Karen De Coster calls attention to Bill Maher, his comments on religion in general, and those of the Pope and The Catholic Church in particular. The segment for which she posts a transcript begins at 3:15 into the video.
Well, what can I say? I could maybe pick at a thing or two, but he more or less makes a lot of valid points and draws some certain parallels. He's as right as the sunrise: the only reason the Catholics get a grudging pass on their institutionalized child rape and cover up, and that "kooky Mormon cult" doesn't, is that, for one, the Catholics have lots of voters; and two, they either cannot, or refuse to think honestly and in terms of consistent principles when grappling with mind-created fantasies like imaginary friends and sooper beings with sooper powerz.
We are dealing with people -- voters -- who are operating under delusions, Karen, and Sunday morning Mass and Friday fish are the least and non-essential manifestations of such delusion. Ideas have consequences, and the problem with delusions is that the public policy that ultimately trickles down is perfectly integrated with such delusions.
I think we ought to always fight the idea of State omnipotence and, the difference with me is that I just go one god farther, and just as hard.
...he should look to the state and its war on human freedom, and not focus on people who privately "believe" and therefore carry personal feelings between them and their religion/church, and cause no one any physical harm in doing so.
The modern western state derives its moral authority from mainstream religion, both explicitly and through political manipulation. Ultimately, unless you're going to get people to believe that their god is really loving and benevolent, rather than a murderous mutherfucker who smites women, children, and livestock, and tortures non-believers in eternal fire, then you're simply not dealing with the very most fundamental psycho-epistemological underpinning of the state.
You might also like
Please spread the word
I was going to comment on this but I realized that there was nothing more I could add. Very well said, sir.
Thank you.
Do you know any voters who aren't delusional? I think they're few and far between.
I find more than 99% of people to be more or less delusional, regardless of their religious beliefs. I don't find religious beliefs must imply general dysfunction, a devout Catholic may still be a competent scientist, or even a brilliant one, even if he believes in transubstantiation and the Holy Trinity. I do not observe that atheists are less delusional that religious individuals on the whole.
" I do not observe that atheists are less delusional that religious individuals on the whole."
Maybe so, but my experience suggests otherwise, and since it's a big bugaboo of mine, owing to my background, it's something I've paid attention to.
I think libertarians, in general, possess a far higher percentage of atheists than perhaps any other "common" political movement and I'd certainly count libertarians among the least delusional.
So, while I agree that being an atheist is no guarantee of not being delusional in other areas, I must conclude that it's a very good start — perhaps even an essential one.
I'd certainly count libertarians among the least delusional.
You've never been to an LP meeting?
There's some truth to what you say, but it's a mixed bag.
being an atheist [...] it's a very good start — perhaps even an essential one.
I'm not so sure. Believers are, by necessity, among the best in the world at compartmentalizing. It's not ideal, but not necessarily a make or break obstacle to a functioning intellect.
"You've never been to an LP meeting?"
The political party? Nope, though I once was a member (on the way to becoming far less delusional myself).
I should have been more clear. I meant non-political libertarians, i.e., proponents of human freedom as an absolute, inviolable principle.
And yea, the LP is perhaps as delusional as they come.
I should also point out that I think human delusion is an artifact of the human condition. Evolutionarily, we were never meant to live in groups of more than about 30 or so people, just as other packs of hunters in the wild have small limits to their populations; unlike grazers, for example, with herds numbering in the hundreds and thousands.
It's a decent parallel if you think about it. For hunters, the whole thing is about being smart and effective, with each individual serving a critical and necessary role. And, of course, there are many species that hunt alone. Contrast that with herds and hives and whatnot, where delusion actually serves a useful purpose, though also a lot of false flights.
Of course, animals don't "delude themselves," but the flight response is a decent analogy, I think, especially when unwarranted. Most human delusions seem to stem from irrational fear.
Also, I suppose it could be argued that social delusion — just like herd delusion — is a built-in necessity for humans to survive in large societies. In a natural selection context, herds likely evolved the super-sensitive mass flight response as the ideal survival strategy, with an added benefit that the weakest members get culled by the predators.
For better or worse, humans have the natural tendency to self delusion. I'm just saying that for the individual, striving to weed out the delusion is a good thing. I attack religious delusion just like I attack "scientific" delusion, just like I attack political delusion. I'm equal opportunity that way.
What's worse? I tend to think religion is the worst of all, simply because it's the first set of organized delusions we're taught. It would be interesting to compare the propensity to self delusion among atheists who were never taught religious beliefs, against those who overcame them in adulthood. I speculate that to some measure, those who were never believers have less of a chance to just transfer their religious delusions to some other thing, like commie politics or enviroscams (or even health and fitness scams).
Kyle writes: "You've never been to an LP meeting?"
Amen to that thought.
I used to go to LP meetings back in the late '70's, early '80's. Then I gave up religion and voting/party politics and am much happier. Now if I could only join Richard and give up eating so many carbs…..
"Now if I could only join Richard and give up eating so many carbs….."
You know what, Happy? It's really remarkable, and after years of essentially knowing this was a problem for me (many false starts on Atkins), I think I've finally beaten it. I haven't so much as had a bread crumb in weeks…maybe months, I don't even remember.
I was a breadaholic, and now I don't even think about it. I just did it this time (combined with the exercise, and combined with the fasting) long enough to see unmistakable and very valuable health benefits.
Most simply, grains and grain products (except certain distilled substances
have become a profound disvalue to me because I want to keep feeling like I'm feeling.
HC,
What Rich said.
You have to go cold turkey – gradually reducing them does nothing and seems to never trigger the "reset button" that is needed both physically and psychologically in order to get and feel the full benefits. That means counting grams and not exceeding 20, for at least a week, or more if you want to and if you watch your vitamins, fiber, and liquids.
It's harder than you can imagine for the first 3 days. The first time I did it, I basically stayed in bed, as if I had the flu or something (which might have been preferable).
But after that, it's far, far easier than you can imagine. And there's positive reinforcement every day, as Rich said. There's also negative reinforcement. The few times I had too many carbs, I felt like crap (tired, bloated, gassy, achy, etc)… and realized that for my whole life prior, that is how I'd felt every single day of it.
While gradually ramping up from the initial 20 grams a day, you'll find out pretty quickly where your limit is. Mine is around 60 – 70, and I have no interest in approaching it.
Turns out the only craving I've had lately is for salt – I've been inadvertently getting far less than I used to.
Thanks, Rich & Kyle. I'll let you know how it goes. Cold turkey, starting tonight.
HC,
Good for you. I don't want to discourage you, but I found that it takes a little prep. I spent a week clearing out the old carb food from the fridge and pantry, while buying up lots of meat and veggies. And some other things. But if you can do it on the spot like that go for it.
Feel free to email me if you need advice or encouragement.
"institutionalized child rape" is a despicable lie and I can assure you that I would be perfectly willing to tell you that to your face. You are absolutely beneath contempt.
You have all the intellectual honesty and sense of honor of a Julius Streicher.
Well, Sabotta, after writing something else and then deleting it, I'll first issue a clarification, though I would have thought it implicit by the long-standing and long-known facts of Mormon teachings:
Institutionalized adolescent rape. It's an important distinction and I would not want anyone to think the fraud-rape that goes on with young teenage girls is anywhere near the perversion of pre-pubescent children. There's another thing, too. I recognize that strictly biologically, these sorts of sexual relations are perfectly normal. However, freedom is absolute. Prior to biological maturity, sexual relations are unnatural and intolerable. Post maturity, sexual relations without complete and full knowledge of options and the fully competent unilateral right not to consent to them is intolerable. Simply imbibing them in a culture that makes them believe it's OK, expected even, is fraud, and that's what makes it rape.
And know this, Sabotta: I was blessed in the Mormon Temple in Oakland, CA and attended as a child. I was prayed over and anointed with oil by church elders during a particularly nasty childhood illness. My whole paternal mother's side of the family are Idaho Mormons, my grandparents were married in the SLC Temple, and I damn well know what gets tolerated, and even defended in certain company — even amongst mainstream Mormons.
Now, you can go Fuck Off. Julius Streicher? Let me know your arrival time in San Jose. We'll meet. You can tell me that to my face, at your own important risk. Deal?
But in any case, you are no longer welcome in my comments.
…One more thing.
I wonder if you saw this post.
I'll quote the first line of that:
"In the interest of keeping my own self accountable and honest…"
I assumed your despicable lie was in reference to the Catholic Church. Insofar as you intended the LDS, I consider it an equally despicable lie as well. I will no longer comment on your vile rot, and I stand by the comparison to Streicher.
Well. I just figured that it goes without saying with reference to the Catholics.
In fact, in the case of the Mormons, a more accurate description would be "organized adolescent rape," as the church as a whole isn't structured to attract, aid, and abet pedophile rapists of young boys under the guise of religious institution.
I think I might have a post brewing on just how much and how deep is the Catholic's closet skeleton actually and really, truly, honestly, institutional in nature, and likely has been for centuries.
And just imagine what would happen to a mega-corporation where unit heads (~priests) seek out young boys as apprentices, engender irreproachable trust in the parents and the children alike, molest them under the color of authority in important numbers, and then have the corporation simply move the managers elsewhere, attempt to deny any responsibility, and then ultimately settle, effectively making the young boys the world's highest paid prostitutes.
That's what's despicable, Sabotta, and you are simply dealing from a bias that creates a huge cognitive dissonance in you. Your allegiance is to your own prejudiced and delusional ideas, and certainly not to honesty and plain simple identification, regardless of what may need smearing. In short, you operate from the premise that it has been the church that has preserved some semblance of humanity, and in some senses that's true, but that's far overshadowed by the perpetuation of myths and delusions that serve only to keep people ignorant and subject to their authorities; so in that sense the church has been essential to the success of the state, and that's the far more honest reality from which I operate.
I think I was hasty in banning you, though. That really doesn't serve my purposes and so I rescind it with no strings attached. While the source of the banning was certainly irritation on my part, in the end I really don't care, and in fact the non-argument insults really only serve to shed light on the fact that you really can't take on this issue rationally.
Well I can, so have at it.
I'm confused. Sabotta concludes you're talking about LDS and you say you're talking about Mormons.
The Texas case is about FLDS, a sect which Mormons overwhelmingly say is not Mormon.
Except for the Mormons in the FLDS, of course.
Look: the Mormon church going WAY back has at it's fundamental core both polygamy and the marrying of young girls to older men.
The mainstreamers now find themselves in the position of too much to lose and are doing the standard backtrack and denial, much as the Catholics downplay the Inquisition and other mass murders and tortures by that despicable institution.
I am continually amazed at the cognitive dissonance by which religious organizations are given pass after pass — often by drawing meaningless distinctions — for stuff no ordinary person or business could even get away with. Kinda like with the State.
At any rate, it matters not. It's a religious organization, and in my book, what they're doing amounts to organized teen rape under fraudulent pretenses. They'd be getting a pass, too, if only they were big and influential enough, had enough voters, and enough money to make their girls into the world's highest paid hookers through a series of financial settlements.
Just to be clear, FLDS formally split from the mainstream LDS in the 1930's, according to wiki at least. There has been no affiliation since, they're completely separate entities.
I consider anything FLDS does to say nothing about mainstream Mormons. It's nothing like a sudden backpedaling. You can't even say the behavior was a result of common beliefs, since the split was apparently over disputed interpretations of the core doctrine, regarding polygamy specifically.
Well, from what I understand of the history of that church, having been around mainstreamers for a long time, is simply that some groups splintered off because the mainstreamers found it necessary to move along with their perception of society.
Happens all the time. The most fundamental and consistent to original teachings serve the purpose of putting on display how absurd were the original teaching that the mainstreamers now often pretend never existed.
So, yea, mainstream Mormons don't deserve to be implicated in this. However, they're still Mormons, and if you count being Mormon someone who adheres to original teaching, supposedly given by God via Moroni, then they're more Mormon than mainstream.
But, it kinda goes the the point I made. The Catholic church's problems are certainly mainstream and absolutely systemic in the way the priesthood is structured. Yet, they kinda get a wink and nod.
"I am continually amazed at the cognitive dissonance by which religious organizations are given pass after pass — often by drawing meaningless distinctions — for stuff no ordinary person or business could even get away with."
Sure, you couldn't find any more secular community in America with five pregnant women under 18. That only happens in communities of religious nuts.
Rich, for the purposes of sex and marriage, what is the line between child and woman?
I say that it is competence to consent and that observing that a girl is pregnant at 17 or 13 is quite beside the point. People must be considered as individuals, arbitrary standards like age are irrelevant.
Rich, for the purposes of sex and marriage, what is the line between child and woman?
I say that it is competence to consent and that observing that a girl is pregnant at 17 or 13 is quite beside the point. People must be considered as individuals, arbitrary standards like age are irrelevant.
Ah, I pretty much agree with that, with the slight quibble that to the downside, at least, there are ages where we know informed consent is impossible, simply because the child cannot possibly integrated the relevant facts.
To the upside, there's "reduced mental capacity," as I believe it's called, now.
But yea, I agree, and of course this is a consequence of collectivism and the state. In the upside-down world of a state "legal system," treating circumstances and individuals as unique is logically "arbitrary."
There's another aspect, too. Say 13 year old girls in the jungles of wherever. Indigenous and primitive. Setting aside allowances for simple primitivity, pre-enlightenment, even pre-historic in the sense of western civilization, you would still have the element that that's the way they all live, i.e., even the adults don't know anything different, so they are absolved of the duty to bring up their children with all the available and relevant facts.
The elder men of the FLDS have plain knowledge of the "outside" world, and while I don't expect them to encourage their children to choose that over their lifestyle, and I think even discouragement is fine. That is simply trying to persuade someone to adopt certain values and the nature of children os such that they must be instructed. But they do have a moral duty, as parents, to both inform their children of that other life, as well as let them know that they have an unequivocal right to choose it over the compound.
"But yea, I agree,…"
So where is the evidence of "institutionalized child rape"?
The supposed evidence is 5 pregnant females under 18. You've just admitted that's no evidence of rape.
Nothing of the sort, John. Certainly you don't expect me to so easily concede.
I agree that it's possible, though unlikely, for a 13 year old, or thereabouts, to have fully informed consent.
The FLDS is one of the last places on earth I would ever expect to find it. There's the rape. On the street is about the first place I would expect to find it. Hardly the case. These girls are forced into sheltered and secluded lives expressly, I believe, for the underlying purpose of plenty of — pardon the crude expression — young pussy for old men. Really. I have been around religious fundamentalists all my life and still have contact with some. It's all about pussy control.
As to the institutionalized part, I have already said that applied to the Catholics (which was the implication of my original statement in the post), and a better term for the FLDS would be "organized."
Such organization is something that takes place over time, not a snapshot that produces "only" five pregnancies in girls literally locked away from first-hand perceptually integrative knowledge of the world. How many have been defrauded into sexual relations with old and older men who have not become pregnant, and how many now past the time where there'd be much point to it, had babies young, or were similarly fraudulently indoctrinated into sex with gross-kook?
I'm not a big fan at all of the state's involvement in this. I am, however, even less of a fan of raping fundamentalists and there's plenty enough anecdotes to lead any rational person to reasonably suspect that this is exactly what's been going on, just as it has for similar groups for the 170 or so years of the church's existence.
Explain to me the *evidence* in this case which persuades you that organized rape took place.
I don't think something like….
"I wouldn't expect those 5 females to be competent"
or
"I bet there were more rape victims"
…ought to qualify as evidence of rape.
There may be grounds for suspicion but that's hardly the same thing as evidence of rape, and you've obviously reached a firm conclusion.
Let me point out that we're in the middle of the stage of a criminal case where law enforcement lies it's ass off. I won't be a bit surprised if the state fails to produce any pregnant females aged 13 or 14, I've seen cops and prosecutors use that kind of bait-and-switch before. It's a standard tactic.
That there are grounds to strongly suspect (to the point of being willing, personally, to commit to intervention of some kind) exactly what Mr. Nikoley is alleging is really beyond dispute. What is not beyond dispute is whether those suspicions are or will be borne out through hard-and-fast evidence.
An Addendum;
In this singular, isolated instance, knowing what I do about the FLDS my objection to what the state has done is per the state's doing it. Something like this may very well have been necessary. If it is the case, it's a more subtle variation on seeing someone getting mugged/raped and blasting the mugger/rapist. The moral considerations (and the responsibilities inherent in acting) remain the same, I hasten to add.
Gents:
I'm knee deep, but should get to things here and in whatever other threads later this morning.
Explain to me the *evidence* in this case which persuades you that organized rape took place.
Oh my goodness, John. Please don't tell me that you think I'm stupid enough to fall for that.
This is a blog. I'm honest, and I don't make pretense for "evidence" like everyone else does. I admit that I'm speculating, asserting, suspicious, etc. Y'all are free to pretend to your "certainties" based on "evidence" that none of you have real first hand knowledge of.
I stand by my own sense, impression, suspicion, occam's razor logic of the thing…firmly so, and I've gone to great lengths to clarify my position.
Dismiss it at your leisure. For my mileage, some noises are unmistakably the quack of a duck. That's how I see it.
All that said, of course, any case the state brings ought to be subject to the logical and technical rules of evidence.
Okay, so you are persuaded of rape in the absence of evidence. Evidence, schmevidence.
Brian,
"That there are grounds to strongly suspect (to the point of being willing, personally, to commit to intervention of some kind)…"
What grounds would have justified intervention in this case?
Okay, so you are persuaded of rape in the absence of evidence. Evidence, schmevidence.
Oh, there's certainly evidence to warrant strong suspicion, the general circumstances surrounding the whole compound, its similarity to many other such groups, etc. I would have to honestly believe that someone is either foolish to think otherwise, simply biased, or delusional.
And I'm not persuaded to a factual certainty. I'm stating in Op-Ed fashion what my honest take on the situation is, and it's both born of things already know to everyone, and things and experiences growing up around both fundamentalists and mainstream Mormons. That's stuff nobody in the world has integrated in precisely the way, over the space of time, or in the context that I have individually.
I'm just being honest about my take on it. It may pan out, may not, and if it doesn't, then I'd likely evaluate a similar situation differently in the future.
This is the reason this is HonestyLog and not TruthLog. I would never state my presumptions as truth.
That's what everyone else does. Sabotta has it all wrong with the "intellectual honesty" bit. I suppose he, like most others, are used to assertions claiming truth. Well, when I'm claiming truth, I will say so, explicitly. Otherwise, this is in the context of a blog, an opinion, an educated guess, an inside suspicion, and so on.
I'm advancing a point of view, and in my view, we are dealing with fundamentalist religious perverts who have created a nice little deal for themselves, a deal that has existed in many cultures going back centuries (harems, etc.). The fundamentals are always the same; it essentially boils down to a variety of young pussy. Doesn't it?
Now, everyone is free to wave hands and call for evidence, and so on. I don't need anything more. I think of them as I do, and I advance my point of view. Everyone is perfectly free to judge me and deal with me accordingly.
Do you think anything more ought to be needed to take 400 children from their families?
This isn't just an intellectual exercise in a classroom: The state is trying to arrange a witch burning and you're throwing gas on the fire with no evidence to speak of against these individuals.
I know your blog is just a drop in the bucket, but is this the drop you really want to put in the bucket under these circumstances? Is this the proper time and context to hand down your speculative judgement?
Do you think anything more ought to be needed to take 400 children from their families?
I'm on record as being opposed to the state in general, and this action specifically, because the state is doing it. If they were to properly ensure no more teen girls get raped (by my extensive qualification of the term), while not harming or interfering with those who haven't been, all with accountability for what they do, I'd be fine. Of course, that's no going to happen.
My focus in this whole thing has not been about the state action, per se, though I understand how some of what I've said unavoidably implies it, unless I was to qualify virtually every statement.
My point has been that I am tired of religious organizations getting a pass for raping kids. This spectacle sheds light on the issue.
That said, I have some sympathy and concern for your admonishment and take it straight up, with thanks.
"What grounds would have justified intervention in this case?" –John T. Kennedy
Without addressing the problem of *how* the intervention would have been accomplished, I'll first stipulate that I speak only for myself. It's common knowledge that the FLDS split with mainstream LDS groups over the very thing they're accused of doing.(1) This isn't the first such case that's come up, Warren Jeffs being the man at the center of the other one. It's probable, but not necessary, that it's the case. The probability is strong, given who we're talking about. So there it is; if it looks like rape or some other assault(2) and I can stop it, I will.
(1) – There's irony that every charge leveled at Koresh turned out to be bullshit but he and his followers got murdered for it; while the charges here stand some chance of being true, and nobody's gotten murdered.
(2) – To further complicate matters; I wouldn't have broken up or in any way stopped Edgar Allan Poe marrying his cousin, even though she was 13 at the time. Age isn't the issue for me; it's consent.
Age isn't the issue for me; it's consent.
Bingo!
And it's precisely because various states have these seeming "bright line" age distinctions, as if magically, one day a girl is too young to consent and the next day, she's not. It really serves to illustrate how the state is in the business of "practicing law" and "prosecuting" behavior that violates it without regard to much else, except when someone — a judge — happens, on occasion, to catch the bug of common sense and allows for "extenuating circumstances" or "mitigating factors." But even that's rarer and rare in the days now of "mandatory minimum sentences."
The reason this is a hot button for me is because we are dealing, essentially, with people who are learning to be rational human beings, and until they have reached some important measure of that in fundamental terms (which can never be a "bright line" assessment. Moreover, it is the inescapable responsibility of parents or guardian to assist in that formation. When, instead, that responsibility is turned to the sexual or dominating advantage of these same parents or other adults under the approval of the parents, it's just outrageous in an enlightened civil society.
I understand this sort of thing has gone on in cultures forever and ever. So did slavery. But we don't do that, anymore, and it's because we're humans, we can become enlightened, and we can rise above pure biology and animal instinct.
From an evolutionary perspective, it's interesting that children, especially girls, reach biological maturity before they reach mental maturity. Of course, from a purely natural selection perspective, biology doesn't care about rape and consent. It cares about getting females pregnant as soon as possible. Evolution set women up to be mated and bread prior to being able to have a clear understanding of what is at stake.
Enlightenment is about overcoming evolution and biology and operating from a basis of ideas and principles derived from our natures as beings of free will.
My approach to the goings on down there is really an Occam's Razor approach. I realize the State must — and should, since that's the "deal" — go through and develop meticulous evidence. On the other hand, when people seem to wish to turn a blind eye until "all the evidence is in" it just strikes me as c'mon!. Do you mean to tell me that they've gone to all this trouble to isolate themselves, and this sort of thing is not going on?
You now how easy it would be for me to defend them? If they were operating out in the clear, i.e., integrated with greater society, such that all the 13-yr-olds would have to know that getting married and having a baby at that age isn't required, isn't even desirable, generally, for a whole host of reasons. Once they clearly no that, I could care less that they would choose to get married off at that age. no problem whatsoever and I would staunchly defend their right.
Of course, putting it in a context where it would actually be workable would be smashed by the State in an instant. So, the state kinda looks the other way, so long as they all keep to themselves, but by keeping to themselves, most of the girls are never going to have a chance.
Just goes to show how that State is completely unconcerned with the welfare and rights of the girls. The State cares about practicing law and prosecuting.