Latest Comments

In response to: A Possible Explanation for Modern Imbecility?

Comment from: Dan Engel [Member]

Thanks for your thoughtful response, Sean. Regarding your comment about the “majority” deciding, I would point out that if there was any respect for a “majority"-based process on things like this, actions like “Proposition 8″ in California would not have been overturned.

Note that my complaint about gays having rights isn’t that they have rights: They should have the same rights as everybody else; it’s that they have rights /as gays/–in other words, special rights just on the basis of their gayness. In other words, they have, under the current regime, special rights just because they’re gay. Many will argue the point, saying silly things like “allowing gay marriage just gives them the same rights as anybody else.” Well, it’s easy to see how the young, unaccustomed to real thinking, would think that. The argument gets into the anthropological nature of marriage (completely missed by Obergefell). But what gets to the point in my post (a bit tongue in cheek, to be sure) is that a hundred years ago, everybody in the population would have recognized as common sense what today requires a rather deep line of argumentation–and then many people still reject the argument because they really can’t follow something that doesn’t fit on a bumper sticker.

But here’s the thing: My proposition for returning sanity to our society is to unshackle society: Roll back laws and presumptive SCOTUS decisions that tell people how to run their own decision-making process. Re-level the playing field, so to speak, and let everybody express his or her own beliefs in how he or she interacts with the rest of society–including under what conditions he or she is willing to engage in business transactions. In other words, let the force of people’s beliefs be felt and let the conversation occur where it belongs–in the market place, person-to-person. Reject the idea that 9 men (or women) in black robes get to tell everybody else what to go along with in terms of social tolerance and acceptance. I should prevent you from crossing a line to violence, by all means, but I shouldn’t force you to act as though you’re OK with certain things–even in how you run your business.

This is where the idea of “majority rule” breaks down, and why the United States was not established as a democracy, but as a democratic republic. The structure of the federal government was designed to protect people from the whims of the majority. When such things as how and whether to provide segregated locker spaces and bathrooms is being dictated from the highest government level, that’s the wrong place for that decision to be made, regardless of what the “majority” thinks on the matter.

Of course, as the name of this particular blog implies, it’s mainly a religious blog. My ultimate answer is that Christ is the only path to sanity. Where that intersects with politics, my drive is to create a society in which the Church has the greatest freedom possible to operate and to win people’s hearts. To me, that means almost exactly the vision of governance laid out by the Founding Fathers–a vision largely rejected by today’s progressive movement.

I hope you got that the whole tetraethellead thing was completely tongue in cheek. But when the proposition, that I get to simply decide I’m a woman and the government forces others to go along with it, needs to be called “mis-guided” rather than immediately recognized by everyone for what it is–imbecilic–then something is seriously wrong!

Thank you, again, for taking the time to provide your thoughtful answer!

06/27/16 @ 08:29

In response to: A Possible Explanation for Modern Imbecility?

Comment from: Sean [Visitor]
Sean

I had just recently discovered this blog while surfing the internet. Interesting arguments, though I think most people would feel much too insulted to listen. While I do understand that responses which point out one’s flaw in logic tend to appear insulting, this argument appears more pointed. Using terms such as non-think, misguided, and perhaps even flawed, look much better to the reader than stupid and astoundingly imbecillic. However, I’m curious about your points, so I’ll go ahead and bite.

Part of the trouble I see is that your arguments, both from this post as well as others, is that all hinge on God’s existence, and his having instituted the Catholic religion. That’s fine, I’m not here to argue any of that. However, we are a diverse nation with a multitude of religions, all with wide ranging beliefs. Not to mention, many Catholics themselves actually support the very things you believe are wrong. I consider that a number of Catholics support Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders.

Regardless of what you think is right or wrong, a majority (I believe, looking at studies and polls) have decided the contrary. And this majority has decided that gays ought to have rights, and that they are not playing pretend. Not to mention, they believe that the transgendered population are not playing pretend either, and that their brains are wired such that their bodies and their minds don’t match properly.

That is the democratic republic. The majority make the changes they wish to see in their country. With this in mind I have a series of questions: Wouldn’t forcing on the people your reversals lead to a minority rule? Assuming even a slim majority supports the measures you oppose, then allowing people who share your views to make the decisions would lead to minority rule. Wouldn’t minority rule cause more damage? We’ve seen throughout history that this can easily lead to tyranny. At the very least, we can consider that those fewer judges are at least selected by the President, and confirmed by the Senate. In that way, those unelected judges are still accountable to the people, since the latter 2 are elected.

The final question I have, which will probably be answered by the first 2 questions, what would you do about these evils you see being injected into our culture? While I see numerous posts about the dangers you see facing our country, I see little suggested about how to bring these changes. Having read some of your posts, I find myself more interested in seeing how you want to change these things, than what you want to change.

04/24/16 @ 01:48