Gay Patriot Header Image

The politicization of evil

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 5:37 pm - July 22, 2012.
Filed under: Media Bias

Throughout human history, spiritual leaders, philosophers, scholars, poets and other artists have pondered the nature of human evil, why some individuals harm other individuals, particularly those whom they have never met and about whom they know nothing — or about whom they have heard only rumor.

Sometimes, as in Burgas, Bulgaria last week, a nefarious ideology motivates the killer to act against his fellow man.  In those cases, we can say that the evil is clearly politically motivated.

In all too many cases, as this past Friday in Aurora, Colorado and last January in Tucson, Arizona, the murderer did not act to further some cause, but instead sought to exorcize his own personal demons.

Despite the absence of evidence tying the killer to any causes, certain voices, particularly prominent in our culture, opine that he was motivated by some cause they suspect or insist on using his action to attack their ideological adversaries. Instead of helping us understand the killer’s motivations, these individuals only reveal their own prejudices.  They act as if their partisan opponents seek to further evil — or perhaps just promote violence.

There has been no evidence that Tea Party protesters advocate violence, yet some of our friends in the legacy media have been all too eager to tie them to violence and murder.  It is doubtful that these folks ever rushed to blame left-of-center or anti-Western groups for similar actions.

Some do believe, though, that all violent acts have conservative causes.

There was, however, Paul Mirengoff laments, a time

when no one attempted to tie mass murder by random sickos to politics. For example, I don’t remember anyone wondering about the politics of Richard Speck, the killer of Chicago student nurses, or Charles Whitman, the University of Texas shooter.

Perhaps, until recently, people appreciated that there are some things of which we simply cannot make sense.  It is only human to want to make sense of the world.  Indeed, the great Swiss psychoanalyst Carl Jung believed we could bear any suffering if we could find its meaning.

We may not be able to find meaning in the Aurora murders — or in the Tucson shooting.  And it is unfortunate that some would seek to give them a political gloss.

As have our forebears, we should instead accept the reality of human evil — as strive as did they (and as do many today) to overcome it.  And we must always bear in mind that that striving, when the cause of the evil is not political, but, as in the recent shooting, a, shall we say, “defect” in the human condition, is not a political one.

Share

138 Comments

  1. No you aren’t

    Calling christianity a fairy tale is deeply offensive, bigoted, hateful. And i also bet everything i have you wouldnt dare saying the same of islam or whatever other hippy cred you come across.

    Presumably, you’re a Christian, which means you have to believe that Islam, Buddhism, and Mormonism are fairy tales. Does that mean you’re hateful and bigoted, too?

    Comment by Levi — July 24, 2012 @ 10:01 am - July 24, 2012

  2. Levi @ #95:

    your allegation that I have no system of morality?

    Never said that. In fact I identified your system as Levi-centered, Levi-determined moral relativism.

    the imaginary friend and its associated fan club, invented by illiterate desert nomads and widely adopted only to consolidate political power, in a time when superstition explained everything and science had yet to be devised.

    Of course, you can easily point out the moral code that has had a greater influence on civilization and even the development of science and all other regions of human study and understanding. Amazing, isn’t it that illiterate desert nomads could write the books of the Bible. Where are these other ancient moral codes that have survived to unify codes of ethics?

    And your system of morality condoned and endorsed slavery for virtually that entire stretch.

    Hello? You are the great evolution enthusiast. Two thousand years does not seem all that long a time for people to evolve. Was there slavery before the Judeo-Christian era? Did slavery survive during the Judeo-Christian era? Is slavery supported as part of the Judeo-Christian ethic? Did the nation divide along the lines of slavery? Did the Founding Fathers compromise the slave trade out of the Constitution? Does the Judeo-Christian ethic demand the perfectibility of man or does it lay the groundwork for man to perfect himself? You would not know, because you reject it out of hand because of the imaginary friend stuff.

    Virtually every religion in human history has gone extinct, and yours will, too.

    Wow, where is this religion graveyard? Is there an encyclopedia of extinct religions? Do we know about them from their writings? Why didn’t they evolve? Is this Putz Darwinism or do you have the fossils to display?

    I’m no moral relativist, and I think my beliefs are far more durable than yours.

    If you are not a moral relativist, are you just plain amoral? You “think” your “beliefs” are more “durable” than mine. OK, wise guy, where can I go to get a copy of your moral code? Mine has been out there for a very, very long time. Where is yours? Or do we just have to “accept” that the Levi-centered, Levi-dependent moral relativism is more “durable” and more well thought out and debated than the Judeo-Christian ethic?

    don’t pretend like your theological forebears were the architects of civilization. It has been the rejection of religious authoritarianism and so-called morality that has brought about institutions like democracy and free speech.

    Civilization was not created out of whole cloth. The Judeo-Christian ethic is, in no small part, a reaction to what was broken and wrong in the “civilized” world.

    Levi, the basic building blocks of diversity, evolution, survival are “continuity” and “change” which work together as complements, not against one another as opponents.

    The U.N. is promoting the idea that prostitution be made legal throughout the world. OK. It seems there has always been prostitution and maybe we need to revisit the ethic of prostitution. I am very likely to be on “against” side, but perhaps you will be on the “heck, yes!” side. The Judeo-Christian ethic has room for the varying points of view. How do I know what the Levi-centerened, Levi-dependent moral relativism stands for?

    Your “religious authoritarianism” bugaboo is rather telling. The only religion that is on the theocracy track that I know of is Islam as we see it in the Middle East, Indonesia, and southeast Asia.

    Your fear and loathing of Jews and Christians is pathetic. Do you have so little knowledge of Shintoism, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. that you can’t work up some heavy duty bigotry against them?

    There is no one hiding behind a tree waiting to kdnap you and drag you into the torture chambers either the Jews of the Christians.

    Your certainty of how stupid others are for accepting religion is palpable. What great leveling feature of your Levi-centered, Levi-dependent moral relativism advises you to be a crusader charged with defeating faith?

    Your game of particularizing and focusing on the human flaws and foibles of people in the Judeo-Christian world is rather charming in its naivety. Apparently, you see “the imaginary friend” as the dictator of goodness and justice who vaporizes people in the “fan club” who step out of line. But, he didn’t vaporize Hitler or Pol Pot or so many others. Therefore, it would certainly seem that you are “safer” outside of the “fan club” than inside it where you are very likely to be bitched at.

    What you can not comprehend about faith is that there is great satisfaction in growing and learning and being at peace with the continuity and change. Have you bothered to read Marx on how his system handles inconvenient continuity or inconvenient change? Being the god of “social justice” one would think Marx would have been a little less ham handed.

    Comment by heliotrope — July 24, 2012 @ 10:35 am - July 24, 2012

  3. Actually, Levi, you lie, because we’re aware that your “progressive” ideology endorses rape and murder.

    So since you endorse this, you’re not moral by your own standards.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 24, 2012 @ 10:38 am - July 24, 2012

  4. Presumably, you’re a Christian, which means you have to believe that Islam, Buddhism, and Mormonism are fairy tales.

    Levi, your ignorance of faith and religion is pre-kindergarten.

    It appears that your bigotry is so deeply entrenched that you will brook no decency toward faith and religion. Be that as it may. But you invite the attacks against your intelligence by the knuckle-dragging Neanderthal drooling bile that escapes your lips when you rant about Jews and Christians.

    In this particular area, let it be known that you have no decency. Please don’t go full Westboro and start stoning Jews and Christians on sight. Attempt to maintain some level of tolerance.

    Good, grief, man you are seriously challenging the “sentient” measure of your comprehension.

    Comment by heliotrope — July 24, 2012 @ 10:46 am - July 24, 2012

  5. Levi >> I can’t speak for Susan, but Helio’s post #70 addresses your if/then fallacy in post #101.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — July 24, 2012 @ 12:00 pm - July 24, 2012

  6. Presumably, you’re a Christian, which means you have to believe that Islam, Buddhism, and Mormonism are fairy tales.

    That’s like saying because I chose to go to (e.g) Dartmouth, I assume all other colleges are teaching lies.

    Comment by V the K — July 24, 2012 @ 1:47 pm - July 24, 2012

  7. #106

    I think it says more about Levi’s inabilty to tolerate any belief system except his own.

    Comment by The_Livewire — July 24, 2012 @ 4:05 pm - July 24, 2012

  8. I think it says more about Levi’s inabilty to tolerate any belief system except his own.

    Liberal Atheists … Theophobes, really… are deeply insecure people, which is why they have to:

    1. Relentlessly ridicule other belief systems.
    2. Live in a constant circle jerk of telling each other how smart and superior they are for rejecting religious faith.
    3. Throw dickish hissy-fits in response to any public display of faith.
    4. Refuse to learn anything about the beliefs they ridicule.

    Comment by V the K — July 24, 2012 @ 4:12 pm - July 24, 2012

  9. Presumably, you’re a Christian, which means you have to believe that Islam, Buddhism, and Mormonism are fairy tales.

    Since when is Mormonism not a denomination of Christianity?

    Comment by Rattlesnake — July 24, 2012 @ 6:56 pm - July 24, 2012

  10. Refuse to learn anything about the beliefs they ridicule.

    Through their ridicule, they are depersonalizing the person of faith in order to feel more justified in making their statist attacks.

    They can not learn anything about the beliefs they ridicule because will not try. To “learn” anything would be a sign of weakness in their certitude that faith is pure bull feathers.

    Since the ends justify the means to these people, anything open ended is to be avoided. Being certain is beyond humility. Everything must be reduced to numbers and probability. When the opponent is a “believer” he is automatically disqualified by the statist whose measurements are power and force. That is why they are certain that they will confront people who “will have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the future.”

    It is tough work being a leftist superior, but they wouldn’t appoint themselves to the job if they lacked confidence.

    Comment by heliotrope — July 24, 2012 @ 7:27 pm - July 24, 2012

  11. And the hilarious part: Levi, Cinesnatch, and their fellow liberals are now calling for riots and rebellion against tyranny if Romney wins.

    I think we have to realize just how deluded these people are. Levi, Cinesnatch, and their ilk will not recognize as legitimate any election in which they do not win. They are openly stating that they will carry out riots, that they will block any and all actions in Congress, and that they will openly rebel against the government in the streets.

    Barack Obama truly is the last stand for these sick, sick leftists. They have no intention of allowing Mitt Romney or the Republicans to peacefully take control. They believe in their divine right to rule, and it sounds like they are willing to openly push and advocate for outright violence to get it.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 24, 2012 @ 10:42 pm - July 24, 2012

  12. sf #57:

    the question is specifically for Helio

    (yawn) You have a small point there, but… smaller than you think. When people want 1-on-1 discussions, they take it to e-mail. Not many affectations are as empty as having a supposedly-1-on-1 discussion *for public viewing*.

    Having said that: When X tries to direct a question to Y on an open blog, X certainly has the freedom to ignore any replies that come from Z, A or B. All it takes is a little self-discipline. If X chooses to take the bait and engage such replies, it is further evidence that X’s directing the question to Y was but a pretense.

    As for this:

    your classic trick of taking quotes out of context

    Umm… did you see #88 / 89 from Cinesnatch, sf? Now *those* are quotes taken out of context; enough context removed to alter their meaning, creating a false impression of NDT’s original meaning. In other words, Cinesnatch lied. (And has repeatedly lied.)

    SCR #68, thanks for the Goldberg book tip. I will have to check that one out!

    jman #78 – Well said. There is a difference between something not lasting because it’s immoral/irrational to begin with, and something not lasting because it was attacked and torn down by people who are immoral/irrational. The former would be socialism. The latter would be capitalism.

    Indeed, we do not live under capitalism today, and arguably, we have not for at least eight decades. Nonetheless, capitalism is a moral and practical ideal, and the experience of country after country, in era after era, shows that the **extent to which they approach** capitalism improves their fortunes, while the extent to which they remove from it injures their fortunes.

    As for “pure, unregulated capitalism,” has that ever even been tried? The closest thing to “pure, unregulated capitalism” that has been tried might have been in Hong Kong, but I’m not sure.

    RS, the non-slave part of the U.S. from the 1790s to the early 1920s came pretty close – Not perfect, but closer than anyone had done before – producing the greatest explosion of progress in human history, wherein at some points the U.S. alone produced as much as 50% of the world’s GDP.

    As to whether capitalism can ever be “unregulated”, it depends what the word “regulated” means. Capitalism must always be “regulated” by criminal law and by the adjudication of contracts and torts; that is, by the impartial enforcement of authentic rights to life, liberty and property. That’s the core of the system. What lefties mean by “regulation” is, of course, different: that authentic rights to life, liberty and property should be systematically violated by the government, on the leftists’ behalf. Which is the opposite of capitalism.

    NDT #91 – Yup. Feel free to quote me and re-link me on that any time. I hereby say again:

    …I read the quotes the day NDT posted them, and not for one second did I take NDT’s words as a suggestion that Cinesnatch was personally a molester. Not one second… I had no problem, at the time and in context, in understanding that NDT was expressing personal opinion in assigning a general kind of moral responsibility to a group of people. I find Cinesnatch’s choice to personalize the matter interesting, and equally so, his reliance on ellipses to misrepresent NDT’s quote.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 25, 2012 @ 4:32 am - July 25, 2012

  13. […] gIrLfRiEnD – Wobbly! Joshuapundit-The Worst Thing You Can Do To An Egyptian Gay Patriot – The Politicization of Evil Rhymes With Right – Mayor Bloomberg — Meet Doctor Hupp The Glittering Eye -Elizabeth’s […]

    Pingback by Watcher of Weasels » Watcher’s Council Nominations – 2nd Amendment Reaffirmed Edition — July 25, 2012 @ 6:42 am - July 25, 2012

  14. Since when is Mormonism not a denomination of Christianity?

    The list of things Levi is ignorant about is quite bottomless.

    Comment by V the K — July 25, 2012 @ 8:54 am - July 25, 2012

  15. […] Gay Patriot – The Politicization of Evil […]

    Pingback by This Week’s Watcher’s Council Nominations | therightplanet.com — July 25, 2012 @ 10:03 am - July 25, 2012

  16. Never said that. In fact I identified your system as Levi-centered, Levi-determined moral relativism.

    You said those words exactly. I’ll let you find them.

    Of course, you can easily point out the moral code that has had a greater influence on civilization and even the development of science and all other regions of human study and understanding. Amazing, isn’t it that illiterate desert nomads could write the books of the Bible. Where are these other ancient moral codes that have survived to unify codes of ethics?

    Religion has stood in the way of the development of science and human understanding for thousands of years, and it continues to do so to this day. Certainly, there have been tremendous contributions by certain believing individuals, but as an organization, your religion eagerly intimidated, tortured, and killed many thousands of people over the years for the crime of not thinking correctly. As a species, we spent hundreds of years spinning our wheels because religion wouldn’t suffer any investigation into the natural world that didn’t confirm the existence of God. Scientific progress and our understanding of reality would be much further along if it weren’t for religion dragging us backwards.

    Hello? You are the great evolution enthusiast. Two thousand years does not seem all that long a time for people to evolve. Was there slavery before the Judeo-Christian era? Did slavery survive during the Judeo-Christian era? Is slavery supported as part of the Judeo-Christian ethic? Did the nation divide along the lines of slavery? Did the Founding Fathers compromise the slave trade out of the Constitution? Does the Judeo-Christian ethic demand the perfectibility of man or does it lay the groundwork for man to perfect himself? You would not know, because you reject it out of hand because of the imaginary friend stuff.

    What kind of answer is that? You’re the one claiming to have the one true set of morality in your back pocket, and you think it’s no big deal that your religion and its holy book endorses one of the most easily condemnable of human behaviors? The nation did divide along the lines of slavery – and the slaveholders waved Bibles in the air as justification. Again – real human progress is made not by embracing ancient desert religions, but by explicitly rejecting them.

    By the way, you’re the one claiming to know the shortcut. You can’t just say it took 2,000 years for us to evolve on this issue when you supposedly are in communication with the creator of the universe and he’s whispering in your ear about what’s right and wrong. And shouldn’t an objective moral code be consistent? If God doesn’t want us to own slaves, then why didn’t he put that in his book? Because he wanted us to figure that out on our own? Is that what you’re saying with these last sentences? What other parts of the Bible are we supposed to reject after two thousand years for us ‘to evolve,’ as you put it? How do you purport to know what the objective moral code of the universe is when the document that you rely upon is so unreliable?

    Wow, where is this religion graveyard? Is there an encyclopedia of extinct religions? Do we know about them from their writings? Why didn’t they evolve? Is this Putz Darwinism or do you have the fossils to display?

    Religions take hold because they happen to be in the right place at the right time. Every feature of the Christian myth, from the virgin birth, to the crucifixion, to Jesus being born on Dec. 25th and his resurrection, were popular superstitions that just so happened to be in vogue when Constantine needed ‘an opiate for the masses’ to consolidate his political power.There’s nothing all that special about Christianity aside from the fact that it was in vogue at a time when a world leader needed an in vogue religion. More people have lived and died believing whole-heartedly in what you would undoubtedly call false religions than you could count.

    And what’s with this ‘religions evolving’ thing? Isn’t the whole point that you have to follow certain rules? What are you supposed to do when the rules change?

    If you are not a moral relativist, are you just plain amoral? You “think” your “beliefs” are more “durable” than mine. OK, wise guy, where can I go to get a copy of your moral code? Mine has been out there for a very, very long time. Where is yours? Or do we just have to “accept” that the Levi-centered, Levi-dependent moral relativism is more “durable” and more well thought out and debated than the Judeo-Christian ethic?

    I’ve never felt a need to define myself in this way. I don’t need to go to meetings to be a good person. But I wouldn’t mind signing on as secular humanist. The opening paragraphs of its Wikipedia entry is good enough for me. Particularly the bit about our unique responsibility. It appears from what we can observe that sentience is an incredibly rare feature of the universe, and I like to thing we have an obligation to make good use of it, by discovering what we can of the universe and exploring as much of it as possible. We have a lot of baggage to overcome first, and the only way to do that is to cooperate with one another.

    It’s a philosophy that won’t change, by the way, which is what you think you’ve got in religion but don’t really have at all. As but one example, in the very near future, Christians will be forced to abandon all the ‘homosexuality is evil’ stuff in the Bible in the same way that they were forced to abandon the ‘slavery is good’ stuff in the past. You guys talk a big game about giving people a positive philosophy to live by, by it’s really just a propaganda campaign that gives lots of easily-manipulated able bodies to the powerful and influential. Every once in awhile, you need new propaganda, so you ‘evolve.’

    Civilization was not created out of whole cloth. The Judeo-Christian ethic is, in no small part, a reaction to what was broken and wrong in the “civilized” world.

    Levi, the basic building blocks of diversity, evolution, survival are “continuity” and “change” which work together as complements, not against one another as opponents.

    The U.N. is promoting the idea that prostitution be made legal throughout the world. OK. It seems there has always been prostitution and maybe we need to revisit the ethic of prostitution. I am very likely to be on “against” side, but perhaps you will be on the “heck, yes!” side. The Judeo-Christian ethic has room for the varying points of view. How do I know what the Levi-centerened, Levi-dependent moral relativism stands for?

    Your “religious authoritarianism” bugaboo is rather telling. The only religion that is on the theocracy track that I know of is Islam as we see it in the Middle East, Indonesia, and southeast Asia.

    Your fear and loathing of Jews and Christians is pathetic. Do you have so little knowledge of Shintoism, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. that you can’t work up some heavy duty bigotry against them?

    There is no one hiding behind a tree waiting to kdnap you and drag you into the torture chambers either the Jews of the Christians.

    Your certainty of how stupid others are for accepting religion is palpable. What great leveling feature of your Levi-centered, Levi-dependent moral relativism advises you to be a crusader charged with defeating faith?

    Your game of particularizing and focusing on the human flaws and foibles of people in the Judeo-Christian world is rather charming in its naivety. Apparently, you see “the imaginary friend” as the dictator of goodness and justice who vaporizes people in the “fan club” who step out of line. But, he didn’t vaporize Hitler or Pol Pot or so many others. Therefore, it would certainly seem that you are “safer” outside of the “fan club” than inside it where you are very likely to be bitched at.

    What you can not comprehend about faith is that there is great satisfaction in growing and learning and being at peace with the continuity and change. Have you bothered to read Marx on how his system handles inconvenient continuity or inconvenient change? Being the god of “social justice” one would think Marx would have been a little less ham handed.

    Faith is not a virtue. If you want me to believe something, prove it to me. Is that such an unreasonable request?

    I’ve said this before – I live in a country where most everyone is Christian. I’m talking to you, a Christian. That’s why I focus on Christianity. Islam and Buddhism are equally ridiculous. Assume I everything I say about Christianity applies to them, too.

    I don’t fear Christians or Jews dragging me into a torture chamber – brave men put a happy end to that viciousness a few centuries ago. What I fear is the effect that blind faith has on political decisions, and the worthlessness of this plane of existence (the only one we’ve got) that religion instills in people’s minds. Death isn’t something to look forward to, and that mentality means lots of work that needs to be done in the real world is ignored. Why worry about the environment when you’re going to be whisked away to paradise after 80 or so years? Why be averse to starting wars when biblical prophecy requires an apocalypse for salvation? If you people are so enthusiastic to join your god, then by all means – go jump into the Grand Canyon. But leave me out of it, kindly.

    Comment by Levi — July 25, 2012 @ 10:30 am - July 25, 2012

  17. That’s like saying because I chose to go to (e.g) Dartmouth, I assume all other colleges are teaching lies.

    Beg pardon, but I thought a pretty good chunk of the Ten Commandments was dedicated to telling people how there’s only one true god? That’s not important any more, I guess, since religions are no longer only competing for converts with each other, as when the Bible was written. Now religion has to contend with science and atheism, and since religion has no good arguments against these forces, they have to resort to numbers. It no longer matters what you believe in, so long as you have belief. “Everyone’s God(s) are real! We’ll all go to heaven!” Of course, that’s not what adherents say privately.

    Comment by Levi — July 25, 2012 @ 10:45 am - July 25, 2012

  18. Yes, it does, Levi.

    But the rest is your projection of your own desperate insecurity in your own amoral belief system and the need to eradicate any opposition.

    Meanwhile, blathering boy, as I showed above, your “secular humanism” justifies raping and murdering your political opponents. Clearly you cannot tolerate dissent or intellectual inquiry, even to the point where you kill those who think differently than you do.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 25, 2012 @ 10:55 am - July 25, 2012

  19. […] Gay Patriot – The Politicization of Evil […]

    Pingback by Watcher’s Council Nominations – 2nd Amendment Reaffirmed | Independent Sentinel — July 25, 2012 @ 11:15 am - July 25, 2012

  20. […] Gay Patriot – The Politicization of Evil […]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Watcher of Weasels Nominations — 07.25.12 Edition — July 25, 2012 @ 12:47 pm - July 25, 2012

  21. […] Gay Patriot – The Politicization of Evil […]

    Pingback by Trevor Loudon's New Zeal Blog — July 25, 2012 @ 1:08 pm - July 25, 2012

  22. #117

    And Levi shows his ignorance again. Only the first commandment says anything about G_d, *and* says thou shalt have no other before me.

    Now anyone who can read (leaving Levi out) can see there must be ‘other’ for them to be put before Him. Reading failure = Levi.

    Now hush Levi, the adults are talking.

    Comment by The_Livewire — July 25, 2012 @ 1:53 pm - July 25, 2012

  23. Levi, congratulations, by the way, on your engagement.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — July 25, 2012 @ 2:25 pm - July 25, 2012

  24. […] gIrLfRiEnD – Wobbly!Joshuapundit-The Worst Thing You Can Do To An EgyptianGay Patriot – The Politicization of EvilRhymes With Right – Mayor Bloomberg — Meet Doctor HuppThe Glittering Eye -Elizabeth’s […]

    Pingback by Watcher’s Council Nominations – 2nd Amendment Reaffirmed Edition | Virginia Right! — July 25, 2012 @ 2:33 pm - July 25, 2012

  25. Levi,

    You.are.without.a.clue.

    All religion is an effort to help us to become better than were are.

    No religion hands you a cell phone to God who calls you as soon as you stray and vaporizes you when you really mess up.

    Read your own post. You go into a rant defining how my religion works, doesn’t work and fails all based on your definition of my religion, not mine.

    Let’s put it this way, Levi. You live in a culture overwhelmingly operating on the presumptions and assumptions of the Judeo-Christian ethic. You could not possibly escape the Judeo-Christian ethic and its constant effects.

    Therefore, you go along with the parts of the Judeo-Christian ethic that fit your needs and you have a snit-fit over anything that is judgmental in a negative way that goes against your grain.

    You are engaged in tailoring the Judeo-Christian ethic to please your agenda. That mean, you are not challenged by the ethic. That further means, that “your” ethic is based on whatever floats your boat. The term for that is moral relativism.

    All your claptrap about the “invisible friend” and desert nomads and religious corruption and human frailty infecting those of faith is just the babbling of someone on the outside looking in and claiming moral superiority.

    Once again, Levi, where do we Judeo-Christian ethic adherents go to access the highly enlightened ethic which informs you?

    Believe me, Levi, when you divulge your ethic, I will study it carefully and if it is superior to the Judeo-Christian ethic, I will be the first to say so, and, as best I am able, to explain to all who are interested why the Levi ethic out guns the Judeo-Christian ethic.

    But, since you.are.without.a.clue I am fairly certain you don’t understand very much, if anything, that I have written and asked of you.

    Comment by heliotrope — July 25, 2012 @ 2:54 pm - July 25, 2012

  26. Levi @ #23:

    1.) are you still basing your alleged moral superiority on that shared hallucination of a cult you call Christianity?

    2.) that prescribes stoning rape victims to death in its holy book, the supposed word of God?

    3.) how people who have homosexual sex are going to burn in hell for all eternity

    Levi @ #95:

    1.) the imaginary friend and its associated fan club, invented by illiterate desert nomads and widely adopted only to consolidate political power;

    2.) your system of morality condoned and endorsed slavery for virtually that entire stretch;

    3.) Virtually every religion in human history has gone extinct, and yours will, too;

    4.) I think my beliefs are far more durable than yours;

    5.) I don’t subscribe to a religion that’s forced to reinvent itself constantly to stay relevant;

    6.) Morality existed for a hundred thousand years before people invented Christianity;

    7.) It has been the rejection of religious authoritarianism and so-called morality that has brought about institutions like democracy and free speech.

    How in the world could any sentient human being including agnostics, atheists and nihilists possibly make such statements as facts, let alone base any argument on such hallucinations.

    Clearly, Levi has scant, if any, knowledge of philosophy or world history. He knows what he knows and what he knows is what he wants to know. Everything else is just dead air in his closed mind.

    I am particularly amused by this jewel of moral relativism written by Levi @ #95:

    As far as morality goes, I guess that’s more important than leading a good life?

    Translation: Levi-centered, Levi-determined moral relativism is above petty morality and directs him to assure himself that he is leading a good life.

    Yet, where have I ever said or implied that Levi is not leading a good life? His entire permanent snit-fit is over the utility and influence of the Judeo-Christian ethic because it is, by definition, faith based.

    Levi so hates faith that he must deny the very foundation upon which his entire life is grounded.

    Pathetic.

    Who can imagine the minutes of the meeting of the Union of Amalgamated Moral Relativists? Sort of like Nihilists United. Anarchists for Stability. Or the Fraternal Order of Atheists without Structure.

    What Levi has more than adequately displayed here is how far deeply ingrained bigotry will take the bigot in showing the evidence of his descent into the muck and mire of malignant depravity.

    I invite Levi to redeem himself by doing the following:

    1. Issue a clear, coherent, non-question begging revelation of how your ethic is sourced and based.

    2. Issue a clear, coherent, non-question begging revelation of how you test your intuition concerning the “right” from the “wrong.”

    3. Issue a clear, coherent, non-question begging revelation of your definition of moral relativism which will demonstrate the truth of your declaration that you are not a moral relativist.

    4. Issue a clear, coherent, non-question begging revelation of how you choose the parts of the Judeo-Christian ethic which you decide to ignore and why.

    No reason for anyone to hold his breath for any sort of meaningful response, because Levi does not begin to have the slightest understanding of the Judeo-Christian ethic. He sees “Judeo-Christian” and immediately goes off half-cocked. The poor lad is just wrapped up in his own sense of complacency and conceit.

    Comment by heliotrope — July 25, 2012 @ 5:01 pm - July 25, 2012

  27. […] Gay Patriot – The Politicization of Evil […]

    Pingback by Watcher’s Council Nominations – 2nd Amendment Reaffirmed Edition | askmarion — July 26, 2012 @ 4:44 am - July 26, 2012

  28. How can morality be more important than leading a good life? Morality is HOW you lead a good life. Morality is a code of values to assist you in making the best decisions.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 26, 2012 @ 10:29 am - July 26, 2012

  29. I overlooked Levi @ #116 where he is at his most convoluted:

    1.) Religion has stood in the way of the development of science and human understanding for thousands of years, and it continues to do so to this day;

    2.) Scientific progress and our understanding of reality would be much further along if it weren’t for religion dragging us backwards;

    3.) real human progress is made not by embracing ancient desert religions, but by explicitly rejecting them;

    4.) you supposedly are in communication with the creator of the universe and he’s whispering in your ear about what’s right and wrong;

    5.) If God doesn’t want us to own slaves, then why didn’t he put that in his book? Because he wanted us to figure that out on our own?;

    6.) How do you purport to know what the objective moral code of the universe is when the document that you rely upon is so unreliable?;

    7.) There’s nothing all that special about Christianity aside from the fact that it was in vogue at a time when a world leader (Constantine) needed an in vogue religion;

    8.] And what’s with this ‘religions evolving’ thing? Isn’t the whole point that you have to follow certain rules? What are you supposed to do when the rules change?;

    9.) I don’t need to go to meetings to be a good person;

    10.) But I wouldn’t mind signing on as secular humanist. (….) Particularly the bit about our unique responsibility. (…) We have a lot of baggage to overcome first, and the only way to do that is to cooperate with one another;

    11.) Christians will be forced to abandon all the ‘homosexuality is evil’ stuff in the Bible in the same way that they were forced to abandon the ‘slavery is good’ stuff in the past;

    12.)You guys talk a big game about giving people a positive philosophy to live by, by it’s really just a propaganda campaign that gives lots of easily-manipulated able bodies to the powerful and influential. Every once in awhile, you need new propaganda, so you ‘evolve.’

    13.) Faith is not a virtue;

    14.) If you want me to believe something, prove it to me;

    15.) What I fear is the effect that blind faith has on political decisions, and the worthlessness of this plane of existence (the only one we’ve got) that religion instills in people’s minds;

    16.) Why be averse to starting wars when biblical prophecy requires an apocalypse for salvation?;

    17.) If you people are so enthusiastic to join your god, then by all means – go jump into the Grand Canyon;

    18.) But leave me out of it, kindly.

    This entire tangled catharsis is to avoid acknowledging the force of the Judeo-Christian ethic, the advance of Western Civilization which was based and steeped in that ethic and the continued denial by Levi that he is a moral relativist who picks and choses the parts of the Judeo-Christian ethic he will follow and rejects sin, wrong, evil … call it what you will …. on no basis other than his “responsible” secular humanity.

    That is all very well and good. Levi is no threat to humanity. He prefers to be “good” by no particular ethic other than the entirely coincidental to him Judeo-Christian ethic.

    He indicates, strongly, that he would like peace and harmony among all the peoples of the planet. Who can argue with that? But then he goes hammer and tong at religion with a relentless attack on myriad aspects as he wildly interprets faith and religion in a most unharmonious way. It would appear that the reasonableness of Levi’s secular humanism and moral relativism suffer a bit of break down here.

    Faith is no virtue. Well, then, are there actually any virtues? Aren’t virtues just propaganda and mumbo-jumbo thrown out by clever secular humanists to herd “lots of easily-manipulated able bodies to the powerful and influential” “reasonable” secular humanists and moral relativists?

    Levi fears the effects of “blind” faith on the body politic. Never mind that that man-made global warming is consensus science doing a darned good imitation of “blind” faith.

    But Levi said that faith is no virtue. Obviously, “blind” faith would not be a virtue either. Yet, Levi certainly implies that Judeo-Christian faith is “blind” faith. You know, snake handlers and the end of days cults.\

    Which brings us to the point of all of this. Levi has defined hypocrisy out of his ethic. He has constructed a fail safe morality where he picks and chooses and walks away from imperfection.

    He can not study and expand his moral code, because it is momentary and fleeting and unwritten and undebatable and transitory. Amorphous is a good term. Nothing separates his code from that of Aurora murderer or the would-be Giffords attacker except his free will not to go that route. Good on Levi for that.

    Meanwhile, people across the world come together and support one another in trying to perfect the good and to resist temptation and to resolve to put evil behind them. This is what Levi attacks and clearly does not understand. People loving one another through faith, hope and charity. A grass roots effort that has survived the ages.

    For Levi, this is the work for secular humanist government and the elite minds that “should” be herding “lots of easily-manipulated able bodies to the powerful and influential” institutions of statist welfare.

    Comment by heliotrope — July 26, 2012 @ 11:12 am - July 26, 2012

  30. Nothing separates his (Levi’s) code from that of Aurora murderer or the would-be Giffords attacker except his free will not to go that route yet.

    FIFY, Heliotrope.

    Because, given Levi’s behavior, I see nothing in his past that would in any way restrain him from resorting to violence and murder if he felt he could get away with it in the name of the “progressive” cause.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 26, 2012 @ 3:43 pm - July 26, 2012

  31. […] Gay Patriot – The Politicization of Evil […]

    Pingback by Amending the Second Amendment | — July 26, 2012 @ 8:30 pm - July 26, 2012

  32. […] Darkest Knight – the Anarchist Butterfly Effect Fourth place with 1 2/3 votes – Gay Patriot- The Politicization of Evil Fifth place with 1 1/3 votes – Simply Jews -We love you too, Peter Beinart Sixth place *t* with […]

    Pingback by Watcher of Weasels » The Council Has Spoken!! This Week’s Watcher’s Council Winners — July 27, 2012 @ 5:04 am - July 27, 2012

  33. […] Darkest Knight – the Anarchist Butterfly EffectFourth place with 1 2/3 votes – Gay Patriot- The Politicization of EvilFifth place with 1 1/3 votes – Simply Jews -We love you too, Peter BeinartSixth place *t* with […]

    Pingback by The Council Has Spoken!! This Week’s Watcher’s Council Winners 7-27-2012 | Virginia Right! — July 27, 2012 @ 6:21 am - July 27, 2012

  34. […] Fourth place with 1 2/3 votes – Gay Patriot- The Politicization of Evil […]

    Pingback by This Week’s Watcher’s Council Results | therightplanet.com — July 27, 2012 @ 7:53 am - July 27, 2012

  35. […] Fourth place with 1 2/3 votes – Gay Patriot – The Politicization of Evil […]

    Pingback by Trevor Loudon's New Zeal Blog — July 27, 2012 @ 2:09 pm - July 27, 2012

  36. […] Fourth place with 1 2/3 votes – Gay Patriot- The Politicization of Evil […]

    Pingback by The Council Has Spoken! This Week’s Watcher’s Council Winners! | Independent Sentinel — July 27, 2012 @ 8:35 pm - July 27, 2012

  37. […] Fourth place with 1 2/3 votes – Gay Patriot- The Politicization of Evil […]

    Pingback by Amongst You and Among You | — July 30, 2012 @ 10:38 pm - July 30, 2012

  38. […] Fourth place with 1 2/3 votes – Gay Patriot- The Politicization of Evil […]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Watcher of Weasels — Last Winners of July 2012 — July 31, 2012 @ 12:38 pm - July 31, 2012

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.