06 Sep 2015

Hello, My Name’s Bob and I’m a Hypocrite

Religious 80 Comments

[EDIT: I’m trying to confine my thoughts to the narrow question of Christians taking stands on what they believe are matters of conscience, even though they are sinners according to their own value system. I am deliberately setting aside the question of what state officials should do in regards to marriage licenses. My own view on this is fairly nuanced–as opposed to my view on what Christian pastors of Bible churches should do, which is black and white–but I don’t want to distract from the more specific issue I’m discussing below.]

I’m working on zero sleep right now so this post may lack a solid thesis. But something is not sitting right with me regarding the reaction I’ve seen from many quarters to Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis. Let me fire off some observations before I slump over:

==> I don’t understand why they locked her up. Why don’t they just fire her? If a receptionist at Facebook said, “I refuse to make travel reservations for the investors coming here, because I can’t in good conscience aid the sale of our customers’ browsing habits…” they wouldn’t put her in a cage. They’d escort her from the building and have somebody else carry out management’s policies.

==> I totally acknowledge that it is UNBELIEVABLY awkward, ironic, and hilarious that this woman, who has become the Christian Right’s poster child for the protection of Biblical marriage, has followed the adage “practice makes perfect” in this regard.

==> This is total speculation on my part, but I think perhaps what drives some of these ironic cases is that the person feels really guilty about his or her own shortcomings in a particular sin, and so does a full court press to try to make up for it (perhaps without realizing that that is what’s driving it). In other words, I don’t think it would be news to Kim Davis that the Bible takes a stand against heterosexuals divorcing each other, and I don’t think she views herself as having a license (no pun intended) to do what she wants, whereas others are held to a moral standard.

==> No one on planet Earth is perfect. Anytime anybody voices support for moral living, that person is a hypocrite broadly construed. Yes, I could shake my finger at a triple murderer since I’ve never literally done that, but Jesus would say I’m missing the point. And in any event, I have lied before, so should I not teach my son that lying is wrong? Is a convicted murderer (after serving his time) not allowed to teach his kid that murder is wrong?

==> I know their actions often obscure this fact, but Bible-believing Christians are just about the one group on Earth whose official doctrines say they must NOT consider themselves better than anybody else. If she understands the New Testament, Kim Davis doesn’t think, “I’m so glad I’m not a sinner like those homosexuals over there.” No, the New Testament teaches that Kim Davis and Pat Robertson and I all deserve hell because it’s in our very nature to rebel against God and do evil. The reason we are saved is that God bestowed unmerited grace upon us because it suited His fancy. We in no way earned it.

==>  I don’t think I’ve seen anyone come out and say it just in this way, but from some people I sense an undertone along the lines of, “It seems the loudest champions of Jesus are the most awful of people. Imagine my shock. *eyes roll*”

But if that type of observation resonates with you, I remind you that the Pharisees considered themselves righteous too, and scorned the common sinners who followed Jesus. But Jesus set them straight (Mark 2: 16-17):

16 And when the scribes and[a] Pharisees saw Him eating with the tax collectors and sinners, they said to His disciples, “How is it that He eats and drinks with tax collectors and sinners?”

17 When Jesus heard it, He said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.”

80 Responses to “Hello, My Name’s Bob and I’m a Hypocrite”

  1. E. Harding says:

    “I don’t understand why they locked her up.”

    -Her legal role. She was an agent of the state, so firstly, it’s difficult to fire her, and, second, she’s more important than some receptionist at a private company who doesn’t have the power to enforce or not enforce the law.

  2. Dyzalot says:

    My understanding is that she is an elected official and therefore can’t be fired at all. It leaves the judge in a difficult position with few remedies for her illegal actions.

  3. Yosef says:

    Bob, I believe the reason she is locked up is for contempt of court, rather than for not doing her job. Obviously not doing her job is what started this, but I believe the technical reason for her imprisonment is contempt of court.

    Also you write, “I know their actions often obscure this fact, but Bible-believing Christians are just about the one group on Earth whose official doctrines say they must NOT consider themselves better than anybody else.” I know some Calvinists who would disagree with you here.

    • Zack says:

      From the Snopes article he linked to:

      “In Kentucky, it’s a Class A misdemeanor — first-degree official misconduct — for elected officials to refuse to perform the duties of their office.”

      I would assume that’s what she’s in jail for.

      • Khodge says:

        She’s in jail for contempt. A judge cannot simply assert that she committed a misdemeanor and lock her up.

    • Bob Murphy says:

      Yosef wrote:

      Also you write, “I know their actions often obscure this fact, but Bible-believing Christians are just about the one group on Earth whose official doctrines say they must NOT consider themselves better than anybody else.” I know some Calvinists who would disagree with you here.

      We might be quibbling over words Yosef. Next time you talk to them, you can ask, “When you say you’re elect and others aren’t, is that because you led a better life than the others? You were good enough to get over the high bar God had set for those who would be saved?”

      • Andrew_FL says:

        I’m not a Calvinist but I think that’s reversing the way they view causality. You’re not elect because you you lead a better life than others. You lead a better life than others because you are elect.

    • Jim says:

      This Calvinist agrees with Bob.

  4. Zack says:

    “I think perhaps what drives some of these ironic cases is that the person feels really guilty about his or her own shortcomings in a particular sin, and so does a full court press to try to make up for it (perhaps without realizing that that is what’s driving it).”

    Just speculating, but there’s probably some truth to this. If I understand correctly, she supposedly only became a Christian in the past couple years. That may explain some of this.

    • Gamble says:

      New Christians are always zealots. Years of backsliding tends to humble a person.

      • Khodge says:

        More to the point: it is not hypocrisy if all of the divorces were prior to her conversion

    • Keshav Srinivasan says:

      I don’t think she converted to Christianity; I think she was always a Christian, but she says that she was committing sins for a long time and that recently her heart was transformed by Jesus or something like that.

  5. Major.Freedom says:

    Kim Davis is not refusing to process a homosexual marriage because of the Bible. She is only using the Bible as justification for her own bigotry.

    She is purposefully violating other parts of the Bible because she choss to believe they are no big deal to her.

    Most Christian are like this. They are loudest about those cherry picked parts of the Bible that just so happen to justify the strongest of their existing beliefs, and they are silent, even willingly in violation, of those other parts that are too inconvenient for them to follow.

    • Major.Freedom says:

      Such bigotry is not forgived by me simply because the bigot says they themselves are no good.

      I do not think any better of a rapist or murderer if they say “I know what I am doing is wrong.”

      The Bible not only provides ammo to manifest one’s hatred and bigotry, but it also encourages the victims to forgive their aggressors “because they know not what they do”, and so the victims should ” turn the other cheek.”

      Not only does the Bible encourages hatred in the true sense of the term, which is bad enough, but it also discourages defenses by providing ammo against those who do not forgive hatred.

      The Bible is an evil document, written by clesrly disturbed individuals, and is used as justification for some of the world’s most abhorrent psychopaths.

      When was the last time a murdering psychopath used “Chaos Theory” or “For a New Liberty” or “The Economics and Ethics of Private Property” as justification?

      Murphy and Rothbard and Hoppe are objectively superior individuals than all the writers of the Bible. It is not even close.

      • Hildebrand says:

        You ask “When was the last time a murdering psychopath used “Chaos Theory” or “For a New Liberty” or “The Economics and Ethics of Private Property” as justification?”

        I don’t know what Dr Murphy wrote in Chaos Theory, but I am familiar and like Rothbard.

        Since his main conclusion regarding the State is that it is the biggest thief and violent organization writ large, and its agents accomplices, one can easily imagine that a good libertarian citizen could think he is justified in shooting the tax-collector when the latter comes to take his house for all the unpaid taxes. Didn’t that happen ?

      • Fred says:

        LOL, it is sad how bad you hate Christians.

        • Major.Freedom says:

          I only hate the Christians who introduce hatred against me.

          It is not sad that I do this.

          It is sad that you apologize for them.

      • Tel says:

        Yeah well each church interprets the Bible, and each court interprets the law, and some courts interpret the Constitution. You are welcome to disagree with any and all of those interpretations, and they are welcome to ignore your opinion.

        If you prefer the Koran, you can go study interpretations of that to your heart’s content. Plenty of room for disagreement there, keep your AK47 and scimitar handy.

        Murphy and Rothbard and Hoppe are objectively superior individuals than all the writers of the Bible. It is not even close.

        Objectively superior morality doesn’t matter a whole lot when we get to the pushy shovey which seems to be where all this is going. You end up listening to the opinion of Mr Neutron, or Mr Metal Enhanced Thermobaric Warhead, and those guys are extremely egalitarian and remarkably objective… not the least bit interested in race, sex, religion, or lifestyle issues. God of course could fix this up any time, and maybe some day might even do that. In the meantime, it’s just us.

      • Joe says:

        Major,

        I have been reading this blog off & on for several years and although I do not agree with everything you say (which is a good thing since it shows one of us is thinking), I must say that for someone who I believe usually shows himself to be a reasonably intelligent human being I do not believe that to be the case here. Really, you are going to commit the genetic fallacy of all things? Perhaps you would like to restate your position?

        As far as Rothbard goes, don’t try dragging him into this. Rothbard (and Mises too) both had incredible respect for Christianity, not necessarily as practiced by various incarnations of the church, but as an institution.

        Furthermore, Rothbard credits Christian thinkers with almost the entireity of economic & praxeological thought up until Menger and the beginnings of the Austrian school and his heroes in philosophy were Thomas Aquinas and Augustine of Hippo as well as the late Spanish scholastics.

        I could go on but I’m not posting this to beat you over the head, but rather to say I believe you “lost it” on this one.

        • Major.Freedom says:

          Joe,

          Sorry but nothing you said really undercuts anything I said. You are saying that Rothbard and Mises had personal respect for some Christian thinkers. OK, so what? I also respect certain Christian thinkers, Murphy one of them!

          Rothbard respected Christianity in a very detached, academic sense. OK, but then so do I. It is to me an intellectual curiosity. An attempt to make sense of the world. I agree that the doctrine is incredibly important, not because I kowtow to it, or defer to it, or doubt what I think because of how pronounced it has been, or respect it in the sense of respecting any truth value in it, but rather, I think it is important because of how it truly delves into the deepest most fundamental aspects of both the universe and ourselves. It has historically shaped entire civilizations, it has been influenced by and influences the major philosophies throughout mankind’s entire history.

          As an academic exercise, Christian texts are profound.

          But then so is Mein Kampf. Does that make sense?

          I think what you are doing is coming very close to ad hominem. Trying to convince me that because so and so respected it, that I should change what you think are my thoughts towards it. That because the people who are most responsible for bringing praxeology to the world when it was brought to the world, are Christians, that I should develop some positive, admiration aspect towards it.

          Just like I do not reject an argument because of who said it or supported it, so too do I not accept an argument because of who said it or supported it.

          I don’t care if Mises or Rothbard or Murphy or Hoppe were or are devout Christians who are convinced of it. It makes absolutely no difference whatsoever to whether it is true.

          • Joe says:

            Major,

            Rothbard had more than a “detached, academic” respect for Christianity and the Bible, as I’m quite certain Lew Rockwell and some others could attest, so I believe it’s a little disingenuous of you to assert otherwise.

            And if the Bible is “evil, and written by clearly disturbed indivdiuals”, why didn’t Rothbard ever mention this? Surely he would have! And why would he have the deep respect for it he did if it was evil. This does not even make sense and this line of thinking implodes on itself. I don’t need to undercut you; you’ve done it yourself.

            Better still. Why are you committing the genetic fallacy of trying to tie-in what the Bible REALLY says to what individuals do and when they misuse it by taking a text out of context to make a pretext for their lame, un-Biblical argument(s)?

            I don’t believe you understand the Bible anywhere near what you believe you do (as, unfortunately, many professing Christians don’t), but I don’t believe you really want to. You’re quite convinced you are correct already.

            Good day.

            • Major.Freedom says:

              Joe,

              “Rothbard had more than a “detached, academic” respect for Christianity and the Bible, as I’m quite certain Lew Rockwell and some others could attest”

              Oh really? To say that he was more than academically interested in Christianity, would suggest he was a believer in it. Yet was not Rothbard Jewish?

              I’ve read Rothbard’s entire works, and nowhere have I seen, in his writings, that he was more than academically interested in Christianity.

              I invite you to demolish the above stance.

              “And if the Bible is “evil, and written by clearly disturbed indivdiuals”, why didn’t Rothbard ever mention this?”

              That is not for me to answer. You are not challenging anything I wrote by rhetorically asking why someone else did not agree.

              If I had to completely speculate however, since that seems to be how you prefer to address these questions anyway, then I would say it is very difficult for even the world’s most brilliant thinkers to condemn a text in the way I have. He did not have the privilege of saying anything he wanted, anonymously over the internet, as I do. Or perhaps he did not want to alienate many of his colleagues who were Christians. Or maybe he did not want to introduce conflict or antagonism from within his inner circle of trusted friends. Or maybe he did not want his life threatened by random hostile Christians in the world who might enjoy teaching a prominent academic a lesson. Or maybe he did not consider the Bible as evil as I do. Or maybe he constrasted all religions and found Christianity the least evil, and hence in his positive views towards pragmatism he believed it could turn really evil people less evil.

              I don’t know for sure.

              “Surely he would have!”

              Surely you have not read enough Rothbard or watched enough videos of him, because Rothbard rarely used the word evil to describe texts. In fact I don’t think he ever called any text evil. He called certain statesmen evil, and others who might know better can correct me if I am wrong, but I don’t think there is any instance in Rothbard’s writings where he called any religion evil, no matter how evil it actually was.

              In his History of Economic Thought, he wrote about the Ranters and the post-reformation Anabaptists engaging in what you would likely call “evil”. Yet he did not call their texts evil.

              Where are getting the notion that “surely” he would have?

              “And why would he have the deep respect for it he did if it was evil.”

              I don’t know. Perhaps a similar reason he “respected” Marx’s works enough to wrote on his writings?

              Perhaps the same reason he respects ideas in general? Rothbard respected ideas. Christianity is an idea.

              I never claimed Rothbard called Christianity evil, so really I have no idea why you are demanding I answer your questions here. Maybe it is because you are a Christian, and you admire Rothbard, and you could not tolerate the idea that Rothbard might have had a secret hostility towards it and thought it was evil.

              “This does not even make sense and this line of thinking implodes on itself.”

              What line of thinking are you referring to, and where did I ever mention being a believer of that line of thinking?

              ” I don’t need to undercut you; you’ve done it yourself.”

              You mean that straw man? Oh yeah, that thing was totally destroyed, annihilated, cleaved into two, never to be given any credence ever again.

              You sure showed it.

              “Better still. Why are you committing the genetic fallacy of trying to tie-in what the Bible REALLY says to what individuals do and when they misuse it by taking a text out of context to make a pretext for their lame, un-Biblical argument(s)?”

              I have a better question. Why do you believe you will actually improve your knowledge by arming yourself with one liner fallacies and shooting them from the hip even when you are not responding whatsoever to the argument being made?

              Where in the world did I “tie in what the Bible REALLy says to what individuals do when they misuse it”?

              Where did I ever say that anyone “misused” it? I could very well believe that people a ting the way that court clerk acted, is not missing the Bible at all, but using it the way it can only be used.

              “I don’t believe you understand the Bible anywhere near what you believe you do”

              Of course you don’t. I called it an evil text. That by definition is wrong to you.

              It seems not to matter to you that it advocates for genocide, rape, and infanticide.

              Apparently the Bible is by definition good because it is by definition the word of God.

              “(as, unfortunately, many professing Christians don’t), but I don’t believe you really want to. You’re quite convinced you are correct already.”

              You have not shown me anything to change my mind. In fact, everything you wrote above only reinforces my existing convictions, however wrong they are.

              You seem quite convinced you’re right. You never once asked for any documentative evidence, because you are already certain it doesn’t exist.

              • knoxharrington says:

                Maybe Bob can back this up but my understanding is that Rothbard was an atheist who ultimately broke with Ayn Rand because he refused to dissociate himself from his wife Joey, who was a Catholic, as directed by Rand. I’ve heard Ralph Raico remark on this several times that, in the end, it was Rothbard’s love of his wife which made him tell Rand to pound sand (among other intellectual disagreements I’m sure).

              • Major.Freedom says:

                I would have loved to have met Ayn Rand.

                I would at some point in the conversation asked her if it is morally justified for anyone to use force against me if I refused to pay her preferred government agents for protection, and chose my own protection agents instead, all voluntary.

                I am confident I would have helped her realize her principles imply anarcho-capitalism, not minarchist capitalism.

                Of course in order to get into her circle of friends the easiest, I would have had to pick up smoking, become sexist, conflated Reason with Rand’s personal opinions on stuff, and misinterpret Kant.

                Meh.

              • knoxharrington says:

                Check out Roy Chjlds Open Letter to Rand if you haven’t already. He sent it to her and to my knowledge she never commented on it. It is devastating.

    • guest says:

      “They are loudest about those cherry picked parts of the Bible that just so happen to justify the strongest of their existing beliefs, and they are silent, even willingly in violation, of those other parts that are too inconvenient for them to follow.”

      This is every non-religious person ever, cherry picking and discarding their own moral codes as if morality mus’n’t be logically grounded in a belief in a moral law giver (obligations are to people, not ideas).

      When I am shamed by them, it’s because they hold me to *my* moral code. Not because they are morally superior.

      • Major.Freedom says:

        Every non-religious person ever?

        Do tell. Tell me how I willingly reject and violate anarcho-capitalist principles because they are too inconvenient for me, despite what others demand for their person and property.

        Where did you get the notion that morality, if grounded on the belief in a moral law giver, must therefore be grounded on a supernatural being? If for argument’s sake we say that yes morality is grounded on the belief in a moral law giver, why can’t I believe in you as a moral law giver, and you believe in me as a moral law giver?

        Also, if we don’t argue that, where did you get the notion that morality must be grounded on an agent’s wants, rather than on how all wordly agents must think, indeed exist? If choice allows us to believe in a lie, we don’t need a supernatural or worldly agent’s wants to dictate morality. We can direct our attentions towards the truths that have been chosen to be denied or rejected by choice.

        If you asked me, every possible conceivable thought you have ever had, or will ever have, about that subtle, mysterious, Mind that seems to be behind everything, is your own consciousness that you can never fully get a hold of. Consciousness always seems to transcend the forming of any rigid idea or concept. As soon as you think you have it, or part of it, it again slips through your holding and you are again faced with a new opportunity to learn and understand via new rigid ideas and concepts.

        None of us can ever know beyond our future choices. Yet we have this rigid idea of there being a fundamental, universal Mind guiding everything both inside and outside of us. Well, to me that rigid idea of Mind, of God, is our own feeble attempt to form an unchanging ideal of ourselves. If we can think it, then transpose that idea to God.

        Earthly autocrats wanting to dictate what goes on in the bedroom so as to control society for the benefit of the autocrat’s war mongering both domestic and foreign? Attribute that autocrat’s wants to God, write it on some papyrus, and declare that all other sexual activity is deviant and evil.

        Autocrats wanting to steal? Attribute that to Jesus who said give unto Caeser what is allegedly Caeser’s.

        Yes, non-religious people cherry pick and discard their own professed moral codes. But you’re kidding yourself if you believe they all do. If my moral code is “It is morally wrong to aggress against your person or property”, where have I ever cherry picked out of this and willingly violated your property rights because they are too inconvenient for me?

        • Jim says:

          > Tell me how I willingly reject and violate anarcho-
          > capitalist principles.

          Maybe you don’t, after all “do unto others …” … um, what most here know as the non aggression principle, is pretty easy to grasp.

          Perhaps Jesus read Rothbard.

        • guest says:

          “But you’re kidding yourself if you believe they all do. If my moral code is “It is morally wrong to aggress against your person or property”, where have I ever cherry picked out of this and willingly violated your property rights because they are too inconvenient for me?”

          It’s not that it’s picked “out of that code”, but rather the code is pieced together based also on what is most self-serving.

          “… why can’t I believe in you as a moral law giver, and you believe in me as a moral law giver?”

          Because neither of us can base our claim to authority on anything objective. We both claim to have the same authority over each other: now what?

          “… where did you get the notion that morality must be grounded on an agent’s wants, rather than on how all wordly agents must think, indeed exist?”

          We may not have a legitimate claim of natural authority over each other, but by what standard would it be “evil” for me to attempt to assert my self over your property, rather than unfortunate, or fortunate, for you, depending on the outcome?

          • Anonymous says:

            “It’s not that it’s picked “out of that code”, but rather the code is pieced together based also on what is most self-serving.”

            What do mean by “it’s”?

            “… why can’t I believe in you as a moral law giver, and you believe in me as a moral law giver?”

            “Because neither of us can base our claim to authority on anything objective. We both claim to have the same authority over each other: now what?”

            But you are basing THAT claim right there on something inter-subjective, I.e. objective. You are speaking to or about something that is common between you and I. The way you are denying such a basis, presumes the basis is in fact valid.

            You can’t tell me I am wrong without appealing to the very basis I say is sufficient and does not require any God.

            Besides, what you said can be used by any two religious zealots: “Neither of us can base our claim to authority on anything objective. We both claim our own particular God’s, and we both claim our respective God’s are authoritative over the other. Now what?”

            “… where did you get the notion that morality must be grounded on an agent’s wants, rather than on how all wordly agents must think, indeed exist?”

            “We may not have a legitimate claim of natural authority over each other, but by what standard would it be “evil” for me to attempt to assert my self over your property, rather than unfortunate, or fortunate, for you, depending on the outcome?”

            By what standard would you accept it as good? How would anyone know that standard, rather than another, is the right one?

          • Major.Freedom says:

            “It’s not that it’s picked “out of that code”, but rather the code is pieced together based also on what is most self-serving.”

            What do mean by “it’s”?

            “… why can’t I believe in you as a moral law giver, and you believe in me as a moral law giver?”

            “Because neither of us can base our claim to authority on anything objective. We both claim to have the same authority over each other: now what?”

            But you are basing THAT claim right there on something inter-subjective, I.e. objective. You are speaking to or about something that is common between you and I. The way you are denying such a basis, presumes the basis is in fact valid.

            You can’t tell me I am wrong without appealing to the very basis I say is sufficient and does not require any God.

            Besides, what you said can be used by any two religious zealots: “Neither of us can base our claim to authority on anything objective. We both claim our own particular God’s, and we both claim our respective God’s are authoritative over the other. Now what?”.

            “… where did you get the notion that morality must be grounded on an agent’s wants, rather than on how all wordly agents must think, indeed exist?”

            “We may not have a legitimate claim of natural authority over each other, but by what standard would it be “evil” for me to attempt to assert my self over your property, rather than unfortunate, or fortunate, for you, depending on the outcome?”

            By what standard would you accept it as good? How would anyone know that standard, rather than another, is the right one?

            • guest says:

              “By what standard would you accept it as good? How would anyone know that standard, rather than another, is the right one?”

              This is fun.

              😀

      • Keshav Srinivasan says:

        “This is every non-religious person ever, cherry picking and discarding their own moral codes as if morality mus’n’t be logically grounded in a belief in a moral law giver (obligations are to people, not ideas).” guest, you have some mighty strange views; first your views on orientation and now this.

        In any case, why must moral obligations be to a person? Why can’t you have an obligation to do action X without that obligation being to a person?

        • guest says:

          An obligation means that there is an authority that is … obliging … you …

          Huh? I don’t understand your question. Heh.

          (In other words, authority can take no other form than a person. Because saying the meat loaf made you do it sounds odd.)

          • Keshav Srinivasan says:

            “An obligation means that there is an authority that is … obliging … you …” guest, that’s just an artifact of the English language. We could easily use a synonym for obligation that doesn’t come from a transitive verb.

            But the question remains: why does the statement “I should not kill people.” necessarily depend on someone who is a moral authority?

            “In other words, authority can take no other form than a person. Because saying the meat loaf made you do it sounds odd.” I’m not sure what you mean by “made you do it”. You are the one who does a good or bad act. Why do you need someone who makes you a good or bad act?

            • Keshav Srinivasan says:

              *makes you do a good or bad act

            • Major.Freedom says:

              The same question can be asked to someone who instead of believing authority comes from a person, they believe authority comes from a supernatural person or being.

              Why would the statement “We ought not murder each other” depend on Vishnu, or Thor, or Zeus, or Yahweh?

              • guest says:

                “… instead of believing authority comes from a person …”

                “… they believe authority comes from a supernatural person …”

                A supernatural person would qualify as a person.

              • Major.Freedom says:

                Right, which is why it awkward to say what Keshav said.

            • guest says:

              “But the question remains: why does the statement “I should not kill people.” necessarily depend on someone who is a moral authority?”

              Because you can’t get “ought” from “is”.

              • Keshav Srinivasan says:

                “Because you can’t get “ought” from “is”.” We’ll, first of all, do you not believe in Hoppe’s argumentation ethics?

                Second of all, assuming you can’t get an ought from an is, so what? Why does that imply that you need a moral authority? Why can’t you just take, say, the Rothbardian non-aggression principle as axiomatic, rather than deriving it from a the commands of a moral authority?

                Finally, if you do believe in the divine command theory, how would you address the Euthyphro problem? Are good actions good because they’re approved of by God, or are good actions approved by God because they are good?

                Note that I’m just playing Devil’s advocate. I’m religious myself, I just think your arguments are bad.

              • Major.Freedom says:

                Isn’t he referring to getting an is from an ought though?

                At any rate, I think we can detect certain oughts consistent with and all other oughts inconsistent with an is.

              • guest says:

                “We’ll, first of all, do you not believe in Hoppe’s argumentation ethics?”

                If I get the jist (I’ve heard the logic of “argumentation ethics”, but it’s been awhile), the logic is sound, but it only proves that one person doesn’t have a natural claim to authority over another.

                Appeals to logic are an admission of a lack of authority, of equality.

                But it can’t prove that ignoring logic and taking what you want, anyway, is “evil”.

                Tom Woods had a show not too long ago about argumentation ethics. I think Stephen Kinsella was the guest.

                I agree with “argumentation ‘ethics'”.

    • Bharat says:

      “Kim Davis is not refusing to process a homosexual marriage because of the Bible. She is only using the Bible as justification for her own bigotry.

      She is purposefully violating other parts of the Bible because she choss to believe they are no big deal to her.”

      Evidence?

      • Harold says:

        Marrying more than once

        • Major.Freedom says:

          Not stoning to death the homosexual couple…

          And the dozens of other Biblical laws.

          • Stephan Jerde says:

            I’m pretty sure the whole point of the “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone” story was to hammer home, “Justice is mine, sayeth the Lord.”

            Stoning gays is God’s job. Our job is to not repay evil with evil.

    • Khodge says:

      Much the same way that same sex marriage proponents broke the law prior to the SCOTUS ruling only breaking laws without punishment is the prerogative of leftists no social conservatives.

      • Keshav Srinivasan says:

        How did SSM proponents break the law before the Supreme Court ruling?

    • Cosmo Kramer says:

      Giving a STATE marriage license has nothing to do with religious beliefs. One can get married in the church without government acknowledgement. She is just full of hatred and pure hypocrisy, considering she doesn’t judge herself on her own religious failings.

      Shouldn’t she have denied herself getting remarried on religious grounds?

    • John Arthur says:

      Hi Major,

      Good points Major. All Christians cherry pick the bible because on most topics there are different points of view in it, many of which are not reconcilable.

      I have no problem with Christians cherry picking provided such cherry picking promotes compassion and peace-making and leads them into behaviour that improves human welfare.

      Where I have a problem is where Christians cherry pick in such a way that the bible is used as a weapon of oppression to justify their bigotry or to deny human rights to others. I cannot see how granting a license to same-sex couples to marry could affect my marriage to my wife, nor anyone else’s heterosexual marriage. What is this lady afraid of? Is her fear real or only an imaginary fear that is perceived to be real to her?

      John Arthur

      • Tel says:

        \What is this lady afraid of?

        Possibly these sort of things might be making her a bit uneasy.

        http://www.wnd.com/2015/04/courts-conclude-faith-loses-to-gay-demands/

        I think it’s been adequately demonstrated now, this is really about activism, and you will be hard pressed to find a case where the activists have been leaning on any other religion other than Christians. Why do you think that might be?

  6. Tel says:

    I don’t understand why they locked her up. Why don’t they just fire her?

    They can’t fire her, because she is an elected representative, supposedly standing for the will of the people of her district. Besides, there’s little evidence that the State of Kentucky was wanting to fire her.

    She was locked up by the Feds, from what I understand, nothing to do with her employers.

    I totally acknowledge that it is UNBELIEVABLY awkward, ironic, and hilarious…

    In a way it is, but also irrelevant, because representing an electorate is not something you do in private, it’s her public actions that are important. I might point out that pretty much every Christian *CHURCH* has accepted divorce for over a century, some of them several centuries.

    … person feels really guilty about his or her own shortcomings in a particular sin …

    More likely she is doing what she thinks (rightly or wrongly) that the voters put her there to do, and expect of her. If she does a bad job, they vote for someone else. Problem solved, welcome to Democracy.

    No, the New Testament teaches that Kim Davis and Pat Robertson and I all deserve hell because it’s in our very nature to rebel against God and do evil. The reason we are saved is that God bestowed unmerited grace upon us because it suited His fancy. We in no way earned it.

    Interesting, but if there was only one clear interpretation of the Bible then all Christians would be Catholic. This is really about the lifestyle that the people of Kentucky want to live. Maybe a lot of people in Kentucky are sympathetic to wedding photographers and bakers and don’t want to see those guys get run out of business because of their religion as gay couples take advantage of legal support to sue Christians (but never Muslims). I dunno what the bible has to say about that, but I don’t live in Kentucky so really they should sort that out for themselves.

    It seems the loudest champions of Jesus are the most awful of people. Imagine my shock. *eyes roll*

    I think you will find that there’s no pleasing some people… as the saying goes, “haters gonna hate”.

    • khodge says:

      Tel: “haters gonna hate”
      Wait a second…are you quoting from that great moral philosopher Taylor Swift? This will raise the quality of discussion around here!

  7. Kevin Regal says:

    Bob,

    Thanks for your thoughts. As a Christian, I am ashamed by the whole fiasco. The shallowness of the Christian leaders who unreflectively praise Davis sadden me. Like everyone else, their thinking on this issue is just so muddled. When trying to explain to people, I usually start by distinguishing between Marriage proper and the government controlled notion of “marriage” (the thing which allows for special tax breaks). If Christians don’t see that (and they usually don’t) I think there is little hope of them thinking clearly on issues regarding the government sanction of homosexual “marriage.”

    BTW, in Kentucky, county clerks are elected individuals. I believe they can be recalled by special election, but there is no one with the authority to fire them. I think that is why the sued rather than fired Davis.

  8. Dan W. says:

    When Davis sought and won election to be county clerk was the the authorization of same-sex marriage one of the prescribed duties? Who changed the law to make it one of her duties? Does the institution that made this law have Constitutional authority to make law and, in particular, does it have Constitutional authority to tell states what marriage laws they should have?

    It is sensible to say that Davis should resign rather than act contrary to her conscience. Progressives love beating up god-fearing people because they are so “reasonable” and willing to relinquish political ground to them. But there is another option which is for god-fearing people to tell Federal officials to stick it. If Davis is not acting according to the wishes of those who elected her or state officials determine she is failing the duties of her office they can remove her. The Federal courts are acting beyond their authority, which is what they do and will continue to do as long as states don’t push back against them.

    • Stephan Jerde says:

      Exactly.

      Kind of telling that there have been no replies…

  9. Anonymous says:

    “because it’s in our very nature to rebel against God and do evil…”

    Hmm, I think that’s subtly wrong. I think our nature is good, but has been corrupted.

    • Keshav Srinivasan says:

      Gene, what do you think it has been corrupted by?

    • Major.Freedom says:

      That presumes there was a me prior to this me that was non-corrupted.

      But there was no me before this me, so I could not have been corrupted.

  10. MichaelT says:

    Wait, so if “it’s in our very nature to rebel against God and do evil,” and God created us, isn’t our sinful nature kind of his fault?

    • Gene Callahan says:

      I was anonymous above, and yes, that’s why I said that I don’t think Bob’s formulation of this is quite right. And your comment, Michael, shows why it is important to get it right!

      • Major.Freedom says:

        Because clearly God can’t!

      • Bob Murphy says:

        I don’t think it’s just my formulation, Gene, I would say it’s the Bible’s formulation. I would rather view people as basically good who sometimes yield to temptation, but I don’t think that’s what the Bible says.

        • Keshav Srinivasan says:

          Bob, I think what Gene is saying is that before the Fall, Man’s original nature is basically good, but the Fall has corrupted Man’s nature. (Except that Gene doesn’t believe in a literal Fall; for him it’s just a myth illustrating a spiritual truth.)

        • khodge says:

          Philosophically, people do not choose evil, they choose what they perceive as good. With an ill-formed conscience one chooses to rebel against God because Independence or power seems more pleasing than obedience, i.e. one chooses rebellion as good.

    • Capt. J Parker says:

      “Wait, so if “it’s in our very nature to rebel against God and do evil,” and God created us, isn’t our sinful nature kind of his fault?”

      God gave us tremendous freedom: freedom to be who we choose to be and live how we choose to live. With this freedom comes the potential to do evil, great and small as well as the potential to do good and to be good. It is in our nature to do evil but it is also in our nature to choose how we behave and to choose what we believe. So, how sinful we are in our thoughts and deeds is because of our own choices, not because God forced us to be so.

  11. Gamble says:

    Jesus says tax collector and sinner are synonymous.

  12. Colombo says:

    I would like for everyone to grow up a bit, and realize that emotions, feelings, opinions and beliefs cannot be crimes.

    Insubordination in a hierarchical institution carries a punishment: the managers know that, the employees know that. It is that very institution the one who must carry out the punishment for insubordination.

    This woman is not in jail for her beliefs, nor for insubordination, but because the judge believes that it isbetter for everyone to just shut up and go along with whatever the Federal Government says. This is an intellectual and moral problem for the judge, and a huge problem to everyone. Government officials think they can do anything. Homosexuals do not realize that this is the same belief in the same power that was used to hang them in the past. A terrible power.

    What goes along, comes along. Abuse against one group now becomes abuse against another group, which will become once again abuse against the first group. This is not justice or civilization.

    • Matt M says:

      “Homosexuals do not realize that this is the same belief in the same power that was used to hang them in the past.”

      I think many of them do in fact realize it. They are just far more concerned with revenge than with justice. They are also of the mind that they are on the “right side of history” and are not in the least worried that those crazy religious dinosaurs will ever re-gain power and have the means to oppress them in the future ever again.

  13. Matt M says:

    I believe the hostility towards religious “hypocrites” is getting at another issue entirely. I don’t think their actual point is that murderers shouldn’t be able to condemn murder, but rather, they are casting doubt on the notion that this woman opposes homosexuality due to sincerely held religious beliefs. They are implicitly suggesting (because suggesting it explicitly is difficult and requires you to publicly question someone’s faith, which even committed leftists are generally reluctant to do) that her divorces suggest she is not very serious about following God’s rules, and therefore, her opposition to homosexuality is actually an unrelated issue of bigotry that deserves to be condemned as such.

    I’m an econ geek myself, so I’ve always been pretty easy on religious folks who fall short. I tend to see prior sins as a “sunk cost” and generally agree with your analysis. Given that the murderer has already murdered, the only relevant question going forward is, “Is it better for this person to condemn future murders or to encourage them?” And I think in almost every case the right answer is “condemn.” I would rather live in a society rife with thieves who publicly decry thievery, then rife with thieves who openly encourage it (because they may convince some individuals on the margins).

    To wrap up, everyone always loves to quote Jesus saying “let he who is without sin cast the first stone” and apply it to people like this woman. But keep in mind Jesus also told the adulteress “go forth and sin no more.” In other words, adultery was still in fact a sin and was still in fact something that you were not allowed to do. He wanted to be clear that his forgiveness did not constitute a license to continue committing sinful acts.

  14. Khodge says:

    The bottom line (as I see it) is that it is the responsibility of appointed judges to crush social conservatives if, for no other reason, we cannot have a state where the vast majority of citizens realize that they can take a stand without the Federal judiciary crushing all them (the constitution and due process be damned). Also, if I read the article correctly she stopped issuing all marriage licenses.

    I do appreciate the judge who denied a homosexual divorce because because the Supreme Court has rendered the the long-standing understanding of marriage meaningless.

    • Keshav Srinivasan says:

      “I do appreciate the judge who denied a homosexual divorce because because the Supreme Court has rendered the the long-standing understanding of marriage meaningless.” What case are you referring to? That sounds like a crazy ruling to me.

  15. Innocent says:

    Lol

    Okay so where to stand in this.

    First, this woman is not doing the right thing but she is doing it the correct way and has been willing to pay the price of her choice. Kudos and great job for that.

    Second, my own feelings in this are muddled. I do not care what people do with their lives, they are theirs to mess up how they wish. However I disagree with the state making Homosexual marriage legal without making all other forms of marriage legal as well ( for instance Polyandry or Polygamy ) which I find hypocritical on the courts part. Either the state can restrict marriage or it cannot, and from the latest ruling it cannot.

    Third, Who is not a hypocrite?

    Lastly,

    I truly wonder if you had Christ saying that Homosexuality is not a good thing how he would be treated now… I fear that like then he would still be ostracized. You really cannot win. The real problem in many ways is that this life is not the one that is that important to a Christian. It makes us… Strange.

  16. khodge says:

    Alas, it is not just hypocrisy that where we, as humans, fail.

  17. Harold says:

    You do not have to be perfect before standing up for what you believe. But if you are hypocritical about it, then the question of whether you are making a principled stand or using morality as a cover for other reasons becomes more valid.

    The person says it is because she believes the bible tells her it is how she should behave – that may be the case. Or it may be that she does not like SSM for other reasons, and is using this (perhaps unconsciously) as a cover.

    If she demonstrably ignores other similar decrees in the bible that are much more clearly stated (I think), then it becomes more likely that the biblical interpretation is not the right one.

    We will never know for sure what is going on inside onother’s head, but we can look for evidence from their behaviour.

Leave a Reply to Harold

Cancel Reply