a center-right publication voiced agreement with Bork as an aside, without making any case for why Bork was right. I don’t think that does any meaningful work as a citation, other than suggest that supporting Bork can be a mainstream position. I myself had already thought that Pastor Wilson’s defense of the scriptural case for Southern Slavery was a perfect analogy for Bork’s defenses of the constitutional case for segregation. Sometimes we do think alike! I agree that claiming Pastor Wilson wants slavery in the modern day would be wrong. I’m not sure that claiming, “In… Read more »

Yes. Kennedy overextrapolated Bork’s opposition to the Civil Rights Act in his initial statement, then almost immediately accepted Bork’s word when Bork told him that he had eventually changed his position. That was the terrible “Borking” we speak of. Compare that to what Katecho is doing right now in his quest to prove that Sotomayor was a racist partisan who should have been disqualified from the bench because she once belonged to an organization that had a name that was originally used by a relatively obscure philosopher in the 1920s to mean something no longer politically correct. Claiming that Bork’s… Read more »

Katecho (by the way, nice to talk to you again), I am finding all this a total head-scratcher. I don’t recall statements in which Wilson said the use of force against segregation would be evil, or that force against tax collectors is justified. But I do remember several times Wilson has denounced as evil the use of lethal force against abortionists. Could the takeaway be that Wilson–rightly or wrongly–does not support the use of force in the abolition of social and political evils?

I apologize Katecho for interchanging “violence” and “force” too casually. As I made clear elsewhere in the comment that I was referring to violence, as in “because they used violence in trying to free Black people from slavery or apartheid” and “Patriots or hypothetical future anti-tax advocates could be righteous in using violence”, I thought that it was clear that I was referring to violent force. We’ve had very explicit discussions in the past where I’ve made clear that my definition of violent force is force with lethality or done with disregard to the welfare of the victim. Again, sorry… Read more »

Now, do you actually think for the slightest moment that Pastor Wilson has ever approved of violent lethal force to end American slavery or American segregation or South African segregation, in the same manner that he has approved of violent lethal force in the American Revolution and among the Confederates? This reminds me of the kind of word games you tried to play when you claimed that Pastor Wilson didn’t really believe the Bible referred to unicorns, even though he had explicitly quoted it referring to unicorns and berated translators who would render it otherwise. If you can come up… Read more »

Jonathan insists that I need to cite Wilson opposing the practice, or else Wilson is presumed guilty. What a complete violation of Christ’s standard of charity. Instead I would invite Jonathan to apologize to Wilson. How is it “guilty” for someone to believe what they believe? How does it violate Christ’s standard of charity to make the most reasonable understanding of a person’s beliefs based on their own comments about them? You have to presuppose that those beliefs are wrong before you declare them “guilty” of something. Of all the things that I have cited Pastor Wilson as believing, which… Read more »

Jonathan, you know I like you! But I am seriously puzzled here because it seems you are arguing contrary to your own positions. It sounds as if your issue with Wilson is that he favored the use of violence to get independence from the British and to stop the North from interfering with southern slavery, while opposing the use of force to overturn African apartheid (admitted), free American slaves (admitted), and to abolish segregation (citation needed). But you personally have authorized the use of violent force to overturn apartheid, end segregation, and free the slaves? From my knowledge of your… Read more »

Jonathan, you know I like you! Thank you! It sounds as if your issue with Wilson is that he favored the use of violence to get independence from the British and to stop the North from interfering with southern slavery, while opposing the use of force to overturn African apartheid (admitted), free American slaves (admitted), and to abolish segregation (citation needed). To clarify briefly, apartheid is segregation, they are just different terms for the same thing. We called it apartheid when it was happening in South Africa and segregation when it was happening in the USA. But you personally have… Read more »

Justin, would you hold the same view of Mandela if he hadn’t given up his early nonviolence? In other words, do you take issue with his goal of undoing apartheid if he had stuck to nonviolent resistance? If he had not been a communist, would that make a difference?

You said: Is Jonathan claiming to be an expert on period KJV english, and whether “unicorn” was simply the translators’ intent to reference rhinoceros unicornis following the example of the Vulgate? Notice that Wilson’s argument was not that “unicorn” was specifically a horned horse, but that it was not a mere “wild ox”. So maybe Jonathan should cool his jets about pseudoscience, and stop heckling Wilson. Pastor Wilson never mentioned King James English, he was writing in modern English when he made the reference to a unicorn (within his own sentence, not within a quote). Neither Pastor Wilson nor I… Read more »

Jonathan, I would much rather discuss unicorns than Kavanaugh, but for those of us who are one the sidelines, it’s not very clear what is up for debate. Is the issue whether the nine biblical unicorns are rhinos, auroxes, or ibexes? Or is it whether Doug thinks the biblical unicorn was actually a unicorn–an equine creature with one long horn who can be tamed only by laying his head in a virgin’s lap? If so, I began to wonder what Doug makes of satyrs. So I looked it up in the archives and found this: MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 2006 BY… Read more »

Thank you Jill! Those are excellent receipts, and I hope they’ll finally lead Katecho to drop the lost cause. The original issue was that Pastor Wilson made a post attacking secular science, and one of his points in that attack was to insist that Job 39 refers to unicorns and to use rather disparaging language to reject the idea that the correct translation is a form of ox. He believed that translating it as ox results in a stupid verse and that this shows how feckless translators are when they succumb to science. I said in a comment that the… Read more »

Wilson’s essay “Photogenic Lies”, written immediately after Nelson Mandela’s death, calls the most famous opponent of South African segregation a “thug”, a “terrorist”, and a “bad man” because he violently opposed segregation. He says that Apartheid rule involved injustice by Reformed Christians but that it was far better than what Mandela did – in fact Wilson claims that the worst part about Apartheid rule was that its sins were a “wind” that led to the current “whirlwind” of evil government under majority Black South African democratic rule. To support this point, Wilson links to a John Crawford essay that calls… Read more »

(I should note what followed Mandela’s arrest. From 1963 to 1976, violent activity by the ANC almost completely ceased as its main proponents were now imprisoned. But in 1976, an effort by the South African government to force Afrikaans-language instruction in township schools led to large-scale student protests, which the South African government put down violently. Estimates for the number of student protesters killed range from 179 to over 700. In response the ANC began carrying out violent operations again, in many cases more violent than anything Mandela had done. Overall about 130 people were killed by such actions between… Read more »

I replied with a segregation example under Jill’s comment. For slavery, which one would think is even worse than segregation and can even more obviously be opposed by force under Pastor Wilson’s rubric, Pastor Wilson has made clear that opposing slavery with violence was evil in his view. In “Getting the Whole Thing Arsy Varsy”, Pastor Wilson states that “In reality, abolitionist violence is only a good thing after 100 years of textbook lies have sanitized it.” In “Time for a Little Q & A”, Pastor Wilson says that God gave instructions for abolishing slavery in the Bible and that… Read more »

I’m going to have to stop you right there. Saying that the specific action of opposing slavery with violence in one particular historical context is not the same as what you presented, that he claims opposing slavery with violence in general is evil. Actually, your claim does the exact opposite work, as it is Pastor Wilson who took a specific action from one particular historical context and made it a principle in general. In “How Koinonia Conquers”, Pastor Wilson claimed that Paul’s letter to Philemon teaches us that attacking slavery specifically and social evils in general by “revolutionary means” is… Read more »

Anyone who has known me for some time on this board knows that I am a strong and complete advocate of nonviolence. And a couple people on this board are aware that I have practiced that principle in contexts where it is tested more than 90% of Americans will ever face. So far as the incredible lengths you wish for me to go in order to defend a best-fit interpretation of someone’s position, I think you’re simply arguing for something beyond any reasonable expectation. If Pastor Wilson thinks I have misrepresented him, I encourage him to point out explicitly where… Read more »

It’s the Biblical standard. If you’re casting sinful aspersions onto someone, particularly another Christian, you need to be able to show it. That’s precisely why I didn’t ascribe moral impetus to my criticisms of your rhetoric. Which of Pastor Wilson’s beliefs, as I have interpreted them, are you declaring sinful? Do you believe that if he holds one of the beliefs that I have ascribed to him, it is actual sin? That’s not how that works. I can’t declare that Hillary Clinton likes to hurt small puppies, cite some quotes that kinda sorta maybe say something like that if you… Read more »

By the way, when reading that I found Pastor Wilson to have made a comment that just defied reason:

“More men died in one battle, at the battle of Antitem, than in the entire Vietnam war.”

What? That’s just incredibly, staggeringly wrong.

Rabbit hole noted, but irresistible. Yes, that 51,000 casualties at Gettysburg does include all categories, likewise the numbers for Antietam. Battle deaths were many, but many less than those numbers. I don’t know where Jonathan found the citation, but absent any context to explain it I don’t know why Wilson would have said that, as it is indeed way off. And irrelevant to……uh, what was the topic again?

However you could the casualties at Antitem, the dead in Vietnam were in the millions! Not even all the men who died in the entire four years of the Civil War can come close to matching the number who died in Vietnam.

Sorry, “however you count.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War_casualties

If that was the origin, then he has eliminated the words “American” from it, which change the meaning entirely and moves the statement from “quite wrong” to “obscenely wrong.”

So far as “La Raza” goes, I don’t know a huge amount about them but from what I do know I consider them a basically harmless organization that intends well but which I would not personally affirm. The few people in my life who were in some way associated with La Raza, both Latino and non-Latino White, were fine well-intentioned followers of Christ. So far as Malkin’s list goes, it’s a typical hit piece. Her #1 point is that it is formed around Hispanic ethnic identity….so? Does Malkin also decry people who belong to the Ancient Order of Hibernians, Russian… Read more »

Because there are no “ramifications.” What you call “radical views” of La Raza are views that are supported by prominent people on both sides of the political aisle, including two of the most recent Republican presidential candidates, and are in no way conflicting with any Supreme Court precedent, so I don’t see how they would be disqualifying. And you were the one who said that the most significant factor was La Raza’s name and claimed that that showed that she was a “partisan” and was affiliated with racists and thus disqualified from consideration for the court. And you still seem… Read more »

And just minutes ago Katecho attacked me for assuming certain views of Pastor Wilson based on his own past statements, going so far as to demand an apology even though Pastor Wilson has never said that my framing of his views on the matter are incorrect. Yet here Katecho has no problem assuming certain views of mine and declaring a “double-standard” regarding what I would do if Kavanaugh were a member of an organization that doesn’t even exist and which I have obviously never spoken on. What can be assumed apparently depends on who is doing the assuming. This is… Read more »

fp, if you can point to a single lie of mine in here, do so. Any commenter on here is going to be familiar enough with your issues with me to know that your vague and generalized attacks on me carry no weight, so it would help you to get specific. Also, if you can point to a single point in which I have failed to appropriately hold the “presumption of innocence” with Kavanaugh in whatever manner that presumption pertains to message board comments, please do so. I have commented on here many, many times since the Moore issue a… Read more »

Actually, Pastor Wilson’s turning off of the commenting may have been longer ago than I recalled. I have commented on here several times since then, probably not “many many times” as Pastor Wilson doesn’t allow commenting on most of the interesting essays anymore and he hasn’t published any of my letters as far as I know.

So you called me a “lying sack of sh**”, claimed I made “a bunch of stupid, baseless, lying comments in one thread”, and repeatedly insinuated that I’m being paid (by who??? why here???) based solely on the fact that you didn’t like the WaPo link I posted, you didn’t think I considered the fullness of Kavanaugh’s career, because Ford’s testimony had inconsistencies (which I never disputed), and because I said “only one of these two people is being considered for a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land”. That was your entire list of my supposed “bunch of… Read more »

Thank you for saying that exactly the way you said it. The first half-dozen times, your mean-spirited language towards me was hurtful. At this point I am grateful for it as it makes what I already know to be true clear to everyone else.

I’m more than happy to let this entire conversation stand, your words have been more indicting on their own than anything I could say. Though since you insist on bringing up old conversations without context: My personal favorite is when Jonathan claimed on another thread that illegal aliens commit less crimes than citizens. That is a favorite of mine as well. Anyone who was not there should hear that the context was a fellow poster who claimed that millions and millions of illegal aliens had cast illegal ballots in California, and when challenged on this ridiculous assertion he claimed as… Read more »

I’m more than happy to let this entire conversation stand, your words have been more indicting on their own than anything I could say. Though since you insist on bringing up old conversations without context: My personal favorite is when Jonathan claimed on another thread that illegal aliens commit less crimes than citizens. That is a favorite of mine as well. Anyone who was not there should hear that the context was a fellow poster who claimed that millions and millions of illegal aliens had cast illegal ballots in California, and when challenged on this ridiculous assertion he claimed as… Read more »

Thank you again for speaking as you do and making the lines clear.

I posted an extended, detailed rebuttal of FP’s point, and when he replied with nothing but ad hominems, I simply thanked him for making the lines clear….and you accuse me of the one basing my argument on ad hominem? Comments 219837/219838 are a detailed rebuttal of FP’s red herring attack with numerous citations. FP responded by calling me “pathetic”, “delusional”, “absurd”, “stupidity”, “lost in the weeds”, and “unhinged.” Exactly which one of those claims was I supposed to be able to form any sort of coherent argument against? Do you have any rational defense as to why you keep attacking… Read more »

I didn’t ask for your moral obligation, I asked for your rational reasoning. You do not “need” to do anything on this board, of course. And you provided it! So thank you. So far as why I point out FP’s behavior towards me, there is an unfortunate mob attitude that can reign on message boards, where the psychological pull is typically going to be to side with the majority and against the outlier, as the well is almost continuously poisoned against the outlier. I will always offer a rational defense for my positions, but I am well aware that few… Read more »

Thanks Justin.

Jonathan, I think two things are at play here. One is the extreme polarization of the political spectrum in the last two years. More than ever, we want to be able to assign people as R or D and have less patience with the holders of nuanced positions in the middle. The other is–I think–that your well known views abjuring the use of lethal violence regardless of circumstances, and your views on a Christian attitude toward money, put you out of the mainstream. Because a significant number of Christians here–Catholic and Protestant alike–dispute the soundness of some of your core… Read more »

If you are referring to the double-comment, the issue was that the comment was placed into moderation for including links and thus didn’t post. The fact that it was in moderation as well as the massive formating error led me to post a readable version, without the links, rather than wait for the moderation to go through at which point the comment would no longer have been possible to edit anyway.

“Either way J’, pray for Justice.

It has been known to come, even from an unjust judge at times!”

Amen to that.

Yes, indeed, as well as mercy and charity. Time to remind myself once again of what Scalia said about his close friendship with RBG: “Very good people can have very bad ideas.”

Jill,
Does it follow that bad people can have good ideas? The question is not merely academic to me at present.

Hi John, Yes, I think bad people can have good ideas, but I need to define some terms. I’m defining bad person as clever/ingenious man or woman who knowingly violates the moral code when that will be useful to his or her agenda. I am defining good idea as a practical plan for human betterment, or crisis resolution, that will result in actual good for other people–whether or not it also benefits the bad one. I think Napoleon is a good example. As Roberts, his biographer notes in his 2014 biography, Napoleon the Great: “The ideas that underpin our modern… Read more »

I would put the matter stronger still: the delay manifests complete conviction that, the accusation being facially absurd (“someplace sometime in the 1980s”), it will still serve as a useful stick to beat him with.