The Devil and Antonin Scalia

boing
205

That’s incorrect. Catholic priests frequently teach falsehoods about other churches, most likely through ignorance rather than malice. Among the most common are that Protestants deny the trinity (incorrectly equating all Protestant sects with Unitarian ones) and that the Protestant Bible is fundamentally different from the Catholic one (this lie is often repeated from the other side, each calling any other’s bibles apocryphal, but there aren’t really any major differences). This idea that all Protestants deny Immaculate Conception is probably another Catholic misconception.

But one raw truth is that the Catholic Church is a human organization known to have engaged in child sexual abuse for over a thousand years, continuing to the present day. Having beliefs congruent to the Catholic liturgy should not be a crime, but providing material assistance or financing to such an organization should be, by any standard of moral decency. To have the highest court in the land be a financially supportive member of a harmful cult that has failed utterly to control its own horrific and criminal tendencies should offend and outrage us all, and his opinions in cases that are directly driven by the views of the human Catholic Church organization are a travesty of jurisprudence.

On the other claw, Mr. 44, I have to respect your defense of Christian beliefs (even though I don’t agree with them) simply because I know lots of Christians for whom the faith is a source of strength and comfort that helps make them better people. I think they’d be better off with another faith, it’s true, but I don’t see a problem with anthropomorphism of evil if that helps a person act for the good. We’re all pretty crazy, but not all of us act to promote evil like Scalia does.

1 Like
206

Justice Scalia: With respect to the telephone long-lines, you say, yes, you are; and with respect to cable, you say, no, you aren’t.
Mr. Hungar: Your Honor, it’s certainly not unusual for this Court, in construing a statute, to look to the regulatory history that led up to the enactment of the statute, particularly where it’s clear in the legislative history that Congress was essentially borrowing from the pre-1996 regulatory definitions…

Sorry about the triple-post, I’m on my lunch break and probably won’t have more time to post today.

207

It’s weird: the link brings me to a summary of the case, and not the quote, and although googling the quote also directs me to that page, not not even the cached version of the search result gives the quote. At any rate, it’s clear from the quote that Scalia said this in oral argument and not in his opinion. Eventually found a [transcript][1].

That aside, I do thank you for the interesting information.
[1]: http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/04-277.pdf

208

[quote=“Medievalist, post:205, topic:11575”]
That’s incorrect. … This idea that all Protestants deny Immaculate Conception is probably another Catholic misconception.[/quote]

If you know of a sect of Protestant church that officially recognizes the Immaculate Conception that is news to me and I would genuinely like to know more about it. I’ve never heard of it being accepted, and those who follow sola scriptura see it as complete nonsense. From the wiki article (which I realize is hardly the definitive answer), “For differing reasons, belief in Mary’s immaculate conception in the Catholic doctrinal form is not part of the official doctrines of the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Anglican and Protestant churches.”

I argue with Baptists and evangelicals about evolution fairly often. A lot of times I use the concept of Transubstantiation to show their hypocrisy of their willingness to explain away concepts they don’t agree with (even though it’s right there in Christ’s words), but absolutely insist on a literal interpretation of 3000+ year old Jewish poetry in Genesis. While I was researching Transubstantiation, I discovered several things Protestants condemn Catholics for, which were completely untrue or misunderstood. I am sure some of it is pure ignorance (as I repeated many of these things), some of it is out right malice (ever read the Chick Tracts on Catholics?) While I don’t have a lot of contact with Catholic priests, I am sure there are some who are also spreading false information. One has to be careful when labeling any group, as there are often a variety of different views shared within them.

[quote=“Medievalist, post:205, topic:11575”]
But one raw truth is that the Catholic Church is a human organization known to have engaged in child sexual abuse for over a thousand years, continuing to the present day. [/quote]

I don’t know about a thousand year conspiracy, but their actions recently are indefensible. I would point out that the rate of abuse in Protestant churches is about the same, but it appears the Catholic hierarchy made attempts to brush their abusers under the rug instead of condemn them.

[quote=“Medievalist, post:205, topic:11575”]
Having beliefs congruent to the Catholic liturgy should not be a crime, but providing material assistance or financing to such an organization should be, [/quote]

And therein lies the problem of having a huge, multi-national organization. There is a huge swing of views among both clergy and congregation. For many issues from gays, to women priests, to priests marrying, to abortion you will find people who are on completely different sides of the issue all under one roof. Even when it comes to doctrine and dogma there is conflict, and I am often surprised how many life long Catholics are ignorant of their faith. Catholicism appears to be hard line conservative, but you would be surprised how many Obama stickers you will see in the parking lot.

My wife works for the Dept. of Labor - part of the massive Federal government. But can you condemn her and her department because you disagree with Obama’s drone policy? The recent gov. shut down? Sexual scandal in the White House? Yes she is part of the organization, but is also it’s own secluded branch. She has never even met the head of her department who rubs elbows with the president.

One other way to look at, you work for a large company and the CEO is busted for embezzlement or the company is under investigation for some unethical move they made. But the people you work with had nothing to do with any of it, and even though the CEO is an asshole, you enjoy and respect your associates.

So while I can condemn some of the church leaders, it is very hard for me to condemn the entire church. There are many diocese that does a lot of good work with Catholic Charities. (According to Forbes, it’s the third largest charity in America.) Individual churches and diocese, while technically under the umbrella of the Vatican, are also their own entities who have little to no direct contact with the Vatican and have nothing to do with scandals.

Just like right now everyone is yelling at congress to get their shit together, there is a massive voice among the clergy and congregation to fix the fundamental flaws and remove people who nee to be removed because of these scandals and cover ups.

[quote=“Medievalist, post:205, topic:11575”]
On the other claw, Mr. 44, I have to respect your defense of Christian beliefs [/quote]

While my views on faith I usually find deeply personal and very rarely share with anyone, I will say, ironically, my own personal faith is rather shallow, troubled, and called into constant question. I am far from someone you would normally label as a Christian. Maybe an Agnostic Christian Reservist.

It just bothers me when people insist on understanding and mutual respect, but when they are up against a big entity they disagree with, people have no problem being extremely over the top and nasty and ignore the many facets of such a large entity. (Note, Christians aren’t immune to this and often do the same thing.) When one waves their hands around and wants to institutionalize delusional believes in the devil, I look around at the plenty of sane, caring, good people I know who do believe in the devil and find such remarks as patently offensive.

I’m not exactly sure what the last line is about, but I didn’t come here to defend Scalia. I am familiar with his writings on District of Columbia v. Heller, but that’s because of impact it made on another issue I hold dear. I am sure I don’t agree with every decision he’s made, and if I learned more perhaps I too would agree with the above statement. But it isn’t really relevant to my initial reason for posting here, and that was the assertion that people who believe in the devil are crazy and literally need to be locked up. Maybe he does need locked up, but not because of his belief of the devil.

209

That particular quote struck me, also.

First, he tries to hit you with an appeal to the majority. The majority of mankind? What do the Hindus and the 2 billion Chinese say about Christianity’s Satan? The majority of mankind do not believe in Satan.

Then, he tries to hit you with an appeal to authority. “More intelligent” people than Scalia believe in Satan, therefore Scalia should believe in Satan. Somehow, I think if someone else tried to use this argument on Scalia, Scalia would laugh them out of the room.

His line of reasoning here is so dreadfully horrible, it’s just incomprehensible to think any person of learning could have uttered it.

My Dear Scalia, just say “I believe it” or “I accept the Catholic doctrine.” Dont say “all of mankind believes it.” Dont point to the next smarter guy in the room and “He believes it, so I believe it.” It’s beneath you and it’s beneath us to have to hear this from you.

2 Likes
210

To Any Happy Mutant Poker Aficianados:

Did anyone else laugh at this interaction:

Interviewer: Here’s another thing I find unexpected about you: that you play poker. Do not take this the wrong way, but you strike me as the kind of person who would be a horrible poker player.

Scalia: Shame on you! I’m a damn good poker player.

Interviewer: But aren’t you the kind of guy who always puts all of his cards on the table? I feel like you would be the worst bluffer ever.

Scalia: You can talk to the people in my poker set.

Interviewer: Do you have a tell?

Scalia: What?

Interviewer: A tell.

Scalia: What’s a tell?

Interviewer: What’s a tell? Are you joking?

Scalia: No.

Interviewer: A tic or behavior that betrays you’re bluffing.

Scalia: Oh! That’s called a tell? No. I never … do you play poker?

As a player, it’s not so much his having a tell when he’s bluffing that will defeat him. It’s that someone like Scalia will probably never fold a good hand that has been run down by a better drawing hand. He’ll hold onto his AA all the way, even when someone with a stronger hand (re)raises him.

In the same way Scalia doesn’t acknowledge the rest of Earth when he talks about the “universally accepted” existence of Satan (which is anything but), he insists that he is a “damn good poker player” yet he doesn’t know what a tell is. (And my 78 year-old, non-poker-playing grandmother knows what a tell is.)

1 Like
211

Oh, I read that a little differently than you did…I think he was demonstrating that the interviewer couldn’t tell when he was bluffing.

He’s a sneaky liar, which makes him that much more dangerous.

2 Likes
212

Which is why I appreciate your defending those people! And no, I didn’t see it as defending Scalia himself.

To your other points: When one works for an agency that does evil things, a difficult choice should be faced (I’ll argue that it’s only unethical if you completely ignore the issue, either choice can be made ethically). Should you stay and use your insider status to do good that could not be done from the outside, or should you get out before you become inured to evil, hopefully leaving the place in flames behind you? I can respect Snowden’s stance on that issue.

In defense of people who stay inside, I’ll point out that it’s pretty clear that good people’s refusal to be cops has led many police forces to be entirely composed of violent criminals looking for ways to do harm, and this problem seems to be much worse in places like well-educated, earthy-crunchy, peace-n-love California than in the backwoods of Bumretch, Nebrahoma where people still think it’s OK to enjoy hunting and bar fights.

All that being said, voluntarily tithing to an organization with a thousand year ongoing legacy of greed, violence, hatred, hypocrisy and coverups of same would be a criminal offense in any decent world. If Jesus were to come again, he’d probably go totally cleansing of the temple with a whip of cords - and the Catholic clergy are not the only ones he’d go after, either. Scalia better hope Jesus isn’t waiting to judge him…

La_Purificacion_del_templo_Roma_El_Greco.jpg1119×850 150 KB

213

So everyone who plays poker well and doesn’t have a tell is a sneaky liar and dangerous?

214

Or is a witch. It can always be witches.

2 Likes
215

Thanks: I needed that false equivalence to finish my Bingo card.

2 Likes
216

Everyone has a tell. If he doesn’t think he has a tell, then he’s a very easy mark.

217

That false equivalence of your confirmation bias?

Seriously, what are you saying? That being a good bluffer is a neutral trait, unless you already think the person is dangerous, in which case it is proof of just how dangerous he or she is?

218

One of my favorite quotes from “Lest Darkness Fall” by L. Sprague de Camp:

“You don’t like the Goths?"
“No! Not with the persecution we have to put up with!”
“Persecution?”
“Religious persecution. We won’t stand for it forever.”
“I thought the Goths let everybody worship as they pleased.”
"That’s just it! We Orthodox are forced to stand around and watch Arians and Monophysites and Nestorians and Jews going about their business unmolested, as if they owned the country. If that isn’t persecution, I’d like to know what is!”

3 Likes
219

We don’t even have to go that far (although I certainly think we should extend it to sexual orientation… religion’s mostly a choice, but it’s a very personal and life-affecting choice, so sexual orientation seems to me to be even more important to protect). Scalia’s reasoning’s still inconsistent, because laws against homosexual sex or marriage are already unconstitutional under the existing classes of race and sex.

It is illegal for a man to have sex with a man.
It is legal for a woman to have sex with a man.

Likewise, it is illegal for a woman to have sex with a woman.
It is legal for a man to have sex with a woman.

We have two cases where the law is discriminating against one gender (four, if you include marriage!). That gay men have the right to marry any women they want doesn’t matter, any more than, in interracial marriage debates, the fact that blacks had the right to marry other blacks and whites had the right to marry other whites. They were STILL being discriminated against.

1 Like
220

god help us.

221

Ut Deus dimittat tibi pro omissione capitalize in nomine diaboli

222

Separation of Church and State, people. This concept wasn’t a gag. The power you can derive by insinuating yourself into state affairs as a religgious institute is plainly obvious - only the reason we all want our constitutional separation is because somehow the religgious lot keep fucking things up.

He’s catholoholic. How does that go down when priests get caught raping kids? Might he use his influence to change the legal outcomes?

Nah, of course not. He believes in the rule of law, and is not swayed by his religgion.

223

This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.

1 Like