The truth of 'X' ...

This post is initially prompted by reflection on my recent statement that of the two (or three) Canadians I've known or met in person, two were 'dicks'. But, I don't explain that until the end.

The truth of [some concept or philosophy or world-system] doesn't stand or fall on the behavior of its adherents or promoters. Now, certainly, one can, and ought, observe and take into account to some degree the behavior of the adherents and promoters of [the concept or philosophy or world-system], but at most that behavior can arouse suspicion that [the concept or philosophy or world-system] contains some serious flaw - but, that suspicion may itself be false and based on mis-information.

Consider: in recent years, a number of Roman Catholic priests have been accused, and some convicted, of “pedophilia”, both in the US and in other countries - though, indeed, it was not ‘pedophilia’ as that term is medically and legally defined, but rather it was the homosexual molestation of pubescent boys and young men (the facts are constantly misrepresented because the "liberals" are currently playing up the official victim-status of "gays"). Should one thereby condemn Catholicism as being false? Or, should one thereby condemn Catholicism as having materially contributed to these condemnable acts - as a hypocrite such as Richard Dawkins does … when he’s not condemning you for condemning the homosexual molestation of pubescent boys and young men?

Of course not! (Gentle Reader surely knows that I have no use for the Roman denomination, but I do oppose unjust and false attacks upon it). Now, IF a majority of RCC priests were molesting boys and young men, then certainly that would justify the suspicion that there is something deeply wrong with Catholicism, but one would still need to examine Catholicism to see whether that were true.

And, when one does examine Catholicism, one sees that it condemns -- and offers no exceptions -- not only the homosexual molestation of pubescent boys and young men, but all homosexual acts, across the board. That is, while it is true that some RCC priests have molested young boys, it is also true that these acts are inconsistent with, and contrary to, Catholicism. So, to find the explanation for why some RCC priests have engaged in the homosexual molestation of pubescent boys and young men, and why some RCC prelates have tried to bury the facts and/or protect the molesters, one has to widen one's field of enquiry.

Does Gentle Reader know that in terms of percentages (and of sheer numbers), far more public school teachers than RCC priests molest children put under their authority? Does that information change what one thinks one knows about RCC priests and young boys?

Yet, when was the last time *anyone* ever put forth the claim that for that reason we should re-think the very idea of having public schools?

Does Gentle Reader comprehend that “comprehensive sex education” is nothing but a scheme to groom children so as to make them easier prey to sexual predators?

Yet, when was the last time anyone with a(n approved) public voice ever put forth the claim that we should do away with “sex education”?

The answer to both questions is never, it’s always that we should double-down.

Consider: throughout the past two-plus centuries, every time that leftists have gained control over coercive State power, the result has been mass murder: whether it is the French Revolutionaries depopulating the Vendée for resisting the murders of their aristocrats and priests; whether it is Hitler (he as a leftist, no matter that the Stalinists have branded him a rightist) murdering millions for the crime of being non-Aryan; whether it is Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, Kim Jong, etc, murdering millions for being of the wrong social/economic class; whether it is American Progressivism justifying and facilitating the murders of millions of unborn children, both in the US and abroad … every damned time that leftists have gained control over coercive State power, the result has been mass murder.

Now, is this fact, all by itself, proof that leftism is murderous at its core? Well, no ... but it does and should arouse one's very strong suspicion that leftism is murderous at its core: but one still has to look at the content of leftism.

And, one needn't look far to find that, in contrast to molesting priests and Catholicism, mass murder is totally consistent with leftism, and indeed is all but guaranteed to happen when leftists control the State. For, at the core of leftism is the repudiation of the individual -- leftism not only denies the importance of the individual as an individual, but denies the very existence of the individual as an individual.

Under leftism, every individual human life is the representative of some class or other -- and the leftists get to define those classes and to assign or deny personhood to them. Thus, under leftism, if The Leader/Party says that 'Enemies of the Revolution' are non-persons, then they are utterly disposable, and whole districts of people may be murdered for daring to resist 'The Revolution'; if The Leader/Party says that 'non-Aryans' are non-persons, then they are utterly disposable, and whole nations may be murdered for the crime of being of the "wrong" race; if The Leader/Party says that 'kulaks' are non-persons, then they are utterly disposable, and entire strata of society may be murdered as scapegoats for the failed economic policies of The Leader/Party; if The Leader/Party says that 'fetuses' are non-persons, then they are utterly disposable, and millions of utterly innocent human lives may be snuffed out for the crime of show-casing the falsehood of the promises by which the "Sexual Revolution" was sold to a public that *wanted* those lies to be true.

So, what does all the above have to do with Canadians being (or not being) 'dicks'?

Well, of course, it has to do with the obvious fact that it would be irrational ... and immoral ... for me to assert that "all Canadians are 'dicks'" on the basis that two of the two (or three) Canadians I've known or met in person were.

But, there is more to it than the obvious -- one of those Canadian 'dicks' was our pastor, and an object of my natural boyhood hero-worship, for a number of years when I was a child.

One frequently runs across God-haters who use the horrible behavior of some (presumed) Christian or other as an excuse for dismissing Christianity without even the pretense of examining its content. One frequently runs across damned-fool (presumed) Christians who sagely nod their heads at this irrational illogic of dismissing Christianity without even the pretense of examining its content ... or even greater fools who offer the excuse in his place, whether or not he would himself, as though he has no moral agency of his own: "Oh! He's so *angry* at God ... some Christian must have done something to justify his anger (or hatred) of God!" ... No, you damned fool, you God-damned fool, he's angry at God because enmity with God is the state in which we all enter this world.

Now, in fact, Christianity explicitly teaches that we *all* are sinners; that we all have done, and will do horrible things; that not one of us can correct this problem under our own power, by our own wills. So, that some (presumed) Christian or other has done some horrible thing is exactly what Christianity predicts.

So, do you want to know about this Canadian 'dick', who had been our pastor when I was a kid?

When I was a young man, mid-twenties -- visiting my mother after she'd had a stroke -- he tried to get me to engage in homosexual acts with him (under my mother's roof, no less!); thereby confirming a suspicion I'd had for a number of years that when I was 10, and had stayed overnight with him (something my brother did frequently, but I had never done before, being a more retiring child than my brother was, and never desired to do again) when his wife and infant son were visiting her relatives in Michigan, he'd come very close to molesting me.

And then, a number of years later, preaching my father's funeral, the very man who had tried to get me to engage in "sex" with him had the audacity to publicly single out my three siblings and me as sinners in special need of attention. And I, being the sort who naturally avoids confrontation, said nothing publicly.

And yet, here I am, a Christian, and a foe of atheism -- for I know that Christ is Truth Itself, no matter what some (presumed) Christian does or does not do.