Update: Homosexual Activists Rickroll Internet in Attack on Mark Green

“Rick-rolling” is an internet bait-and-switch — where you are promised one thing while the hyperlink leads to another. That’s what the homosexual activists of GLAAD recently did to supporters and detractors alike — though their supporters didn’t even seem to notice.

Regarding the attempts to take down Mark Green as President Trump’s nominee for Secretary of the Army, Green had voiced his frustration with “the liberal left [that] has cut and spliced my words about terrorism and ISIS blatantly falsifying what I’ve said.”

GLAAD responded on Green’s Facebook page, saying [emphasis added]:

All we did was quote you. Hear for yourself starting at 15:20…

Similarly, they Tweeted [emphasis added]

All we did was quote him.

But you’ll note in neither of those social media bites did they actually provide a quotation. And, in fact, if you listen to the audio at 15:20, no quotes come from Mark Green that say what GLAAD claims they are “quoting”. So, instead of hearing what GLAAD says you’ll hear — you hear something entirely different. You’ve been rickrolled.

Again, for the record, the primary quote is below (and was already discussed).  Even absent some important context, it still doesn’t say what the homosexual activists are claiming:

The government exists to honor those people who live honorably, who do good things – to reward people who behave well and to crush evil. So that means as a state senator, my responsibility very clearly in Romans 13 is to create an environment where people who do right are rewarded and the people who do wrong are crushed. Evil is crushed.

So I’m going to protect women in their bathrooms…

At the Huffington Post, though, GLAAD went even further and jumped the shark:

GLAAD unearthed and shared the full, unedited audio interview…

It’s not hard to “unearth” something publicly available on the internet, but OK.  At least we have primary material.

…in which Mark Green called transgender Americans an ‘evil’ that must be ‘crushed,’” said Sarah Kate Ellis, the group’s president and CEO.

Except… if you listen to the full, unedited audio interview provided by GLAAD, Mark Green doesn’t call transgender Americans anything, nor does he say they must be crushed.  Note, again, GLAAD does not quote anything.

“Mark Green can try and blame others, but it’s his own words that make him unfit to be the next Army Secretary.”

Hate to break it to you Ellis, but it’s not “his own words” if they’re your words instead of his.  How about you try quoting next time you say you’re going to provide a quote?

Despite your repeated pleas, you didn’t quote him. You just made something up.  Apparently the truth isn’t good enough.

As an aside, Liberty Mutual is sponsoring the GLAAD media awards.  If their version of “quote” is the same as GLAAD’s, you may want to get your insurance somewhere else.

ADVERTISEMENT



22 comments

  • Anonymous Patriot

    Keep earning that hate, LGBTs. (sarcastic clapping)

  • Steven Schwartz

    So, what is the “evil that is crushed” in his quote?

    Because it’s very easy to read that, given what he’s *doing*, as transgender individuals going into the bathroom that their gender expression suits.

    Indeed, if the “wrong” is going into a bathroom that matches your gender expression, not your genitals, then “…and the people who do wrong are crushed.”

    So, who is that?

    (And note he’s claiming that it’s his duty, due to a Bible quote, to do that. If he puts his duty to the Bible ahead of his duty to the state Constitution, he’s forsworn, and deserves *no* respect.)

    • @Steven,

      Every Christian swears their allegiance first to Christ or they should before their own country. I do not see that as being a problem in serving ones country, it just makes a Christian a better soldier. Here is what scripture says in relation to that – Col. 3:23-24 – 23 Whatever you do, work heartily, as for the Lord and not for men, 24 knowing that from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your reward. You are serving the Lord Christ.

      As a Christian or a Christian soldier, we are serving Christ first before our commanding officers or our bosses in the workplace!

      Not sure what he was referring to when saying we must crush evil, but homosexuality is evil and a sin, and we must crush it either politically or legally!

  • Steven Schwartz

    ‘Every Christian swears their allegiance first to Christ or they should before their own country.”

    And if their values as a Christian are in conflict with the law of the country they’ve sworn to serve — they should resign from serving their country, if they put that first. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land; anyone who would place Biblical law above it has no business swearing an oath to uphold the Constitution, as they are then forsworn.

    “Not sure what he was referring to when saying we must crush evil, but homosexuality is evil and a sin, and we must crush it either politically or legally!”

    He says “the people who do wrong”. If you consider homosexuality a wrong, then *you*, like him, are advocating for the crushing — his term, mind you — of homosexuals, and transgender folk, etc., and you have no business in a position where anyone of either kind should have to report to you, just as I’m sure you’d find it inappropriate to be required to serve under someone who said “Christianity is evil and blasphemous, and we must crush it!”

    You are allowed to believe what you will; you are not allowed as a matter of right to impose it upon other people because it is your religious belief.

  • The notion of putting fealty to the Bible over one’s oath to support and defend the Constitution is a red herring. Everybody comes to the table of constitutional interpretation with a worldview by which they frame their perspectives, whether they admit it or not.

    As worldviews go, it’s axiomatic that a biblical worldview more closely aligns with that of the vast majority of those who conceived and produced our Constitution, whether secularists admit it or not. That is not to say that every one of our Founders adhered to biblical Christianity in the purest gospel sense. But that reality in no way diminishes the fact that our Founders would have shared a common biblical worldview that shaped their thinking. Why should Mark Green be any different?

    To suggest otherwise is historical revisionism of the highest order and cannot be considered a reasonable argument in this context.

    • Steven Schwartz

      “Everybody comes to the table of constitutional interpretation with a worldview by which they frame their perspectives, whether they admit it or not.”

      Indeed; and certain worldviews and bases have been given very short shrift by those whose task it is to interpret the Constitution; religious animus is not, for example, considered in most cases to qualify as sufficient reason for legislation alone.

      ” it’s axiomatic that a biblical worldview more closely aligns with that of the vast majority of those who conceived and produced our Constitution”

      In other words, you’re declaring it to be so. :) (That being rather what “axiomatic” means — a statement made deemed not requiring proof.) While that is actually a quite disputable point, for several of said Founding Fathers, especially depending on how you define a “biblical worldview”.

      “But that reality in no way diminishes the fact that our Founders would have shared a common biblical worldview that shaped their thinking. Why should Mark Green be any different?”

      Because the world is not the one the Founders lived in any more, in a wide variety of ways. And, indeed, I would *hope* that, for example, the massive scientific evidence supporting, say, equality of genders, would have been treated by the Founders as more important than Paulist views of gender inequality, had they possessed the science to know it. There are many things we now view much differently than the Founders, due to the fact that we have an increased understanding of the world — so appealing to them to justify policy based solely on religious animus — since Green has offered nothing else, including untrue statements about modern psychiatry* — is dubious at best.

      “To suggest otherwise is historical revisionism of the highest order…”

      No; it’s presenting the Constitution in the way it is currently most commonly interpreted. If Green has anything other than religious animus to back up his viewpoints, let him present it: so far, all he’s shown is concern over nonexistent threats, descriptions of his fellow citizens as people who need to be “crushed”, and massive religious bias.

  • The notion is axiomatic because the proof is well-established and in plain view, not because (as you seem to suggest) the assertion is made from thin air. Disputable, yes (isn’t everything disputed by someone?), but not reasonably disputable in light of the clear evidence of our national history.

    The fallacy you convey is that a worldview emanating from one’s religion is disqualified ipso facto. That perspective is dangerous and weak-minded, as it has become a lazy way to dismiss arguments outright rather than face them head on. That approach is un-American and anti-Constitutional, if for no other reason than it treats religion-informed thought as less than all other thought. In that sense, the Founders would not recognize and would completely disavow your approach to interpreting the Constitution.

    That is not to say the opposite, namely, that religious thought should be granted special favor in our system. On the other hand, it is true–whether you acknowledge it or not–that the way our Founders drew conclusions was clearly informed by a worldview marinated in the Bible. As stated previously, that does not mean every one of them conducted their personal affairs by first examining their “What Would Jesus Do?” bracelets. It does mean their political convictions were largely informed by biblical principles, as was the rest of society. It also means that everyone makes decisions informed by some definable worldview, whether they admit it or not. You seem unwilling to admit that.

    The Founders would not have recognized the decision matrix you disingenuously ascribe to Mark Green (and others), whose only apparent crutch is backwoods religion incapable of contending with contemporary issues. Their genius was in establishing a framework that allowed clear thinking informed by common principles that could handle any issue in any era. (Thus, for instance, they baked the inevitable extinction of slavery into the Constitution itself, realizing it would fall under its own weight in time. They would not, however, have similarly concluded that unisex bathrooms would ever be a good idea.)

    Politically liberal ignorance assumes a different kind of self-proclaimed “genius” by conflating principles and methods, such that the principles that grant us genuine freedom are discarded altogether in favor of short-term “gains.” In that way (among many others), Liberalism as a way of thinking often leads to catastrophic long-term effects. We should all remember the old saying that “methods are many, principles are few; methods may change, principles never do.”

    As to your suggestion that Paul and our Founders would have been more enlightened regarding the equality of men and women had they been granted access to modern science, the fact is they had all the science they needed. Science is based principally on observation, and they were all keenly aware of what everyone has always known: men and women are different–in countless ways. Are you suggesting otherwise? If so, you may want to share your keen insights with the NBA and its WNBA counterpart, along with the NCAA (who will continue to have separate men’s and women’s championships, maybe even in North Carolina), and the Academy Awards (best actor and best actress, etc). Is that the kind of equality you have in mind?

    • Steven Schwartz

      “The notion is axiomatic because the proof is well-established and in plain view, not because (as you seem to suggest) the assertion is made from thin air. Disputable, yes (isn’t everything disputed by someone?), but not reasonably disputable in light of the clear evidence of our national history.”

      That depends very much on how you define a “biblical worldview” — and yes, quite reasonably disputable.

      “The fallacy you convey is that a worldview emanating from one’s religion is disqualified ipso facto.”

      No. A policy prescription based *solely* upon one’s religion has no weight. That is a very different, and much narrower, position.

      ” if for no other reason than it treats religion-informed thought as less than all other thought.”

      Actually, it treats religion-informed thought as much more *controversial* and less subject to proof than all other thought, which is a very different thing. Remember — while no longer in living memory, the scars of the religious wars of the mid-17th century were still very strong in everyone’s minds, and there were manifold examples of intra-Christian religious strife still available to the Founders to look at.

      Your religious views that certain things are un-Biblical (or un-Christian) conflict wildly with other people’s Christian views — and the only way to avoid governmental entanglement and strife in determining what is and is not a Christian (or other religious) view to be supported is to treat them all as insufficient for policy purposes.

      “that the way our Founders drew conclusions was clearly informed by a worldview marinated in the Bible. ”

      Indeed; and marinated in Enlightenment philosophy, and ancient texts. To argue that “They had a biblical worldview, therefore a particular interpretation of the Bible is useful for policy” is, I hope you’d see, risible.

      “(Thus, for instance, they baked the inevitable extinction of slavery into the Constitution itself, realizing it would fall under its own weight in time.”

      Nonsense; they kicked the can of deciding about slavery down the road in order to preserve the Constitution from the dissension that would immediately result had those who opposed slavery tried to outlaw it immediately. That’s not “baked in”, that’s “delayed”.

      “They would not, however, have similarly concluded that unisex bathrooms would ever be a good idea.”
      Considering that the first law in the U.S. about unisex bathrooms was in the late 19th century, and the very existence of non-unisex public bathrooms was a brand new idea, we cannot say *what* they would have concluded on the issue.

      ” such that the principles that grant us genuine freedom are discarded altogether in favor of short-term “gains.””

      This all depends, of course, on how you define “genuine freedom”. For example, the genuine freedom of many people to live their lives as *they* see fit on issues of orientation and gender identity is under constant attack from people who claim the “genuine freedom” to shape the world according to their religious precepts.

      “We should all remember the old saying that “methods are many, principles are few; methods may change, principles never do.”

      So, the Southern Baptist’s stand over slavery was a method, not a principle? Do tell, then, how you tell a “principle” from a method?

      “As to your suggestion that Paul and our Founders would have been more enlightened regarding the equality of men and women had they been granted access to modern science, the fact is they had all the science they needed. ”

      Given that all of them were laboring under notions of massive human racial and gender inequality, and had no way to understand the way things worked in much of the world other than by reference to God (hence not so much showing faith as acknowledging no better explanation), this is ridiculous.

      ” Science is based principally on observation, and they were all keenly aware of what everyone has always known: men and women are different–in countless ways.”

      But not in the ways that, for example, would support denying women the right to vote, or insisting that they be quiet in church and not lead church services. Do please indicate what supports *that* in modern science?

  • Not reasonably disputed by reasonable people who aren’t forced to revise history to fit their wishful thinking, which is what you must do to read your preconceptions into the historical record of our founding. You’re entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.

    You simply cannot read the weight of evidence readily apparent in the Founders’ contemporaneous writings and reach any other conclusion logically. You don’t have to like it or agree with it or even think it works today, but you can’t reasonably dispute it.

    You’d be hard pressed to find someone in positions of power making policy prescriptions based solely on their religion (as you understand religion). The narrow view you claim to be denying is a straw man argument in practice, which, more than anything, highlights your narrowmindedness on the role of religion in society.

    “Baked in” is “delayed.” We’re saying the same thing here.

    Given their views of public modesty, we know exactly what they would say and do.

    Policy prescriptions are about public debate and considering inputs from all points of view, which you seem unwilling to do if one’s view is informed by religion. That position is nonsensical, dangerous, and far more controversial in our Republic than its opposite. All views are informed by something. You seem to be saying that only those devoid of any real reliance on religious underpinnings should be considered. That’s dangerous nonsense.

    You seem also to be confusing modern science with modern philosophy. Calling something science doesn’t make it so, even if you think it adds weight to your otherwise weak argument.

    Sadly, the Southern Baptist Convention’s stance on slavery (like most of the nation’s) was a method of maintaining an economic system that violated the clear principle that all people are made in God’s image. Similarly, in our era, Liberals see abortion as a method of promoting a twisted version of individual freedom in clear violation of that same principle. Furthermore, the latter violate actual science (ultrasound technology and the like) in the process of holding a literal death grip on that particular means (method) to the catastrophic ends previously mentioned.

  • Steven Schwartz

    ” You simply cannot read the weight of evidence readily apparent in the Founders’ contemporaneous writings and reach any other conclusion logically. You don’t have to like it or agree with it or even think it works today, but you can’t reasonably dispute it.”

    If you accept that “Biblical worldview” covers people as diverse as Augustine, Bishop Gene Robinson, John Hagee and the Levellers, I might be willing to accept it; of course, at that point the term becomes functionally meaningless, since almost anything, from the harshest capitalism to the purest communism, from same-sex marriage to the most extreme ascetism, can be justified as part of a “Biblical worldview”.

    Otherwise, no; someone like Thomas Jefferson, nowadays, would not be considered to have such a thing by anyone who, like some of the people on this blog, attempt to argue that many Christians are not so.

    “You’d be hard pressed to find someone in positions of power making policy prescriptions based solely on their religion (as you understand religion). ”

    Not at all. If you look at almost all the same-sex marriage cases that hit the courts, the opponents were asked to present any scientific or non-religious motivation, and when they attempted to do so, it was demonstratedly false or, at *best*, so methodologically flawed as to be useless. That’s *why* the SSM cases were decided the way they were — there was so little evidence as to a valid reason *not* to permit it.

    What it came down to, again and again, was tradition and religious animus — and said tradition was based, most often, on religious animus. So it’s not hard at all to find such action.

    ““Baked in” is “delayed.” We’re saying the same thing here.”

    No, we’re not. You’re saying “They knew slavery would end, so they prepared for it.” I am saying “They weren’t able to make a decision then, so they kicked the can down the road.” It’s the difference between buying something on layaway and going “I can’t afford that now, but maybe I can later”. The Founders did the latter.

    “Given their views of public modesty, we know exactly what they would say and do.”

    Well except they didn’t. As I cited, we didn’t even have laws mandating separation of bathrooms until 1887 in this country. Sex-segregated public facilities were a relative novelty at the time of the Founding. So, you may *think* you know; but we don’t know exactly, and we certainly don’t have the kind of strong evidence taht would support your claim.

    “ou seem to be saying that only those devoid of any real reliance on religious underpinnings should be considered.”

    No — you have that backward. I am saying that those devoid of anything *but* reliance on religious underpinnings should not be considered. If you have something to back you up other than “My religious text says so, and we used to do it that way (in part because my religious text said so”, then it can be judged on the merits of those other reasons. If all it’s got is your religious text, then it’s devoid of value in the public square as policy for *everyone* to follow.

    “Sadly, the Southern Baptist Convention’s stance on slavery (like most of the nation’s) was a method of maintaining an economic system that violated the clear principle that all people are made in God’s image. ”

    You see, here’s the problem — what you consider a “clear principle” now, and how that principle has been applied, is different than it’s been in the past. How are we to know that you’ve got it right *now*, *this time*, and that a hundred years from now people won’t be shaking their heads at how wrong the application of the clear principle was when it was used to argue against SSM?

    The answer is, we don’t — because just as there are textual arguments against SSM, so there were clear textual arguments *for* the rightness of slavery.

    This is one of the reasons I call for something *beyond* religious bases — because they have proven so often wrong in the past, and the only argument is “Well, we got it right *this* time, and all you other people who say you’re part of the same religion are doing it wrong now.”

    You will understand why I find this not terribly useful as a basis for social policy and governance.

  • Well, at least you’re clear about one thing (and only one): “science” for you is anything that is categorically “non-religious.” Which is the fundamental problem with your worldview and most arguments based thereupon (if your argumentation here is typical).

    By your “logic,” no interpretive framework in any arena, including actual science, can suffice if the determinant is that past interpretations can be overturned down the road as additional viable (key word) evidence comes to light.

    One last thing, and I repeat, “baked in” means “delayed” as you’ve defined it. Mind reading is not your strong suit.

  • Steven Schwartz

    ” Well, at least you’re clear about one thing (and only one): “science” for you is anything that is categorically “non-religious.” Which is the fundamental problem with your worldview and most arguments based thereupon (if your argumentation here is typical).”

    Hm. Given that I specified “scientific *or* non-religious”, you appear to be failing to understand.

    However, let me be explicit here:

    If you and someone else can do a set of experiments, or agree on a methodology and agree on the results, you’re looking at the sciences/social sciences, etc.

    If you and someone else can attempt to define basic principles, and agree or not on them, you’re in philosophy — and while you may not be able to come to an agreement, there is not an inherent model of those you disagree with as sinners/apostates/etc. One can also, for example, ask for simple coherence as a test of value — if your philosophy clearly does *not* support your policy positions, that can be demonstrated.

    If you are citing your holy book as a persuasive argument, you’re coming at it from a religious POV. Other people can have (to their lights) disagreements on the interpretation of the *same text*, let alone whether or not they value another text more highly, and there is no way to determine which interpretation is “correct” (if any are).

    Which means that, especially in a society which values religious freedom, the latter category, if it becomes entangled with policy-making, very easily invalidates that religious freedom, by enacting certain religious views (or policies based solely upon them) rather than others, infringing on the religious freedoms of those who disagree.

    Got it?

    “By your “logic,” no interpretive framework in any arena, including actual science, can suffice if the determinant is that past interpretations can be overturned down the road as additional viable (key word) evidence comes to light.”

    Hm. I think you’ve left a “not” out of here somewhere — because yes, as we learn more, we overturn previous understanding of the world — that is a scientific viewpoint.

    The point I was making is that there is no real model of “learning more” or “additional evidence” from a solely religious POV, if text-based; the text is there, and interpretations can change, but there is no way to tell which interpretation is “correct” — society moved past the religious views on slavery, but not because the Southern Baptists were all persuaded of the wrongness of their cause by wise argumentation; it took force.

    “One last thing, and I repeat, “baked in” means “delayed” as you’ve defined it. Mind reading is not your strong suit.”

    You are not Humpty Dumpty — words do not mean what you want them to mean, as you pay their wages. :)

    You were trying to give credit to the Founders for “baking in” the end of slavery into the Constitution. What they *did* was put off decision-making. “Baking in” would have meant guaranteeing its end, rather than guaranteeing its *preservation* for a period of years only to open the question again, and allow it to be opened in such a way that it nearly destroyed the Union. If that’s “baking in” a decision, the Founders did an *atrocious* job of it.

    • @Steven Schwartz

      a religious POV…very easily invalidates that religious freedom, by enacting certain religious views (or policies based solely upon them) rather than others, infringing on the religious freedoms of those who disagree.

      That statement is a combination of logical fallacies. Even if someone did manage to thread the needle you’ve created, the result would not inherently infringe on others’ religious freedom.

      Strawman, false dichotomy, correlation/causation; either your argument is very flawed, or your communication of it is inarticulate.

      Your argument sounds disturbingly similar to those who believe those whose beliefs are based in religion should be denied access to the democratic process.

  • Steven Schwartz

    I find cutting out entire sentences with ellipses to be…dangerously close to misrepresentation.

    But that aside:

    “Even if someone did manage to thread the needle you’ve created, the result would not inherently infringe on others’ religious freedom.”

    Not automatically, no. But commonly. Indeed, we have an easy example in front of us. Some Christian sects approve of same-sex marriage. Laws invalidating such a marriage, then, could be easily argued are a far greater infringment of religious liberty than laws permitting them — since, after all, no one is *required* to wed another member of the same sex, but *prohibiting* it is prohibiting people their religious expression.

    If you can find a case of something religiously-based that does not cause *any* religious group in the U.S. to object — well, I suspect you’ve found something that doesn’t *require* a religious basis, because enough people agree on it without it being required by a holy text or another.

    “Your argument sounds disturbingly similar to those who believe those whose beliefs are based in religion should be denied access to the democratic process”

    Not at all; but I don’t believe anyone has the right to impose *their* solely-religiously-based views on *me*, just as I do not have the right to do the same to other people.

    • @Steven Schwartz

      Some Christian sects approve of same-sex marriage…

      Tsk, tsk. You’ve ignored your own criteria: enacting “religious views” or “policies based solely upon them.” There are legitimate secular arguments against the state sanctioning same-sex relationships. As such, you’ve failed to thread the needle of your own argument.

      impose *their* solely-religiously-based views on *me*…

      Every act of law is society imposing one viewpoint or opposing another. The old canard of “you cannot legislate morality” remains invalid. The only question is whose morality is being legislated.

  • Steven Schwartz

    “There are legitimate secular arguments against the state sanctioning same-sex relationships. ”

    Funny — court after court in the U.S. has failed to find any presented to them in a useful form, hence why SSM is now the law of the land.

    And all I need to do to make my argument is to point out that basing public policy on religious viewpoints makes it very easy to run afoul of other religious viewpoints — and the very “religious freedom” that is being championed as the reason to permit such viewpoints in the first place is then violated.

    “Every act of law is society imposing one viewpoint or opposing another. ”

    Agreed. The question is *why* are they doing so. Some reasons have a quantifiable decision factor behind them — for example, wearing seatbelts has *demonstrably* saved lives, and thus laws in favor of wearing them have an objective basis for understanding whether they are good or not. Similarly, laws against using lead in plumbing, or requiring fire exits.

    When the bases for law become religious, this demonstrability goes right out the window.

    • @Steven Schwartz

      court after court

      Irrelevant to your argument — unless you’re trying to move the goalposts. It seems you’re acknowledging a flaw in your argument.

      The question is *why* are they doing so.

      No, it isn’t. An American citizen can believe his proposed bill/legislation/law is good or necessary because it’s Tuesday and he likes polka. His motivation matters not. He is still entitled to politically advocate for his cause, and his fellow citizens are still entitled to support it and enact it if they choose.

      Their only limitations are whether the government, in enacting their idea, violates the limitations emplaced upon it within the US Constitution. And just because their idea “coincides with religious tenets” does not mean it violates the religious clause of the Constitution, nor the religious freedom of others. Don’t take my word for it. That’s what the Supreme Court said (Harris v. McRae).

  • Steven Schwartz

    “Irrelevant to your argument — unless you’re trying to move the goalposts. It seems you’re acknowledging a flaw in your argument.”

    Not at all. You made a claim that there were legitimate secular arguments against same-sex marriage. If there are, either they haven’t been presented to a court, or they were found very wanting. “Sincere religious and philosophical beliefs” were not found sufficient to ground a constitutional objection to same-sex marriage.

    “His motivation matters not.”

    Actually, motivation matters — see Romer v. Evans. — “Its sheer breadth is so discontinuous with the reasons offered for it that the amendment seems inexplicable by anything but animus toward the class that it affects; it lacks a rational relationship to legitimate state interests.”

    and: “[I]f the constitutional conception of ‘equal protection of the laws’ means anything, it must at the very least mean that a bare … desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate governmental interest.”

    So, motivation *does* matter; and stated motivations can be (and have been) taken into account in determining whether or not a given law/action “violates the limitations emplaced upon it.”


    Green has stated the source for his reasoning, which comes from a clear and demonstrated animus — which allows any American to oppose his nomination justly and fairly. It’s not being “anti-Christian” to oppose a bigot. It’s being anti-bigotry.

    “And just because their idea “coincides with religious tenets””

    What Green has been saying isn’t “coinciding with religious tenets”, he’s *citing* them, which makes the connection beyond coincidental.

    I notice, by the way, you elided the question of the religious freedom of people who believe in the legitimacy of same-sex marriage, many of whom are Christian; do you not feel they deserve it as well? Or is it only a specific narrow set of one particular religion who are allowed to claim “religious freedom”?

    • @Steven Schwartz

      they haven’t been presented to a court…

      Your argument was based on “enacting certain religious views (or policies based solely upon them).” That very idea is flawed, as stated, because it ignores secular arguments that have the same end. The courts are not relevant to the fact your argument is premised on error.

      motivation matters — see Romer v. Evans

      That doesn’t say what you think it says. Read the context in the Wikipedia article you copied from.

      It’s not being “anti-Christian” to oppose a bigot. It’s being anti-bigotry.

      You just equated Christian beliefs and bigotry. Not very tolerant of you, but nice work.

      he’s *citing* them, which makes the connection beyond coincidental.

      Let’s dumb this down: Religious zealot proposes law to outlaw murder because his holy text says murder is bad. Said law is not invalidated merely because it coincides with his religious beliefs. Said law is not invalidated because of the zealot’s religious motivation. Yet you appear to advocate both of those points.

      Causal reductionism is just one of the many fallacies you’ve demonstrated.

  • Steven Schwartz

    “That very idea is flawed, as stated, because it ignores secular arguments that have the same end.”

    And if those secular arguments *fail*, as they have repeatedly done when put to the test, then the religious arguments are insufficient to the case, as I have said before.

    The courts are, in this country, the determining factor as to whether those secular arguments support the case — and repeatedly, they have proven not to.

    I have never said that religious arguments are entirely invalid — I have said as sole support, they are useless.

    “That doesn’t say what you think it says. Read the context in the Wikipedia article you copied from.”

    Present a counterargument, instead of just waving your hands and going “No, nompe, not what you mean.”

    “You just equated Christian beliefs and bigotry. Not very tolerant of you, but nice work.”

    No, I didn’t. I equated *one set* of beliefs that people who call themselves Christian espouse. There are many people who call themselves Christian who do not espouse them, nor are they the entirety of Christian belief. Nice try at painting yourself as the victim, but no such luck. You do not hold sole possession of the definition of “Christian”.

    “Let’s dumb this down: Religious zealot proposes law to outlaw murder because his holy text says murder is bad. Said law is not invalidated merely because it coincides with his religious beliefs. Said law is not invalidated because of the zealot’s religious motivation. Yet you appear to advocate both of those points.”

    Said law is not invalidated because there is general consensus, across religious beliefs and people who are not believers, that the law is valid. The holy text could not *exist* and the law would remain valid.

    Religious zealot proposes a law saying that people with red hair get fewer rights, because their interpretation of their holy text says that red hair is a mark of damnation. Other people who venerate that text do not accept that interpretation of the holy text, people of other religions do not accept that text’s authority, and non-religious people consider it foolish. That law would be *invalid*, as it comes solely from a religious source, and has no support in secular reasoning.

    The “bathroom bills”, lacking any substantiative backing or evidence, and anti-SSM laws, fall into the latter category, not the former.

    And, BTW, only the red-hairs-are-damned people of the zealot’s religion are bigots, not everyone who follows that text. Just in case you missed the point before in your efforts to appear persecuted and discriminated against.

    • @Steven Schwartz

      I have said as sole support, they are useless…

      Except that “as a sole support” is a strawman. Sure, you can find people who advocate non-Christians should be burned at the stake — just like you can still find people advocating all kinds of other positions. But the positions of Mark Green and the many Christians who share his ideology are not what you are implying they are.

      The “bathroom bills”, lacking any substantiative backing or evidence, and anti-SSM laws, fall into the latter category, not the former.

      And there you finally show your bigotry.

      Protection of the right to privacy is just one example of a secular reason to segregate men and women in certain facilities. That you may disagree does not invalidate the argument nor make the proposed rule fail.

      Similarly, there have long been very good secular arguments against social support for and recognition of same sex relationships. That you may disagree does not invalidate the argument nor make the proposed rule fail.

      Neither of those positions is a “religious view” or “solely” based on religion. It is you who is attempting to characterize them that way for the purpose of tearing down the very caricature you have created.

      You are either blind to your own bias or you refuse to admit it. In either case, continuing this conversation will produce nothing of value.

  • Steven Schwartz

    ” But the positions of Mark Green and the many Christians who share his ideology are not what you are implying they are.”

    “Protection of the right to privacy is just one example of a secular reason to segregate men and women in certain facilities. That you may disagree does not invalidate the argument nor make the proposed rule fail.”

    Except *whose* “right to privacy” are you protecting? The bathroom bills make an argument that say, in effect, that transgender folk *do not exist*, which is no longer the general secular consensus. That gender is solely determined by genitalia is no longer the scientific or social consensus.

    “That you may disagree does not invalidate the argument nor make the proposed rule fail.”

    As I have said — the opponents of SSM have had many opportunities to make these so-called “very good” arguments in court, and repeatedly failed to do so.

    Mark Green explicitly cited religious reasons for what he wished to do; in the absence of any supportable secular reasons, what he wished to do then becomes invalid policy, *especially* in the light of people who have religious feelings in the *opposite* direction; to do so then is supporting one religion in favor of another.

    “In either case, continuing this conversation will produce nothing of value.”

    You are free to bail on the conversation; anyone reading this will note your repeated dropping of subjects that you appear to have no response to, and your simple repetition, without evidence, of having “very good” reasons.

    Go well; and may you never have need of the mercy and compassion you are denying others.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *