२८ एप्रिल, २०१५
"It was rather refreshing, actually."
Said Justice Scalia after a protester interrupted the same-sex marriage oral arguments with some "burn in hell" anti-gay yelling. I was listening to the oral argument as I was walking to class, and despite being out in public, I was brought to tears. We had just heard some careful argument with decently thoughtful questions from the Justices, and it was just so brutal and crude to shout about hell for homosexuals. And then Justice Scalia said "It was rather refreshing, actually." And I did laugh a little. Because... what did he mean? I think he meant, you know, we've all got to be so sober and appropriately legalistic all the time, and here was a person just shouting out how he really felt. It's refreshing. I don't think Justice Scalia meant: You know, that's how I feel too. I think these gay people are just horribly deluded, they're trying to delude others, and a lot of people are getting sucked into the pit of hell. No... I don't think that. Do you?
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
८२ टिप्पण्या:
This is so dangerous. Progressives have no sense of humor.
I have no doubt he believes homosexuals will go to Hell. Do you think he'd say it was "refreshing" if a protester yelled out "damn bigots!" in the middle of a highly legalistic argument against gay marriage ? Not a chance. It has nothing to do with hearing how someone "really feels."
Be careful. People might laugh in your scrunched up face. And that could hurt your feelings.
Taking the long view, I support gay marriage for this reason:
1. It says to Christians - never mind your arbitrary beliefs, you WILL conform to this.
2. Therefore, it establishes that principle for ALL religions
3. And bingo, we have solid legal precedent to force the Muslims, who have many more uncivil beliefs than Christians do, to conform to civilized society, or leave.
And that's a big win for America.
So Christians, you need to take one for the team.
As a bonus, some gay divorces are likely to provide fabulous theater.
Probably off-topic, but I'd put even money on the proposition that the "ant-gay" protester was yet another false flag flyer ostensibly trying to discredit the "real" bigots.
Yes, well, a lot of people are getting sucked into the pits of hell.
But gays don't have a monopoly on that one.
Now eric is bringing me to tears.
No, I don't think Scalia found the protester's comments "refreshing" in the sense that he agreed with them. Instead, I believe Scalia was being ironic.
btw, Re: Scalia
I suspect he asked the question about a priest not wanting to perform a same-sex wedding for reasons completely unrelated to religious freedom, which isn't at issue in this case and which is a very secure federal right thanks to RFRA and the recent decision in Hobby Lobby v. Burwell.
I suspect that Scalia asked the question to illustrate that not all opposition to same sex marriage is out of "animus." I have not yet heard the oral argument, but the plaintiffs were substantially tasked in this case with showing that some element(s) of animus existed on the part of the state electorates in Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee. As part of their burden in showing that they can apply, and beat, the "rational basis with bite" test for review of the state constitutional provisions.
But whether he meant it or not is also sort of irrelevant to most of us, isn't it? I mean the people who liked him before this are going to like him after and the people who disliked him before this will likewise maintain. And for good reason.
Well, he (the shouter) is right.
From a Catholic point of view, that condition is inherently disordered.
Its not prudent or appropriate to yell about it in a court of law, but it is what it is.
Its not the only sort of personality flaw that is inherently disordered, and not the only weakness that can lead to temptation and sin, but its the one that people are asking the state to formally approve of in this case.
Its in the same category as having the state finance abortions, or grant easy divorces, or permit the sale of contraceptives. Those others were much worse, from a Catholic point of view, as to a pernicious effect the general level of morals. But everything adds up.
harrogate said...
"But whether he meant it or not is also sort of irrelevant to most of us, isn't it? I mean the people who liked him before this are going to like him after and the people who disliked him before this will likewise maintain. And for good reason. "
Fake but accurate is the standard for truth on the left. And for good reason.
"So Christians, you need to take one for the team."
I think quite a lot of us would risk decapitation by ISIS if that would stop this cultural collapse.
If martyrdom were a way out of this, you would find many willing.
If only it were that simple.
@SomeoneHasToSayIt:
"3. And bingo, we have solid legal precedent to force the Muslims, who have many more uncivil beliefs than Christians do, to conform to civilized society, or leave."
What you said would be true if government was consistent. But it is not. It is made up of people with agendas that mostly involve increasing their power over our lives. We need to get the government out of the morality business because it is not good at it. This includes marriage.
What's the "fake but accurate" analogy here? I'm saying it doesn't really matter to commenters here , or to most people, whether he meant it or not. It's just something he said. Where's the "conservative" who would suddenly oppose Scalia if he meant it? Where's the "liberal" who would be pro Scalia if he was being ironic?
It's something he said and not worth nearly as much as his votes and written opinions and speeches and so on.
It is interesting that he said it though. Which definitely makes it an "Althouse moment"
Well, I don't know about Hell for the gays, but I could certainly recommend a long stretch in Purgatory for those gay activists who find Christian business owners to go after just so they can make sure there's no ThoughtCrimes among the citizenry.
But, hey, even for the Lavender Menace, there's mercy in the Lord. We here over at www.WePiousHegelians.org are running a Special Discount this week only on Full Plenary Indulgences! Will they work? Well, we won't say "you can bet your life, they will", but we'll sure say you can bet your immortal soul.
Come On Down!
Achilles said...
We need to get the government out of the morality business because it is not good at it.
I think you sort of shot yourself in the foot with that one, Achilles (heh) .
It's immoral to kill, steal, breach contracts, etc. I'm glad the government is enforcing those.
So, no, the government can't really get out of the 'morality business'.
Wouldn't be prudent.
It's a refreshing, but unwelcome change, from the trans-equality advocates projecting their bigotry (i.e. sanctimonious hypocrisy). As if their individual orientations are not tolerated, and similar dysfunctional behaviors or expressions are normalized on principle. Perhaps in a pro-choice cult, but not in the civilized world.
That said, it's over -- or just beginning -- and selective exclusion will become the law of the land through high-capacity lawfare and unbridled, yet selective hypocrisy.
Oh, well. Another unreconciled moral hazard created and left to unplanned Posterity and illegal aliens.
SomeoneHasToSayIt:
But what about "separation of Church and State"? As if proscriptive laws and regulations are anything other than religion in a thinly veiled disguise, and government is the establishment of a Church following the dictates of the minority or majority. That's right, it applies to your Church, not theirs. It was a nice Constitution in principle, but it poses an obstacle to unqualified progress.
That said, I have to wonder about people's claims to religion or morality when they debase unwanted or inconvenient life on principle while following the secular profits and under the influence of the mortal gods who dispense liberal doses of opiates to suppress or mollify their conscience.
"we have solid legal precedent to force the Muslims, who have many more uncivil beliefs than Christians do, to conform to civilized society, or leave."
Having it is one thing, applying it consistently is another.
Meanwhile in Minneapolis:
"Amin sees Yusuf and his generation as “the hybrids.” Some, he said, have embraced the life of an American teen. Others remain suspicious of what can still seem a strange culture.
“I work in a school where there are kids who have not bought into America,” Amin said. “It’s almost as if you have to sell them the idea that there is a good life that America affords you. We have to implore them."
At least the mayor of Rotterdam told radicals to leave if they don't like it there. Not likely to happen in Minnesota.
Homosexuality is objectively a sin for Christians. But of course everyone else is a sinner too, of essentially equal caliber. The whole range of humanity from Hitler to Liberace to Mother Theresa is extremely small on the sin-o-meter. Christians who pretend otherwise may feel self-satisfied, but they are completely missing the point.
The boring disruptions come always come from the lefties. It's boring.
It's refreshing a boring disruption comes from the other side for a change.
""we have solid legal precedent to force the Muslims"
*snort*
Please, the Left soils its panties whenever someone says Muslim. You really think they are going to do anything other than submit to Islam?
That's why this whole debate is moot. In a few generations gays will be begging Christians to hide them from Sharia. I'm going to advise they don't. I'm going to remind them of the little online Kristallnacht attack on bakers, florists and pizza shops. I'm going to tell them the gays are no better than Nazis, have no tolerance for Christians, and as such should not be shielded by Christians.
Hell, I may even point out a few gay couples to the local Imans.
" In a few generations gays will be begging Christians to hide them from Sharia. "
That's the point of Christianity.
"and as such should not be shielded by Christians.'
That would be un-Christian.
Christianity means something, its not meant to be just some sort of tribal designation.
The prophet warning people to repent is refreshing. It is God caring enough to tell you His point of view with the implication you can be better or He would not bother to speak to you.
But knowing Sin's power is the Law's only real good use.
We all are believers in grace that forgives us in Christ's resurrection or we all go to hell.Nobody ever succeeds at keeping the Law.
But given a choice the more Law That people teach and follow the safer community life is among those people.
Perhaps what Scalia found "refreshing" was that the outburst wasn't the same old tired left/liberal bullshit that usually interrupts their deliberations.
"I have no doubt he believes homosexuals will go to Hell."
I have no doubt that you have no doubt.
Of course he meant it.
Sharc wrote: "Catholics are constantly stop-gapping (corrupt at birth, clean by baptism; corrupt again during the week, absolved at confession; sinner again on deathbed, forgiven at last rites)."
I can understand why it would seem that way to a non-Catholic. Even some Catholics, who have a poor understanding of their own faith, treat confession like it's a sort of spiritual car wash - you enter dirty, the priest says a few magic words, you say a few "Hail Marys" and "Our Fathers" and you step out of church pure. Repeat the following week and hope you don't commit some real doozy of a mortal sin and then die before you can confess.
They sort of tuned out in religion class when the priest or nun told them them that an insincere confession is worse than no confession at all. The priest, being human, cannot tell if the sinner he is absolving is truly sorry for his or her sins, but God knows. Just rattling off the Act of Contrition if you're not really contrite does you no good whatsoever.
you burst into tears because ssomeone started yelling anti-gay marriage stuff? maybe it's time for you to come out yourself. As the leftist you are.
Liberals aren't the only people with strong feelings and I think Scalia thought it refreshing to hear someone express his true feelings even though I'm sure Scalia doesn't share those feelings.
The interruption by the protester came just after the first half of the argument was concluded. The courtroom is surprisingly small, and the spectTors lawyers and justices are in close proximity. These breaches of protocol have an unexpected impact in that setting, and put everyone on edge. In the transcript, the Chief Justice directed a short recess before the Court took up the second half of the argument (not the normal procedure).
That was the setting. I think Scalia's comment was a way to reduce the tension by making it into a little joke. It worked in context too, since it got everyone laughing. Good for him.
One can share the same viewpoint without sharing the same feelings.
I had something similar happen to me.
Jessica Alba was up here in Seattle, visiting me, and we were enjoying ourselves on a king-size bed with great sheets and pillows in a wonderful hotel in the downtown area when there was a knock at the door.
I wrapped a robe around me and opened the door to see the man from the room next to us waiting in the hallway.
He said:
"I CAN HEAR YOUR ANAL SEX AND IT IS TOO LOUD! YOU CANNOT BE SO LOUD WITH YOUR ANAL SEX!"
So I told him:
"We haven't got to the anal sex yet. That was just good American vaginal sex."
But No, he said:
"I KNOW THAT WAS ANAL SEX! IT HAS A SOOOOUUUUNNNNDDDDD."
So I said:
"Exactly what specific sound is that?"
And he said:
"HUMPH HUMPH HUMPH!"
And I replied:
"Nope, that is just how it sounds when I try to get into Jessica Alba's tight, tight vagina: her hips are actually rather narrow.
Here is the thing: when someone knows that you are in a room having sex with Jessica Alba they keep trying to slyly look past you to get just ONE glimpse of her. This dude: nothing.
In other words: gay.
So, he muttered and went back to his room and later had gay anal sex with his partner and it sounded like "HUMPH HUMPH HUMPH!" except lower-case -- VERY lower-case -- and wheezy, like someone needed an inhaler and the other person was too distracted and bored to go get it.
We saw them in the morning at the restaurant downstairs; Jessica put a sausage on a fork and went "HUMPH HUMPH HUMPH!". Slowly.
The bus-boy discreetly left the room to go masturbate.
I am Laslo.
Moved to tears, Althouse? Tears? When a few years back you mocked Tom Coburn's tears in a Senate hearing? Whatever happened to that much touted cruel neutrality?
Fen said:
Please, the Left soils its panties whenever someone says Muslim.
It's why we hear 100 times a day about "ISIS" and not "Islamic State In Syria"
Our media, our politicians can't even say the word. Because of that, I'd bet that a majority of Americans don't even know what the I in ISIS stands for.
John Henry
"you burst into tears because ssomeone started yelling anti-gay marriage stuff?"
Yea, that's a bit overwrought, isn't it, Althouse?
Sheesh,the gay marriage advocates are winning and yet I've never seen a more thin-skinned bunch, except for radical feminists. They're either bursting into tears or flying into a rage (and suing and trying to destroy people's lives) when someone expresses an opinion they dislike.
"One can share the same viewpoint without sharing the same feelings."
As to the protester, I don't think Scalia shares the protester's feelings or his viewpoint.
Ann's link for the audio of the oral argument is bad. The audio is nowhere on the scotusblog site that I could find.
You can download the MP3s here 2 parts
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2014/14-556-q1
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2014/14-556-q2
John Henry
"Go forth and sin some more."
#ThingsJesusNeverSaid
"and a lot of people are getting sucked into the pit of hell. No... I don't think that. Do you?"
Yes I do. They are heading us toward immortality on a grand scale.
Homosexuality, bestiality, pedophilia, polygamy, incest, etc... yes right down the road to decadence and hell.
And keep in mind folks, marriage is a religious idea going way back past the Hebrews and Egyptians. It was never ever for homosexuals.
"... I don't think Justice Scalia meant: You know, that's how I feel too. I think these gay people are just horribly deluded, they're trying to delude others, and a lot of people are getting sucked into the pit of hell...."
Justice Scala may well have meant that the interruption was a bit of ironically comic relief. He may also have meant what AA's paraphrase suggests-- by all accounts, he is a Catholic who takes his faith seriously, who believes what the catechism teaches. I find it difficult to believe that he would interject such an open reference to the Catholic faith during a hearing in court, so my money is on the first option AA described.
Will people ever be able to speak publicly again without a PR person? Maybe this is the new job that will be created when the robots kill all the old jobs.
I think Scalia was commenting ironically that at least they were getting hit by a different group than 99Rise:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/01/protesters-supreme-court_n_6988216.html
I don't think any of the justices approve of in-court protesters AT ALL, much less Scalia. I am sure they were all startled, and I think this was to cover his own fluster.
Ta-Nehisi Coates tells me you're supposed to act up when people keep disrespecting you. With a bit more practice this God-botherer could be out there looting drugstores with our very sharpest social commentators.
The man is gifted in the art of repartee; but his comments can only be interpreted in the context of the setting where he uttered the words to discern what he intended.
Great comments on this thread...
Jesus never mentions homsexuality, but does condemn sexual immortality, which encompasses a lot of heterosexual behavior.
Paul in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 states homsexuality offenders will not inherit the kingdom of God, but he also includes the greedy, drunkards, idolitors, swindlers, and slanderers.
In the same verses he basically states that we were all once one of these but washed clean by Christ.
As a Christian, I think many Christians are in error if they think they know who is going to Heaven or hell.
They are throwing stones, and need to reread The Gospels. It's amazing what many will claim is in them...that simply isn't.
Have we no last refuge from the reaches of the state? None at all?
I think he meant that its refreshing the justices get yelled at from their constituents. Scalia makes a lot of speeches and hears protesters a lot. He's not a shrinkng violet. None of them are.
I'm one who believes that I should not judge others. I don't like that some who differ on the historical definitions of things like marriage aren't just content to feel secure in their own beliefs but are compelled to go to great lengths to change mine. Something they would abhor were the situation reversed.
In Genesis 19, God got pretty pissed when the people of Sodom wanted to rape the Angels who accompanied Lot to the city. Strangely, Lot offered his virgin daughters to appease, but the surrounding crowd was disinterested, and asked if he had any son-in-laws to send out.
Sounds like Baltimore.
Of course we know God burned the city, Sarah turned to salt.
But the comdemnation of 'sodomy' was any type of anal or oral sex between any combination of men or women (and animals). His disgust with lust does not seem limited to just homosexual behavior, but sexual behavior that brings momentary pleasure...with also frustration, heartache, abuse, selfishness, and inhumanity.
I'm not sure God limits his judgment on just how gay people behave. But through Christ we are forgiven, and I can't figure out why some Christians limit that forgiveness and don't include people who sin differently than they do.
Gusty Winds,
Jesus also said he was here not to do away with the law, but to fulfill it.
By law He ment the Old Testimate. And in the Old Testimate it says,"If a man lies with a male as with a woman", i.e. homosexuality, it is an Abomination.
So indirectly He does mention it.
And Gusty, go read John and his admonishment about not obeying the 10 commandments. And while you are at it read James and his thoughts on faith without works.
There is a bit more to being a Christian than just saying you believe.
I'm not sure why people keep quoting Bible passages to justify their moral inadequacies-
harrogate - nobody gives a shit what you think.
Paul...
first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.
Judge not lest ye be judged.
Who ever is yelling "burn in hell" in some form of Christian righteousness is missing the whole message. It's the same type of Christianity that created the Salem Witch Trials, the Inquisition, and other atrocities.
I can see the Christian opposition to abortion...but this burn in hell frothing over homsexuality...a born with condition, is judgemental hyperbole.
This 'burn in hell' sounds fishy. Probably a liberal who got tired of painting swastikas and tying hangman's nooses around his college.
Gusty removed the splinter in his eye, to see the plank in another-
Then judged the plank, lest his splinter be judged-
Scalia is very aware of his reputation as a wit. My hunch: After the last very recent organized outburst (on money and free speech), he had determined he would try to break the tension the next time it happened. He was just unlucky with the occasion and his pre-considered quip didn't quite fit.
Gusty Winds: "Paul...
first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye"
Gusty, how can you see that plank in Paul's eye with that redwood sticking out of yours?
Paul, I'm sorry to report that Gusty has judged you to be far too judgmental.
Gusty: " It's the same type of Christianity that created the Salem Witch Trials, the Inquisition, and other atrocities"
And the Crusades Gusty.
Mustn't forget that.
There have been a great many shameful abuses by those who claim to own and enforce the laws of the Old Testament. Especially those who limit adultery to the specific kind they happen not to commit, or admit.
Much like today's religious court protestor, condemning others to burn in hell.
That's just batshit crazy, and I'm just the type of sinner to call it so.
I think that's Scalia's juxtaposition in calling it 'refreshing'. It's actually rather stale.
Like most, I've consistantly and daily, broke most commandments, purposefully and accidentally, while stumbling through life.
And like Carlin said in confession, "heavy on the covet father".
Gusty wind, you sure homosexuality is a 'born with' condition? Or is sexuality more fluid in some people due to their environment...i.e. rape, molestation, etc.
There is a video on youtube where gays are being interviewed, who admit that being gay was a choice. Quite a few were molested or raped as young kids by older siblings or much older 'family friends'.
I also remember Rosie ODonnell saying that she was molested as a kid and because of that, learned that men were to be feared.
Resounding thunder broke the slumber deep
That drowsed my senses, and myself I shook
Like one by force awakened out of sleep.
Then rising up I cast a steady look,
With eyes refreshed, on all that lay around,
And cognisance of where I found me took.
In sooth, me on the valley’s brink I found
Of the dolorous abyss, where infinite
Despairing cries converge with thundering sound.[
I would like to advise him, that Catholics don't go directly to Hell (well, most Catholics).
If we don't go directly to heaven, then you may just go to Purgatory.
This is fire and brimstone light. You might just get a tan here, but you won't find any harps.
The deranged humans shouldn't worry so much.
The Salem witch trials had nothing to do with witches.
The women who were burned alive were land owners. Upon their demise, their land was owned by men.
Figure it out.
I wish people would stop that witch bullshit...
Gay marriage! - 'cause why should only heteros suffer?
God hates fads.
Home Depot and Walgreen's have teamed up to offer eye-planks and Visine for 20% off, this week only.
Marriage is a religious institution and, as such, government has no business having an opinion on it one way or the other. To the extent that the government wants to create a scenario where people enter into a mutually supportive agreement that comes with certain rights and obligations, that falls under contract law and the government has no business treating it any differently from any other contract.
Always fun to read non-judgmental people declaiming on what is and is not real Christianity.
Blogger Christopher B said...
Always fun to read non-judgmental people declaiming on what is and is not real Christianity.
Yes. I fail to see where I said I was "better or more deserving" than others, or stated that I myself have never sinned or made a bad confession, but ridiculously obsessed troll woman can see into the hearts of others and judge them for being judgmental.
Our government has wrongly given all sorts of benefits to the married class. And they intend to fix this with more of the same.
Redefinition of marriage and Baltimore. What else needs to be seen?
Coupe said...
The Salem witch trials had nothing to do with witches.
Since witches don't exist, of course.
The women who were burned alive were land owners. Upon their demise, their land was owned by men.
Nobody was burned alive. They were hanged and a man was "pressed".
Of the first three people accused, one was a slave and another was a beggar, therefore there was not much material gain for their accusers, who were girls 9 to 12 years old.
Figure it out.
I realize that facts are optional for professional victims, but your inventions would sound more convincing if you did a little research first.
Actually, if you'll remember, "you'll burn in Hell" was my argument in the free speech issue over whether a business can be forced to serve same sex marriage ceremonies.
The argument: what if a bakery owner who opposed gay marriage is forced to provide a cake to a same-sex wedding, but would only serve it by making a cake decorated with the message that "you will burn in Hell!"
Could the state then compel the baker to supply only wedding cakes that express positive thoughts about gay marriage?
Through his "refreshing" comment, I think Scalia was simply recognizing the inherent wisdom of my 1st Amendment argument as the next gay rights issue likely to reach the court.
Religion has been with us since pretty much the dawn of mankind. So has marriage.
99.9 percent of the religions prohibited marriage to anything but a man and a woman. Most take a VERY dim view of homosexuality.
And SCOTUS should see that marriage is a fundamental part of religion and not the state. Hence marriage is between man and woman.
I used the Bible sayings just to point it out. Gusty does not see the context of what Jesus was saying about the 'plank in one's eye' nor about 'not judging least one is judged'. See I'm not condemning homosexuals, just saying we should not sanctify their immorality by allowing them to use a very religious institution.
And if SCOTUS allows this then they are to blame for societies decent into a form of hell.
'burst into tears'
I wonder if you have that reaction when people, who have never told anyone to burn in Hell, lose their livelihoods and are fined because they politely declined to contract their services for a ceremony that goes against their faith.
A lot worse things have been said to such people than 'burn in Hell', by the special snowflake brigade.
Jeffrey Toobin seems to think this was a shameful joke. Then again, he came up somewhat short on the the definition of "millennia" (it's thousands of years, Jeffrey):
“One of the problems is, when you think about these cases and the word that keeps coming back to me, in this case, is ‘millennia.’ ” By that, Kennedy meant that the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman has been around for a thousand years.
Live-action Mobys ...
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा