Can you imagine shearing a sheep? To make it profitable, it helps to shear lots of sheep. What if the sheep object to being sheared? What if they wrestle or bite? Then it becomes more difficult to shear the sheep. Then the numbers of sheep a shearer can shear in a day goes way down.
So, it helps that sheep are docile, and that makes it possible for skilled sheep shearers to shear a thousand sheep in a day.
How is it that sheep are so docile? Well, perhaps human beings bred them to be that way. Who knows, but it doesn’t work that way with people? We the People, because we are sooooo smart, can be trained to be docile by our glorious leaders.
How does docility training work? Well, I am not one of our glorious leaders with access to the inmost inner ring (see ANYBODY WHO LIKES C. S. LEWIS IS ON THE RIGHT TRACK: UPDATED 06/29/2014). So, I can only guess, but here is what I think is going on our country, the USA. Docility training is multiprong threat to our freedom.
- Indoctrination via public education: Our glorious leaders run our public schools. When you think of it, this is rather amazing. NOBODY trusts politicians. So, we put them in charge of the education of our children, teaching our children what and how to think? We joke about salesmen selling Eskimos refrigerators, but this tops that. Consider what our glorious leaders have done. They sell access to our children to the highest bidders. Hence, various political donors use their influence to get contracts to teach our children all kinds of weird ideas. What our schools don’t do is properly teach civics, history, ethics, science, mathematics, reading, writing, and so forth. The end result is that our children don’t know enough to love God or their families, friends, neighbors, and countrymen the way they should. They don’t know who and what they should stand for. So they will fall for any stupid idea that sounds good.
- Propaganda from the mass media: Thanks to the latest iteration of Crony Capitalism, 90 percent of the mass media is owned by about five or six corporations. The people who run these companies seem to be in cahoots with the political elite. In return for favors from our glorious leaders, the crony capitalists use their control over the mass media, especially the news media, to get their crony politicians elected. In addition, the mass media undermines public morality by using the seven deadly sins (Pride, Envy, Wrath, Gluttony, Lust, Sloth, and Greed (see What Are the Seven Deadly Sins? (christianity.com))) to attract an audience for advertisers. Again consider the result. Those who believe the mass media end up not believing in God. They learn to love their sins instead. they don’t know who and what they should stand for. So they will fall for any stupid idea that sounds good.
- Manipulation by the social media: Lots of us spend a considerable amount of time on Internet social media. Here Big Tech companies like Google, Facebook, Twitter, Apple and so forth (Crony Capitalists for sure) constantly seek to guide us to the webpage they want us to see, and they actively suppress what they don’t want us to see. What is the consequence? We tend to think about and contemplate only those ideas and beliefs that they want us to think about and contemplate. That is, if We the People are not very careful, we will uphold and believe only those ideas and beliefs our glorious leaders approve.
Is all this docility training part of some great and grand master plan or just an unhappy accident for We the People? Well, if We the People believe in the Devil, it is no accident. If we don’t, We the People seem to be the victims of an accident that our glorious leaders have now seized as an opportunity. That is bad news either way.
What seems to be the final step in docility training? Docility testing. Why testing? Our glorious leaders want to see if their training taken hold. Will some of American people oppose them if they decide to seize the power they seek? How many? Who?
What does docility testing look like? Well, it has actually been going on for decades.
- Living Constitution: For as long as I can remember, our teachers have told us that we have a living Constitution and that is a good thing. Of course, a living Constitution is actually useless. How do we hold our leaders accountable to a document that means whatever they want it to mean?
- Global warming: Is Global Warming or Climate Change (its new name) real? No. So, why would our leaders want us to believe that it is? The answer. Crises like this give our glorious leaders an excuse to demand extraordinary powers.
- Multiculturalism: Multiculturalism involves the belief that all cultures are equally good. Since religious beliefs are central to every culture, that means that all religious beliefs are equally good. That creates a problem. Almost every religious belief claims to be the only one that is true. So, if all religious belief are equally good, all are equally false. The Secularists like that, of course.
- Hate crimes: Hate crimes are essentially thought crimes. With hate crimes our glorious leaders have claimed the power to punish incorrect thoughts, that is, whatever they say they think we are thinking.
- Gun control: Who wants to shear sheep that have guns and know how to use them?
- Separation of church and state: The Constitution does not require the separation of church and state. The Constitution (the First Amendment) prohibits government from establishing a state religion and interfering with the free exercise of religion. That means that citizens can publicly espouse their religious beliefs and advocate laws and policies in accord with their own personal religious beliefs. Unfortunately, we have secularists that are using the prohibition of government interference in religious belief as an excuse to suppress religious belief. Of course, while they are doing this they pretend that Atheism is not a religious belief.
- Massive invasion of illegal aliens: No citizens of a constitutional republic, proud of their heritage and willing to defend their God-given rights, would allow massive waves — an invasion — of uneducated and ignorant foreigners to jeopardize the freedom of their family, friends, neighbors, and countrymen. Yet that is the sad state we find ourselves in. Why? Our glorious leaders apparently think the illegal aliens will be more docile.
- LGBTQ agenda: The LGBTQ agenda includes lies such as same-sex marriage, transgenderism, and the existence of dozens of different genders. Why do our glorious leaders like this nonsense? Why do our leaders promote what Christianity calls the sin of fornication? Why do our leaders promote an agenda that is in conflict with science that says there only two sexes? The answer? The LGBTQ agenda gives government the power to declare what is Truth, and it gives government instead of parents power over children.
- COVID-19 lockdowns and mandates: We shut down our economy over a disease that is not much more dangerous than the flu. It has become increasingly obvious that the lockdowns, the mask mandates, and the vaccine mandates have done more harm than good. Yet our government and the mass media continue to peddle fear porn and hysteria. Why? In a crisis, fearful people will give their leaders more power they should have.
- Parallel systems of justice: Riot in a Democrat approved riot and the news media will either approve or ignore you. Destroy property, injure others, or even kill someone, and the FBI won’t care. Riot against the Democrat agenda, however, and the news media will accuse you of white supremacy, and the FBI will hunt you down and throw you in jail. Compare George Floyd riots — a huge number of RIOTS that damaged billions of dollars of property, injured hundreds and killed dozens — with the riot at the Capitol Building on January 6, 2021.
- Critical Race Theory: Critical Race Theory (CRT) — what the teachers unions want taught to our children — is ostensibly anti-racist. In practice, however, CRT promotes racism. Why would our glorious leaders like this? Our glorious leaders want more from us that mere docility. They want us in a state where we will believe whatever they wish and do whatever they say.
- Rule by edict (i.e., Executive Orders): The Constitution gives legislative powers to Congress and judicial powers to the Federal courts. President Joe Biden, unfortunately, is not content. In his impatience with us, he would like to combine all the powers of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches under himself.
Agree? Disagree? Do you think I made a good guess about what is going on? What do you think? What do you think we ought to do about docility training and testing? How are you working to push back?
I love this post, Tom! You couldn’t have described it any better.
First I concur that the leftist agenda is definitely counting upon a docile or maybe I would say, uniformed or misinformed, citizenship to complete it’s docility training. Secondly they have been able to push through things like removal of prayer in school, same sex unions, etc. because of an apathetic “Christian” majority in this nation.
Most of the people who call themselves Christian know little about the Bible.
I have found many know lots of bible facts, they can regurgitate verses ad nauseam, but know little of the True Biblical content that comes only from a right relationship with God.
That makes think of the Bible scholars who have studied the Bible but refuse to believe it. So, they make mythical gibberish of the text.
There are both good and bad sheep in our world.
Discerning which ones need to made docile is becoming more challenging now that politicians have approved widespread distribution of use of recreational drugs into our societies.
In my experience, drunks were more prevalent to be unpredictable how they would react to police intervention, either being docile or on roller skates, or violent because of their alcoholic or drugged state.
I often wonder if everyone should be made to serve alongside a police officer for a period might help everyone better understand what police have to confront and make split second decisions to determine while approaching both drunk, or more and more, drugged state of offenders with guns.
Best experience would be for everyone to experience what police serving in poverty high crime urban areas have to confront.
Where I served, for some reason, most people I encountered were for the most part the good sheep who only needed to be reminded by my being present not to act like bad sheep.
That was before police were required to wear bullet proof vests and alcohol was the biggest problem instead of widespread use of recreational drugs.
Regards and goodwill blogging.
Well, we are all sheep, and we all need the Good Shepherd..
Thanks for serving as a police officer. Tough job.
I suspect some people lack the self control to serve alongside a police officer. That is, some people are loose cannons. Therefore, when a police officer encountered a difficult situation, any program that resulted in having an unstable personality around would just add another difficulty. So, I don’t think everyone should be required to serve alongside a police officer.
Frankly, I don’t think government programs that make people do things (like a military draft) are good ideas. Government exists to protect our rights. When public officials start bossing us around, that confuses matters. So, I think the opportunity to work alongside a police officer should be pitched as a reward to high-school seniors or college students for excellence in academics and community service.
You are correct that some people are “loose cannons,” and if put in a position of authority over another may turn out bad. Experienced police officers over time can sense and learn to identify or spot criminal behaviors as well as loose cannons fairly accurately.
Police training in my community included a period of being observed when accompanying officers and with psychologist types of testing before being licensed.
Sadly, some “loose cannons” exist in both industry and government positions of authority without being observed, tested, or licensed, Same problem with gun licenses being given without any observation and training.
Most police are justifiably concerned with license to carry laws and would prefer guns in homes only.
However, in high crime urban areas residents where gangs rule, it doesn’t help police moral or incentives to keep arresting the same people over and over who are released in minutes after being arrested and allowed to terrorize residents to discourage anyone from testifying against them.
And most people are not aware that most jailed prisoners are ruled by gangs who have other ways to deal with loose cannons. Jail guards negotiate with jailed gang leaders to keep order in jails because they will lose their jobs or licenses if they used the same methods gangs use in jails.
Sad. In my novel, and a post. I wrote a chapter about how I surmised King Solomon explained to the Queen of Sheba why he allowed whipping instead of jailing.
Nothing new under the sun both the issue of crime and punishment seems to have changed or worked on humans who are never introduced to religion beliefs of wisdom and love teachings in early youth.
Regards and goodwill blogging.
The Second Amendment is what it is. If the government did psychological testing, we would all be declared insane.
Love this Tom, brilliant post.
Thank you for your kind compliment.
In reading through your points, I’m amused by the ‘Atheism is a religion’, but I respect your opinion. Since marriage is a legal contract under law in this nation, not bound by the framework of any one religion, calling it a ‘lie’ is another opinion, but one that fascinates me more than the rest. Is it the contractual act itself that bothers you most, or the common term of marriage?
I certainly concur with your thoughts on ‘hate crimes’, gun control and illegal immigration [the area I break most significantly with my Libertarian brethren].
The State should certainly not interfere with the pursuit of any religion, but neither should it endorse one, institutionally. Do you agree or disagree with the State only recognizing some religions, when it gives it’s ‘blessing’ [so to speak] for legal accommodations?
Tom, you’re normally pretty responsive…..I’m curious why you opted not to answer the couple of questions I posed.
Odd, I thought I had responded. When I get a chance, I will try again.
No worries, and no obligation of course. I was genuinely interested in your thoughts on the questions.
Is Atheism a religion? Of course it is. Religion is concerned with the ultimate questions. Who made me? What is my purpose? What is right? What is wrong? And so forth. Atheism does not address those questions the way Christianity does, but that is because Atheists don’t believe in God.
“Does God exists?” is one of those ultimate questions. The denial that God exists is the core religious doctrine of Atheism.
What about same-sex “marriage”? Same-sex marriage is an oxymoron. Can two people of the same sex engage in sexual activity. Yes, but fornication is not marriage.
The institution of marriage exists to form families for raising children. Why should government care about marriage? Government exists to protect the rights of the people, including children. Stable marriages protect the rights of children by providing for their care. The LGBTQ agenda is about legitimizing sexual perversion, not protecting children.
The state is secular in the sense that it neither establishes a religion or interferes with the free exercise of religion. Nevertheless, that doesn’t prevent the people from designing laws based upon their religious beliefs. Since every law has a moral purpose, that is unavoidable. Unfortunately, that doesn’t stop the Secularists from practicing their religious belief and trying to keep the discussion of religion out of the public square.
More later, but “but that is because Atheists don’t believe in God” directly contradicts a previous comment of yours.
Your position on marriage is not the legal one. It being an ‘oxymoron’ is merely subjective. Government has an interest in promoting families (future tax base), but the institution is in no way dependent on procreation……thus couples who cannot or choose not to have children, are still afforded lawful access to the contract union. Further, childless couples nor same sex couples, take anything away from the institution or those who practice it heterosexually and/or with offspring.
I feel safe in speaking for secularists, in that they don’t attempt to limit an elected representatives (or the average Citizens) religious beliefs or their motivation for legislation. But while just legislation should have a moral purpose, and can have a corresponding religious purpose…….it should also have secular value. Nobody is stopping the practice of religious belief (of the State sanctioned faiths anyway)…..or keeping religion out of the public square (an abject impossibility); so why are so many intent on promoting their beliefs in government institutions, to audiences comprised of believers and non-believers alike?
Government exists to ensure a future tax base? Who needs a government just to have their children robbed by it? And yet you have a point. We are piling up debt that will bankrupt future generations.
We are wired to form couples that are male and female. The fact that some couples don’t have children or that the union of couples generally persists after their children have left doesn’t make it any less about children.
Sex is about reproduction. It serves no other practical purpose.
There is no such thing as a secular value. Try defining such a thing. Then think about the fact you spoke such gibberish.
Well, you are safe. Christians won’t do anything to you except roll their eyes heavenward.
Of course there are secular values. You can blind yourself to them, so that they don’t interfere with your faith….but they exist irrespective of your opinion. Secularism protects both believers and non-believers, as well as freedom of expression and speech. It’s not prefect and is often abused.,….just as religion is.
Sex has no other practical purpose? You might be doing it wrong.
But thankfully, we’ve evolved enough as a society, not to at least not repress the Liberty of our Citizens in forming bonds of union based on who they’re biologically attracted to….especially since it doesn’t harm other presumptions of what marriage should be.
If only Christians did roll they’re eye skyward…..rather than try to compel others to live in accordance with a religious faith.
Why are you so threatened by Citizens [generally] living as they wish, as long as it doesn’t harm you?
Nicely presented, Jeff.
There are secular values, but you cannot define the expression? Then how do you know a secular value when you see one?
So I am doing sex wrong? Three observations. 1. One of the reasons people stay together is sexual pleasure. That means that their children have two parents. So, if anyone is doing it wrong, it is the people who cannot stay together. Of course, if they cannot have children, then the only thing they can give birth to is STDs.
2. Same-sex couples are notorious for having multiple partners. You don’t suppose they are doing wrong, do you?
3. You are not making logical arguments to support your position. You are just making unsupported assertions of “fact.” That is what comes from the notion that you have your own truth, beliefs that cannot be logically defended.
We live in a free country because Christians are not trying to force their beliefs upon anyone.
Almost no one is trying to force same-sex couples to stop having sex. The opposite is true. We suffer a daily mass media barrage that glorifies illicit sex. Sex education tells children how to have safe illicit sex.
Christians object to government approving of same-sex relationships using the institution of marriage. This is a case of Pagans (and that is what Secularism is as a practical matter) using government to force their beliefs upon others using ridiculous excuses, forever demanding sympathy with claims of victimhood. A same-sex relationship is a marriage? Only a meanie would stop people who claim to love each other from getting married. How do their absurd fantasies harm anyone?
We have a similar delusion with respect to abortion. When government funds abortions, the object is to make everyone complicit, even those who think it murder. Lies have consequences.
Am I threatened? When people abuse the power of government? When people insist that I believe whatever they want me to believe or else?
A couple of thousand years ago Roman Emperors had Christians burned alive because they were “unreasonable” and refused to acknowledge the Emperor as their Lord God. All they had to do is sacrifice a little wine and mouth the right words. What was the problem? Who did harm? That is the direction we are headed with this nonsense that everyone has their own truth, and government exists to help us fulfill our fantasies.
You stated that there is no practical purpose for having sex, other than procreation. That is indeed having your own truth. It’s your opinion. Cool.
Opposite sex partner have quite the sordid history of adultery, multiple sex partners, fornication, STDs…and the list goes on. Using same sex couples os a poor crutch. But let’s get to the salient comment:
“Christians object to government approving of same-sex relationships using the institution of marriage.”
You object to the State protecting the Liberty of Citizens to enter into a mutual compact, regardless of gender. By opposing this, you are attempting to use government to force your beliefs upon others using ridiculous excuses, forever demanding sympathy with claims of victimhood. [if you don’t believe me, look up the breathless exhortations from groups opposed to the legalization of marriage for all consenting adults.
You seem threatened that there are Liberty-minded Patriots who would oppose the abuse of State power.
“When people insist that I believe whatever they want me to believe or else?”
Like insisting that Atheists believe in God?
I get that you have opinions….but those opinions do not equal fact.
“We live in a free country because Christians are not trying to force their beliefs upon anyone.”
Hahahaha………start with the low hanging fruit and explain why so many Christians demand a [quite often overtly Christian] prayer before government functions, where the audience consists of believers and non-believers alike? Why do so many Christians lament the ‘removal of prayer’ from public schools…when nothing could be further from the truth. So long as a pupil is not disrupting the learning environment, they can [and do] pray as often as they please.
This is fun!
So, name a practical purpose other than procreation. While you are at it, why don’t you define the expression “secular value.”
Have opposite sex partners done things they should not do? As I have said before, read Genesis 3. Then please explain, while you are at it, how a bank robbery improves upon mugging someone in a dark alley with a deadly weapon. That is, after all, the sort of argument you are making here. You are not justifying same-sex marriage. You are just condemning heterosexual fornication, which is, of course, wrong.
Funny how you had to change from the word “marriage” to “mutual compact.” A marriage and a mutual compact are two different things. We have not even discussed the idea of the state protecting the Liberty of Citizens entering into a mutual compact.
Marriage is a specific kind of mutual compact. When thieves enter into a compact to rob a back, should the State protect their liberty to do so? Are all mutual compacts entitled to the protection of the state? Is it evil to oppose the Liberty of Citizens to enter into a mutual compact to do something wrong? Is same-sex sex, even when the partners have entered in to so-called marriage, wrong? I believe it is, and you have not argued otherwise. You have just blathered the usual sympathetic nonsense about the evils of opposing the wishes of two people in love.
So far, we could use your arguments to justify a “marriage” between an child and a grown adult. That, BTW, is where your arguments lead. Why? Instead of recognizing the fact that the government exists to restrain bad behavior, you are trying to use it to enable bad behavior, and you are using a flawed concept of liberty as an excuse.
Why do people want to pray at the beginning of a public meeting? When the people who started this country secularized the government, they understood the First Amendment, and they did not understand it to mean they had to practice their religion in a private closet. They looked around. They noted everyone at the meeting was a Christian. So, they joined together in prayer.
Stable governments can only be formed by people who have a shared set of values. When the vast majority of Americans were Christian, no one objected to the city council having a minister pray before their meetings. No one would have taken anyone seriously who took offense just because they had to listen to a prayer. Now? Well, the public schools system and the mass media have been used to undermine our nation’s shared Christian foundations.
What is the significance of taking prayer out of the public school system? When the public school system was started in the 1830’s, the schools instructed children in the Bible. The Bible is at the core of our history and central to nation’s philosophical foundations. Removing prayer also removed any possibility of appropriate religious instruction in the public schools.
Initially, the First Amendment did not apply to the states. Unfortunately, putting government in charge of the schools slowly resulted in the secularization of public education. Why?
1. In a republic, people form their own ideas about everything, including religion. That makes it probable that differing ideas about religious belief will become a hot potato. Nevertheless, politicians wanted control over school spending. So, because it posed such an obstacle, they slowly eliminated the religious content from the public schools. Good idea? No. Definitely not. This is why government has no business running public education.
2. State governments control local governments. In return for state funding, local governments rolled over and accepted state regulations without much fuss. Because states are even more diverse than local communities, that meant state politicians have an even greater incentive to remove religious content from the curriculum.
3. In the 1960’s, the Supreme Court decided that that school prayer was illegal because of the constitutional amendments that followed on the heels of the Civil War. Did the guys who wrote those post Civil War amendments ever consider that possibility? Not likely. After all, it took the better part of a century for the Supreme Court to throw out school prayer.
4. Because government runs the public schools, politicians can sell access to our children. That is, in return for campaign donations and other favors, activists can insert ideological content into the public school curriculum. Thus, the government-run schools have become ideological battlegrounds even though instruction religious belief has supposedly been excluded from the curriculum. It has gotten so bad that in my local area (Washington DC) school administrations have encouraged their students to participate in demonstrations. Surprise? With politicians running the schools?
As a Libertarian, how can you defend a government-run school system? With your mention of school prayer, that is, after all, what you just did. Strikes me that promoting your secular beliefs using the government is more important to you than your advocacy of liberty.
Rest assured I don’t think you funny. I don’t think the fact you seem incapable of a logical argument is funny. Instead, you substitute forced laughter and ridicule. Sad!
I’ll take this in chunks – I don’t defend government schools, but we have them don’t we? If I oppose them, why would I still want to see the already captured audience subjected to yet more special interests? I likewise don’t support any other ideological advocacy to be inserted into the curriculum. Are you making that argument? I have no problem however, with a course of survey of predominate religions and their tenets. Is that not good enough for you?
Systems work the way they work. If we put politicians in charge of government-run schools, they will subject their captives to the demands of special interests. The best thing to do is to change the system by putting the parents in charge with school choice.
Why should ou and I be choosing a survey course for other people’s children?
My wife and I home-schooled our two daughters. We made that school choice. Of course, with college….we’re at the mercy of wherever it’s best to have them attend.
If you choose to school your children with other children….how does one choose their child’s curriculum without choosing for others? You can swing it in a small CO-OP with other very like-minded parents, but thats about the extent, no?
You are asking how free enterprise work? When we buy a car or a house, don’t we give up getting something that is custom designed for the sake of price? Instead, don’t we go with a mass produced model that comes closest to our needs and wants?
You seem confused. I know how free enterprise works……and have never asked you about it.
Perhaps you mistook that for freedom of association, which I probably have referenced.
But to your point, no……we don’t have to give up custom orders for mass production. We can if we want to, but we are not required to.
Your defense of prayer in school and before government functions, is a pleasant retrospective, and great as far as your opinion goes, but it doesn’t defend it’s use today.
The system we have today is broken.
Marriage…..you sure know how to torture analogies. Both the robbery and the mugging assault or steal from a fellow Citizen [or an institution]. Allowing homosexual couples to marry, harms neither hetero nor homo Citizens. Marriage is indeed a special kind of compact….one that should be accessible to all Citizens. Unless you don’t support Liberty of course…..
“Are all mutual compacts entitled to the protection of the state?”
What is the defense for a State prohibition against entering into those compacts?
Please explain how I’m condemning heterosexual fornication?
When the government endorses a lie, that harms us all. One lie leads to another. Listen to you. You cannot even define marriage. It is anything you want.
Supposedly, you are a Libertarian. What you should be asking is why we need to expand the definition of marriage to include same-sex unions? What justifies such an absurd mission creep? Of course, since you cannot justify same-sex marriage, the objective is to keep me on defense.
So, you are not condemning fornication? Your standards leave something to be desired, but but that’s for you to explain.
Of course – “When the government endorses a lie, that harms us all.”
Yet you haven’t proven that same sex marriage is a lie. You’ve illustrated what society in history has thought….but your [and their definition] of what makes a union between two consenting adults, is not fact. It’s your opinion.
You’re on defense with marriage, because that’s the only position you have. You can’t show where this union being available to Citizens irrespective of gender [which is a decidedly Libertarian position] causes harm. Were this a legal case, you have shown absolutely no standing. You haven’t even proffered a practical reason to limit marriage to opposite genders.
You seem to have an odd fascination with fornication. Please illustrate where I have condemned it. Fornication occurs [and always had]…..again, irrespective of the state of marriage.
The politically correct have already started updating the dictionaries. Marriage, according to the manipulative, is now the union of two people. Still, until the manipulative get around to making it politically correct, the etymological dictionary still states what marriage means.
Words represent concepts. We think in words. When people redefine words the way you insist upon redefining marriage, you lose the ability to explain the concept.
Read the Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx. Marx hated the family. Marriage provides the beginning of a family. Families are the building blocks of every society. Communists want the state to control the upbringing of children. Families are just obstacles to their designs. Hence the concept of marriage must be destroyed.
Nobody cares about the dictionary. SCOTUS showed how it was unconstitutional. You haven’t shown otherwise or else you would be able to illustrate harm, damage and standing.
Injecting Communism now, is merely the latest distraction. But that’s in line with the script…..so points for consistency.
Nobody cares about the dictionary because it is unconstitutional? Any reference to communism has to be made by a certain time (whatever that is) or it is invalid?🤔
Now you’re just inventing arguments about Communism that that nobody is making. An expected by-product for injecting it to a discussion where it has no appropriate value.
There is no shortage of Communist sympathizers among the Democrats. Black Live Matters (BLW)was started by avowed communists, and the Democrats happily supported them. BLW is actually more supportive of the LGBTQ agenda than it is blacks.
….OK. I understand that you think so.
And it should go without saying, that for government to endorse a ‘lie’….it actually has to be a lie, and proven as such [not just opinion]. Right?
I like the passive-aggressive question of my Libertarianism…..we can debate that if you want….but you haven’t pointed out where any of my positions are not in line with Libertarianism. I believe in integrity and will gladly point out areas that I do break from the party/ideology…..but marriage is provably not one of them.
Libertarians are supposedly for limited government, but you are not. Remember this?
Without a proper concept of liberty — the role of public morality — Libertarians would create a totalitarian state.
Let’s see……the legal contract of marriage was prohibited to Citizens based on their gender. Libertarians opposed this.
Now, the state doesn’t prohibit this free association….and you claim it’s anti-Liberty?
You’re confusion runs rampant.
Let us recap – you argue that a decrease of State prohibition is the opposite of limited government.
Libertarians would form a mighty weak totalitarian State compared to those who support a broader scope of government control (as you do) and prohibitions based on ‘moral objections’.
Pleas continue……this is fascinating!
And instead of getting i traction with the canard of ‘Communism’……you now have to trot out non-consenting children…..as if that was a component of legal contracts between consenting Citizens.
Define ‘bad behavior’. Is Liberty ‘bad behavior’. Is repression ‘good behavior’?
Jesus answered that question two thousand years ago.
Here is a post that goes into more detail => https://citizentom.com/2020/11/29/when-do-the-people-steal-their-own-freedom-the-sequel/
That’s great. I’m glad that you have sources to provide a foundation for your opinion, and how you prefer to live your life.
It’s largely irrelevant with regard to the Constitution and the tenets of Liberty for people who choose not to believe in the same doctrine that you do.
Anyway, since you are not actually addressing my arguments, this is never going to go anywhere. Instead, I am supposed to address Federal court opinions, when the Federal courts clearly had no jurisdiction. There is a “right” to same-sex marriage in the Constitution. Seriously. That is not even worth discussing. That is like the “right” to abort — kill — an unborn child. Everyone knows that “right” is a fiction, but the advocates — liars — refuse to admit it.
Well, you haven’t address mine…..
If you were acquainted with the Constitution, you recognize that “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” applies to my position…not yours.
Obviously the people who wrote that were trying to legalize same-sex “marriage.” Not!
There are two semesters. Everyone has the same right to marry a consenting person of the opposite sex, what is the problem?
What is your problem with people of the same gender entering into a legal contract?
To put a finer point on it, why would you use the power of the State to deny equal access to a legal contract, based only on a moral opposition [since you don’t have a legal one].
See previous answers.
Cool. That was fun, thanks!
You are welcome.
I don’t really care if you think I’m funny…I enjoy tearing down illogical arguments. You want what you want…I get it. You justify using the power of the State to attain that….all the while you pretend to promote Liberty.
I find that disappointing, but eminently entertaining.
Practical purpose to procreation? What’s your definition of practical?
Mine includes emotional well being, intimacy and recreation, to name a few. Perhaps you don’t agree….but that doesn’t make me wrong.
Secular values? It would be obvious to most…..one such example is equal access to freedom of association and mutually transactions without the State enforcing religious restrictions. You know…individual Liberty where it harms or steals from no other Citizen nor does it restrict anothers Liberty.
If we did not have the instinct to procreat, friendship would be perfectly adequate forbemotional well being, intimacy and recreation, and forth. Raising children, however, is challenging. So, a stronger bond is required.
And that is your opinion…not the instinct, the remainder.
Are you somehow trying to argue that the instinct to procreate will be harmed by allowing homosexual couples to marry? If so…please show your work.
You really want the State to determine the strength of the bond between two Citizens?
That is a vague example of a secular value, not a definition. Moreover, it is not clear what is secular about this so-called value. What is clear is that you have not described the situation. Same-sex “marriage” is an oxymoron. That is not a religious fact. The moral objection is religious. The advocacy for same-sex “marriage,” because it calls for a mistaken act of compassion, is also religious.
Think about what you are doing. You are using shame and ridicule in an attempt to win this debate. That’s secular?
Your “proof” of the definition of marriage has been calling it….an “oxymoron”? That’s really the best you can do?
So great, you have a moral objection. What you fail to have, as I’ve pointed out repeatedly…..is a legal objection. Let me say this again, you have no standing. You’ve shown no harm. You’ve shown no practical reason.
If you don’t like it, don’t marry another man.
So….opposing the current, legal state of the marriage contract….is religious. And approving the current, legal state of the marriage contract….is also religious.
You do yourself a disservice by employing such trolling tactics.
Don’t mind me. I’m just sitting here munching on my popcorn. 🙂
Pass the popcorn. I’m getting hungry waiting for Tom to explain how s he’s harmed in any way by homosexual couples entering into the legal contract known as marriage.
When the government starts promulgating outright fictions as truth, that harms all of us. When implementing the LGBTQ agenda is harmful to those who take it up, government officials should not be endorsing it.
Here is another example for comparison. Have you ever heard of the numbers racket?
Do a little research and you will find that the state lotteries were set up to take over the numbers racket from criminal organizations. What was the result? Now we have add advertisements paid for by the government lauding the glories of gambling.
If someone can make money off of an immoral activity, they will happily sell its virtues. Unfortunately, because we are sinners, there are always people who want to believe lies. To sin requires us to believe a lie.
Yet, your claim of fiction….is itself….fiction. Your claim is entirely subjective. It’s realistically no different than someone claiming that your religious belief it also…fiction.
Allowing Citizens of the same gender to enter the contract of marriage, does not harm, steal nor infringe upon the Liberties and Rights of any other Citizen.
It doesn’t even pass the Rational Basis Test, much less Intermediate or Strict Scrutiny. But, by all means, I invite you to attempt to overturn the SCOTUS ruling with the argument that it’s “fiction”.
Peanuts! You are in the Peanuts Gallery.
Peanuts are healthier.. very true.
I cannot make you understand or listen.
I have stated two legal objections.
1. Same-sex marriage is a fiction. You want to call a same-sex union a marriage that doesn’t make it so. Sodomy is what it is, and it has nothing to do with marriage.
2. The legalization of same-sex “marriage” has nothing to do with protecting anyone’s rights. The point is to legitimize perverse behavior.
Do I have a moral objection too? Well, points 1 and 2 are moral objections, but here is another. The LGBTQ lifestyle is unhealthy and therefore self destructive.
Neither of your two stated objections are legal. How do you not understand that? Once again, you have shown no harm……you have shown no damage. You have no standing.
You’ve simply voiced your opinion.
Sodomy? Hah! Heterosexuals commit sodomy at an astounding rate. Indeed it has nothing to do with marriage……but neither is marriage dependent on procreation.
You are compelled to use terms like ‘fiction’ and ‘perverse’, which are entirely subjective….and carry zero logical not legal weight.
I don’t argue your moral objection in the least…..it’s called an opinion (or position or assessment or analysis…..whatever you prefer).
What you don’t have…..is any compelling argument to return to a State prohibition on access to a legal contract…..based only on that moral objection.
Keep ‘Em coming!
We are all sinners. Can heterosexuals perform sodomy? Yes. Can heterosexuals sin? Of course, they can. With respect to sexual relations, however, a same-sex couple cannot have sex without some sort of perversion. Only a heterosexual couple can do that.
Please observe that the state does not have prohibit same-sex “marriage.” It does not exist. What happened is that those who insisted upon making their fantasies real insisted upon same-sex “marriage.”
Our argument is actually rather silly. Here is what your demand that I prove same-sex “marriage” does not exist amount to.
Your neighbor says that he was picked up by a UFO and examined using some instrumentation he did not understand. Then he was deposited in a secluded spot not far from where he was picked up. You say you don’t believe him, and you ask for proof. He reacts by insisting that he had a real UFO experience, and you cannot prove it did not happen. Funny thing is that you can’t.
Oh, the torture [or ‘enhanced interrogation’] of analogies.
Marriage is a legal contract under the law in this nation. SCOTUS ruled, correctly IMO, that prohibiting Citizens in entering this contract, was un-Constitutional.
You can say that ‘same sex marriage’ is fiction, or doesn’t exist…all you like. It doesn’t make it true.
Your argument is the Law — really the courts — declare what is moral. You are letting the state decide what is true and moral for you. Therefore, you are a Libertarian who worships the state. A state worshipping Libertarian. Is that an oxymoron?
Nope…declares what is legal. The State does not declare what is moral for me…..nor should it for you. You might want to actually learn something about Libertarianism….you seem confused.
Reblogged this on boudica.us.
Indoctrination is prevalent in the ideologies of both major parties. Neither can (generally) be objective enough to recognize, much less acknowledge that.
Politicians should not be running the schools. Because they cannot be trusted, there is no good reason for it.
The term indoctrination has a bad connotation, but that is silly. When we teach doctrine, we indoctrinate. Even instruction in science requires indoctrination. What matters is what doctrine is whether we teach children to carefully examine that doctrine to assess whether or not it is true.
I concur regarding schools; I’d go so far as to say that we don’t need a Department of Education.
He’s indoctrinated all right.
Not enough room to reply to this stuff, Tom.
Yes Tom, you have respectfully proven to be an indoctrinated Trump Republican and a conspiracy merchant with anti-scientific agenda’s with so called Christian values and I must ask, if Trump’s Republicans were to march again on the government in some capacity, possibly this time fully armed would you join it or at least support it?
There is a time for violence, but I have advocated any. Instead, people like you defend the violent by accusing people like me of things we have not done. Why the accusations? Discussing the issues would blow up in your face.
YOU might want to discuss issues, Tom… but your Republican brethren are stuck in identity grievance/vengeance politics. The display made during that censure debate from those Trump Republicans was appalling, yet typical of the GOP mood.
You said I want to talk issues. Then you speak of identity grievance/vengeance politics, which is all the Democrats run on.
Disagree with a Democrat, and the odds are they will call you a racist, homophobic, sexist, selfish, or some such thing. What they never talk about is whether their stupid ideas work. Would you like to try it?
Well, Tom.. the problem with putting ideas out there to see if the “stupid ideas work” is that “stupid” is a relative judgement. If it’s a new policy then I rely on government figures to prove or disprove its effectiveness. Conservatives use Breitbart, Newsmax, Hannity, Tucker, Trump, et al.
Only the government is truthful?
When we evaluate an issue, that is, when we are looking at the proposed solutions for a problem, it seems to me we ought to look at the evalutions made by multiple sources. That includes evaluations made by the advocates and those in opposition.
“That includes evaluations made by the advocates and those in opposition.”
That only works if these “advocates” and “those in opposition” can present themselves as a credible source that might actually have solid facts and not be some echo chamber of emotional bias.
I claim the same sort of wisdom Socrates claimed. I don’t know that much, and I know I don’t know that much. I also know our leaders don’t know that much. So, I don’t want to give them any more power than absolutely necessary.
How could you possibly know what that limit is?
That is the point. None of us have perfect knowledge. So, we must exercise self restraint to avoid doing harm.
Doug, Both parties are vying for primacy in the cult of the victim.
I would actually accept that given both sides have humans involved. But that’s to a point.
Doesn’t make any difference which one is telling the truth?
Often, neither side is telling the truth. What then?
You are a side.
Sure, in the abstract. My voice is one of maximum Liberty and individual sovereignty. That voice doesn’t have a home in the forces waging the so-called ‘culture wars’ or mainstream politics in this nation.
You must be living on an island by yourself on another planet.
Nope. Plenty of others like me who don’t use Liberty as a bumper sticker or a punchline.
But even if I was…..at least I have principles. I sleep well at night.
I think you have deployed this comment before.
My point is that the only way you could avoid the culture wars is by living on another planet.
There are nights I don’t sleep so well. Worry, however, is difficult to avoid, but it does help to stick to our principles.
If I have it’s because I speak my truth.
What we own is our perspective on the truth. If the truth belongs to you, then you are God. Otherwise, we merely observe what we can of the truth.
Telling the truth about what, Tom?
Even in “good” years you don’t go to Washington D.C. for truth.
Why do you think I advocate limited government?
There’s a relationship between limited government and the dissemination of truth?
Yes. It has to do with humility.
We need government to protect each other’s rights. We don’t know enough to use government to run each other’s lives.
And yet politicians whom society elects, attempt (and largely) succeed to do that everyday…..run our lives.
Read the third chapter of Genesis.
Not surprised, but that is the answer why people don’t do as they should do. Instead of serving others, we demand the service of others.
“Do as they should”?
That is the bone of contention.
Jeez, Tom.. any “government” is entirely run by humans and are as equally frail or strong (or “sinful” as you might prefer to call it) as the people they in turn govern.
Consider the way you just put it. “The people they in turn govern.”