i prefer to think of it as an applied theological technology.
science would be asking: how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? (twelve.)
1 Like
Well isnāt that what the roots of organised religion are? Itās a primitive attempt to answer questions relating to the natural world.
Iām not sure how one would provide such a citation - can you not just think about it for a minute and come to the logical conclusion? If the headline was āScalia believes that a goblin lives under his bed and pollutes his dreamsā would you be so quick to ask for justification in labelling him nuts? Why would it be different?
You seem really hung up on my call for a citation. The comment I was replying to stated a statistic, for which a citation should be easy to quote. Unless itās a faith based statistic, of course.
2 Likes
I take Scaliaās comments to be strong positive evidence that Angra Mainyu, the malevolent demon of Zoroastrianism, has become extremely clever, because it has managed not to be mentioned even once in either Testament.
9 Likes
I sincerely hope to outlive Antonin Scalia, and to look back on his shameful legacy in disgust after he no longer exists.
Folks asked for clarification about my use of the term militant/evangelizing atheist. I think recent discussion provides some illustration. Generalized disrespect for believers may make you feel superior, but it really isnāt productive. Like it or not, you share a society with these folks, and most of them are good people; dismissing them out of hand is Not Useful.
Judges are human. Every judge brings their heritage and personal ethics to the bench. Theyāre human. The question is whether they have the strength and intellectual honesty to look past āthis is what makes me most comfortableā and find whatās right for the society.
The fact that Scalia believes something irrational/nonrational isnāt necessarily a problem; all of us have some such belief. Admitting it in public shouldnāt be a problem ā heck, I WANT to know what point of view people in a position of responsibility requiring moral judgement bring to their duties. I happen to consider this particular belief pattern a foolish oversimplification as anything but a metaphor, but thatās his problem, not mine.
When a judge (or anyone else) starts treating their belief as the only legitimate belief, rather than accepting that others can disagree and that where there is no overwhelming societal consensus the law needs to leave room for that disagreement, THEN thereās a problem.
He wouldnāt have been my choice for the Supreme Court. Thatās hardly news. This doesnāt significantly affect my opinion.
2 Likes
Salem witch trials would be one obvious example. It is perfectly possible for an entire community to go bat-shit insane.
1 Like
90% of Americans consider themselves to have a healthy diet. Many people believing something doesnāt make it true - that should go without saying.
3 Likes
I really hope that youāre not referring to the discussion I was involved in when you refer to āmilitant atheistsā (silly, reductive term, but continue to use it if you wish, your call). Theism isnāt an issue - itās not even the issue in this discussion. Believing in a god isnāt an issue for anyone other than the believer; a person of authority believing in boogeymen is a justified concern of the people for which he makes important decisions.
But please remember that this is a heavily science influenced blog. Itās hardly surprising that many of the people here have little time for imaginary characters in this game we call life. Thereās nothing militant about science.
For a long time I have said that the GOP needs to have a broader discussion about the role of demonolgy in governing. The New Apostolic movement is hyperpolitical and they are obsessed with demons and using them to explain everything that does not go their way. Since everyone that does not agree with them is ādemon possessedā they totally dehumanize their political opponents.
I wish the reporter has asked Scalia if the government should set up exorcism centers. Should the FBI have demonologists to help fight demons obvious involvement in crime? Should the CIA be looking for the anti-Christ? Should the Army be developing anti-demon weapon systems?
3 Likes
Youāll be living in Scaliaās shameful legacy long after heās gone. And Roberts is smoother but even more extreme.
2 Likes
Are you a militant Christian? Or actually since pretty much all Christianity is founded on proselytizing I guess you would be ok if I said Christianity is a very large āmilitant cultā right?
3 Likes
This would make more sense if his decisions seemed in any way unbiased. In his case, not so much.
1 Like
I donāt know about āmy friendā here, but I know I have actually a lower opinion of Thomas, for what itās worth.
Not really true.
- Fundamentalist Catholics are plentiful.
- Most Catholics Iāve met donāt seem to actually believe the dogma and the dogma is fucking crazy (like believing in the fucking devil is fucking crazy).
1 Like
I think people deserve respect, or to be left alone, in their beliefs. I take issue with someone deciding important law citing the bible as āevidenceā, even in an off the cuff discussion such as this. The bible is a faith based system. I think a supreme court judge should use such important terminology with strict care in deference to the courts and law. Otherwise, he appears to muddy the waters between what he practices as a faith based personal belief system and reasonable judgement based on facts and evidence that effect others who do not share that belief system.
Editing to add: He was asked about evidence, he didnāt bring the word up himself. Still, I think itās important for a judge to quibble about legal terminology to separate it from faith based personal belief systems.
2 Likes
I find that number hard to swallow, got a source? And letās be clear, a belief in the devil as a sort of vague amorphous term for evil in the world thatās mostly metaphorical is very different from a belief in a literal individual who has plans and strategies to snare people into an evil web and posseses pigs as Scalia believes.
In this study, only about a quarter of christians believed in a literal devil the way Scalia describes:
And Christians being only 3/4 of the country that makes it a belief held strongly by only around 20% of the population.
3 Likes
From the interview:
"You know, it is curious. In the Gospels, the Devil is doing all sorts of things. Heās making pigs run off cliffs, heās possessing people and whatnot. And that doesnāt happen very much anymore. "
2 Likes
On the other hand, believing in a literal devil isnāt noticeably less crazy that using the 14th amendment, passed to ensure minorities could vote, to justify disenfranchising minority voters.
Come to think of it, his āoriginalistā schtick is useful in plumbing the depth of his nonsense in a lot of ways. He assumes that the devil has changed tactics since he only believes those stories as related in the gospels, which, not coincidentally, have not been added to or amended since the authorsā could actually relate such idiocy with a straight face and not be thought to be either a liar of insane.
1 Like
I knew it would be far smaller than quoted, but man, 20%? Thatās still pretty terrifying.
I wonder how many people think thereās a monster in their closet?
1 Like
I actually cracked up at āā¦and that doesnāt happen very much anymore.ā. It sure doesnāt, Antonin, it sure doesnāt.
3 Likes
