Search This Blog

Loading...

Tuesday, October 21, 2014

America in C Major

Douglas Wilson: America in C Major
A wedding chapel in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, The Hitching Post, run by a man and wife team, each of them an ordained minister, has been informed that they could face jail time or fines if they refuse - as they intend to refuse - to perform same sex mirages. ...

Now the argument is that they will be forced by the state to perform same sex mirages in their role as businessmen, and not in their role as ministers. Because this is an “open to the public” thing, like a restaurant, they must serve whoever walks through the door. Simple pimple, right? Well, not exactly. In the first place, I see no reason why they should be forced to perform same sex mirages any more than our local La Casa Lopez should be forced to serve up Chinese, however much an urgent patron wants him some almond chicken. Their defense would run along the lines of “we’re a Mexican restaurant. We don’t serve Chinese food. We don’t know how to make Chinese food.”

So this is where appeal will be made to the great advances accomplished by the Civil Rights movement back in the sixties. Back in the day, whites could refuse to serve blacks in their restaurants, and it wasn’t that long ago. It was that way in the town where I grew up, and who wants to return to those days? The claim is made that “you opponents of same sex mirage want to return us to those days.” This particular point is the central slippery trick in this whole mess.

Before proceeding further, I do want to say that we should be far better masters of the distinction between sins and crimes before we go about trying to outlaw sins. Because we tried to eliminate the sin of racial prejudice in public spaces without grasping that essential distinction, we have ended up by mandating the commission of sin in public spaces. Essaying to stamp out one sin we have made another sin, one that is far worse, mandatory. Let me go over that again. We have outlawed one sin, and the cost of doing it is that we have made another sin compulsory. People who do that shouldn’t be in charge of things.

Run this out. Suppose The Hitching Post was owned by a couple that had sincere religious convictions against miscegenation. This would mean that they would want the right to refuse to perform a ceremony between a black man and a white woman. Now I take it as a given that such a refusal on their part would be sinful. But should it be illegal?

And even if it should be illegal, how does it follow that if the state can make someone quit being sinful that this somehow authorizes the state to make people start being sinful?

So this is the point where our pretended moral arbiters try to retreat into moral relativism - they say that we use terms like “sin” and we quote Bible verses and all, but not everyone has the same understanding of morality. Who is to say what sins are? Who is to tell us the difference between right and wrong? This is a pluralistic society, and we should know that we cannot impose our own moral codes on others who do not share them. Don’t you know anything, rube? Well, okay, but if we can’t impose a particular morality on people who don’t share that morality, then why did you impose your morality on the bigoted restaurant owner? This is not a difficult question to understand, and I am willing to wait for an answer. By what standard are you making your moral decisions, and why should they be obligatory for others who do not share your devotion to those standards?
By no standard at all, of course, for leftists are *always* lying hypocrites.

Surely, Gentle Reader recalls, oh, just last week, when we were assured that the judicial over-reach imposition of the same-sex mirage regime would not affect "your marriage" (meaning *real* marriages) and that no one would ever be trying to force Christians to violate their consciences over same-sex mirage.
... The Bible speaks on this subject with such clarity that the only way this current homo-overreach can conclude is by trying to take our Bibles away. As long as we have our Bibles, their contentions will be unable to get the clown face paint off. But we live in an era that has difficulty in understanding when an argument is ad absurdum, and so I apologize for bringing it up. No need to take our Bibles. Really.
In the end, they *must* come after our Bibles -- and ultimately our lives -- for the logic of their irrational-and-sinful position commands it.

John C. Wright: Snal Out of It

Continue reading ...

Sunday, October 12, 2014

'Everyone is excited about the millions of dollars'

Adventist Mission Doctor Speaks Out on the Ebola Crisis and Foreign Aid -- The leftists who control the government of the US aren't really interested in helping the people of Liberia stamp out this disease. Rather, this is just one more excuse to waste money. The leftists will never forgive Reagan for bankrupting the USSR ... and they fully intend to return the favor.

Continue reading ...

Wednesday, October 8, 2014

Making the National Socialist approach to mass murder look moderate

More socialized medicine in action -- Vox Day: Dutch slaughter

Continue reading ...

Tuesday, October 7, 2014

Socialized Medicine in Action

Here are two recent news items illustrating what really does -- and must -- go on under socialized medicine --
I want a sex change... again: Transsexual who had £10,000 surgery on NHS wants to become a man again - because being a woman is exhausting [£10,000 is currently about $16,000]

So, rather that working at trying to solve his real problem, this mentally-and-emotionally -- and spiritually -- damaged man was sexually mutilated using funds forcibly extorted from the taxpayers of Britain. Now, he wants a do-over ... using even more funds forcibly extorted from the taxpayers of Britain. But, of course, there is no do-over: even if he does ever get past his real problem, his body will now always be sexually mutilated.

Well, at least they're not talking about "solving" his problem via lethal injection, as was done last year to a "transsexual" woman in Belgium whose "sex-change" to pseudo-male didn't make her happy, after all.


Baby Born from Transplanted Womb -- A woman in Sweden gives birth to a healthy baby boy after carrying the child in a transplanted uterus for 32 weeks.

What this means is that hundreds of thousands of dollars (if not millions) forcibly extorted from the taxpayers of Sweden were used to transplant someone else's uterus into this woman and keep her immune system from rejecting it long enough for her to carry a child (expensively conceived via IVT) to 'viability'. Which means that these same hundreds of thousands of dollars (if not millions) forcibly extorted from the taxpayers of Sweden were not used for something of real medical benefit to anyone.

And they're planning more of this waste of resources.

===========
Here (again) is a comment by the blogger 'Wintery Knight' explaining *why* socialized medicine does and must produce such monstrous and/or absurd results -- Wintery Knight: Doctor shortage: how Obamacare makes Americans lose their doctors
The problem is that when government controls health care, they spend the money on things that will buy them more votes. People who need expensive care like this definitely do not get treated. In government-run health care, government takes control of the money being spent by individuals on actual health care in the private sector. They then redirect that money into public sector spending on “health-related” services. Instead of helping people who are really sick, government-run systems cut lose those sick people and concentrate on buying perfectly healthy people things like condoms, abortions, IVF and sex changes. They spread the money around to more people in order to buy more votes. The main goal is to get the majority of people dependent on government so that they continue to vote for bigger government. The few people who need expensive health care? They can just go die in a ditch.

Continue reading ...

Saturday, October 4, 2014

When the leftists are making omelettes ...

"When the leftists are making omelettes, the last thing you want to do is stand there looking like an egg."

Continue reading ...

The Obama Error

Christopher Chantrill at American Thinker: Rectification of Names: Let's Call Obama Era What It Is

Might I suggest calling the time of alleged-President Obama, that ol' blame duck, 'The Obama Error'?

Continue reading ...

Tuesday, September 16, 2014

Women! *eyeroll*

Kathy Shaidle: Cry Me a Rivers
How or why Joan Rivers (or anyone within earshot) figured her voice suddenly needed fixing, I couldn’t tell you. Since she wasn’t beautiful, Rivers’ voice was usually described as “raspy” or “grating.” Had she looked like Kathleen Turner and sounded exactly the same, the word would’ve been “husky” instead.

To state that Joan Rivers’ life would’ve been completely different if she’d been better looking is to say nothing—“If we had ham, we could make a ham and cheese sandwich if we had cheese”—and, yet, everything.

Beauty is the female’s primary reserve currency. Some women inherit a pulchritude trust fund; others, like Joan Rivers, are the ones we hear about in stump speeches, those born already owing some five-figure debt to someone or other.
What *is* it with women vis-à-vis other women?! [edit] Also, what *is* is with women that everything they don't like -- even when it's typically done by women, rather than by men -- is always due to the alleged "sexism" of men or of "society" (which is generally used as just another way of blaming men)?

Joan Rivers was a very beautiful woman -- I speak as a man who holds to an all-but-impossible ideal of female beauty (*) -- *until* she turned herself into a freak with plastic surgery. Also, her voice was indeed “raspy” and “grating", and would have been called so even had she looked like the young Liz Taylor.

(*) Some of my cousins are so beautiful that first meeting them can literally take your breath away. And that's just the men. My siblings and I are the "plain" ones of that side of my family (and I'm the "plain" one of the four of us). I know it's not reality, but my setting for "normally attractive woman" is turned up several notches past "5".

Continue reading ...

Thursday, September 11, 2014

Another case of 'You are not your brain'

'News' at Uncommon Descent: Woman of 24 found to have no cerebellum in her brain
Although it is not unheard of to have part of your brain missing, either congenitally or from surgery, the woman joins an elite club of just nine people who are known to have lived without their entire cerebellum. A detailed description of how the disorder affects a living adult is almost non-existent, say doctors from the Chinese hospital, because most people with the condition die at a young age and the problem is only discovered on autopsy (Brain, doi.org/vh7).

However, in this woman, the missing cerebellum resulted in only mild to moderate motor deficiency, and mild speech problems such as slightly slurred pronunciation. Her doctors describe these effects as “less than would be expected”, and say her case highlights the remarkable plasticity of the brain.
Such cases not only "highlight the remarkable plasticity of the brain" but *also* highlight the falseness of the atheistic/naturalistic claim that minds are explained by brains (as see here and here)

Continue reading ...

Friday, September 5, 2014

Apparently, It's a nice place to visit ...

... but you wouldn't want to live be stuck there. The 7th Century, that is.

Mail Online: 'I don't want to be a jihadi... I want to come home': How dozens of British Muslims who went to Syria to join ISIS 'plead to return to UK after becoming disillusioned with the conflict' -- It seems that the charm of chopping off the heads of dirty kafirs dulls after a while when one considers how dirty one can get without soap and hot running water to wash off the blood. And toilet paper; rubbing your hand in sand just isn't the same as having toilet paper and a flush toilet and, again, soap and water.

Of course, even in reporting this, Political Correctness reigns: these "disillusioned" head-choppers aren't 'Britons'; they never were.

Continue reading ...

Wednesday, September 3, 2014

Rotherham is what happens when you deliberately ...

K T Cat: Rotherham, 1980

K T Cat: In Rotherham, They Believed Us

Continue reading ...