Comments for Anatomy of a Smear at http://www.thecatholicthing.org , comment 1 to 73 out of 20 comments http://www.thecatholicthing.org Fri, 24 May 2013 09:14:25 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/anatomy-of-a-smear.html#comment-10684 Brian: I appreciate the encouragement. I have many questions, but I also believe that Austin is right that his opponents are using smear tactics. Typically, when you challenge someone's beliefs, you tend to bring out the worst in them; for example, calling someone a name, or threatening them. Some homosexuals do this, and it is a shame. Unfortunately, what is often forgotten is that the ball goes the other way as well, and that Christians - even conservative Catholics - will resort to the same sorts of tactics: especially censure. I have noted that this site has not published a good number of my comments recently, all of which were written in good faith, none of which resorts to ad hominem, and all of which deal respectfully with the contents of the articles and the thoughts of other comments. - Scotty Ellis Sat, 31 Mar 2012 14:55:01 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/anatomy-of-a-smear.html#comment-10634 Scotty, keep up the good work in raising those questions. That is surely the best way to advance towards the truth little by little. - Brian A. Cook Thu, 29 Mar 2012 04:33:33 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/anatomy-of-a-smear.html#comment-10619 Just one little point but to me it is big. We should stop using the term 'traditional' marriage. It suggests that their are other forms. Marriage is marriage. By using 'traditional' we are subjecting ourselves to their game plan. - Mark H Wed, 28 Mar 2012 08:54:40 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/anatomy-of-a-smear.html#comment-10604 Anthony, how do you explain the socially conservative policies, laws, and party lines of Nazi Germany? Furthermore, I have never seen a single serious liberal advocating controlling people in the manner you describe. Liberals actually do want people to be free instead of being controlled by corporations or theocratic or dictators. - Brian A. Cook Tue, 27 Mar 2012 14:23:37 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/anatomy-of-a-smear.html#comment-10602 Tony: "Since there is no such thing as an individual who is an island unto himself, there is no such thing as a strictly private good; rather, since man is by nature a social creature, it is nonsense to discuss the good of a man as separate from the good of his fellow men, in which good he shares, and not simply as a partaker of something divisible, but as a fellow-enjoyer of something indivisible." I agree to some extent. However, there are primary goods - that is, those goods which must be had be everyone regardless of their interpretation of the highest good - secondary communal goods - that is, those goods that can only be had by participation and sharing amongst a community - and there are interpretations of the highest good. I would prefer that government refrain from regulating or legislating on the former matter and instead focus on the most common, universal goods - the primary good. This is a more charitable interpretation of "private" versus "public" goods; by "public" goods I would mean merely primary goods, while I would reserve "private goods" as a descriptor of the other two categories. I do not mean by this that they are private in the sense of belonging only to individuals (clearly, communal goods are not that sort of thing), but rather that they are goods which remain beyond the intrinsic jurisdiction of the state, only accidentally subject to it insofar as the practice or pursuit of those goods interferes with other citizens' abilities to practice or pursue their visions of the good. This somewhat more charitable interpretation of the liberal secular democracy retains an affirmation of the idea that there are goods which man enjoys in community (and can only enjoy in community) while protecting those who do not agree with one particular individual or community's vision of the highest good from public harm. "The people who profit from atomistic individualism? Those who would grant a beggarly "freedom" to masses of people, while stealing from them their true arenas of liberty and political action. The deal goes like this: you grant sexual license, and then assume control over all aspects of the chaos that inevitably ensues. You make common cause with family-destroying vices, precisely to remove from your way all those mediating institutions (churches, strong families, communities with their own traditions), so that you can dictate what shall be taught, what shall be read, what shall be allowed on the streets, what shall be bought, and so forth." You are no doubt right that individuals can manipulate a liberal secular democracy in the way you describe (and no doubt that they do), but this is not intrinsic to liberal democracy: the same sorts of abuses occur within governments that enforce a particular vision of the highest good: the worship spaces of dissenting factions are taxed, fined, locked up, or even destroyed; those who do not profess the faith or who practice others are subject to various more or less harsh penalties; these abusers of a religious state proscribe books, require absolute adherence to the state's philosophy, censure dissenting opinions, and decide what shall be taught, what shall be read, what shall be allowed on the streets, what shall be bought, and so forth. - Scotty Ellis Tue, 27 Mar 2012 14:12:44 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/anatomy-of-a-smear.html#comment-10595 Since there is no such thing as an individual who is an island unto himself, there is no such thing as a strictly private good; rather, since man is by nature a social creature, it is nonsense to discuss the good of a man as separate from the good of his fellow men, in which good he shares, and not simply as a partaker of something divisible, but as a fellow-enjoyer of something indivisible. That right there is the dagger to the heart of the liberal vision of man. The liberal vision is either Christian, in its upholding of the incomparable dignity of each human individual both in himself and in his ineradicable relationship to all other human beings, or it is a no-vision, a licentious or libertarian a-pathy. To rule religion out of the public square is ultimately to decide that there shall be no such thing as a society properly speaking; it is to rule in favor of atomistic individualism. The people who profit from atomistic individualism? Those who would grant a beggarly "freedom" to masses of people, while stealing from them their true arenas of liberty and political action. The deal goes like this: you grant sexual license, and then assume control over all aspects of the chaos that inevitably ensues. You make common cause with family-destroying vices, precisely to remove from your way all those mediating institutions (churches, strong families, communities with their own traditions), so that you can dictate what shall be taught, what shall be read, what shall be allowed on the streets, what shall be bought, and so forth. - Tony Esolen Tue, 27 Mar 2012 08:18:07 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/anatomy-of-a-smear.html#comment-10591 Where are the sustained Christian condemnations of violence against homosexual persons? There are an awful lot of Christians that actively promote that--look at Uganda. Are you saying the EVERYTHING that liberals say is a lie? Scotty, I want to thank you for starting a serious discussion to pierce the echo-chamber. I wish to join you in saying that homosexual persons are routinely put in a "sodomite" box in order to do away with them. The real-world effect of anti-sodomy laws is exactly that. - Brian A. Cook Tue, 27 Mar 2012 07:06:45 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/anatomy-of-a-smear.html#comment-10582 Austin, did your opponents actually deny that they use the tactics you described? We at the Ruth Institute have been taking note of these typical Leftist tactics at work: smear your opponent, rather than respond to his actual arguments. Your opponents did not deny that they and their friends use the tactics Austin described at the UN. Instead, they changed the subject to Austin's character. This is typical, and please note: It is not an actual argument for anything. it is not even an actual claim. We are supposed to forget about the issues at hand: namely the underhanded strategies of repeating a lie till it gets accepted, and surreptitiously inserting novel definitions and terms into UN documents. Instead, the issue is whether or not Austin Ruse is really a big meanie! - Jennifer Roback Morse Mon, 26 Mar 2012 19:07:52 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/anatomy-of-a-smear.html#comment-10573 Scotty, I didn’t mean to say “heroic” I meant to say heroin. There are no heroic drug addicts unless you watch that show Intervention or go to a public school, then everyone is heroic. I don’t know any conservative Catholics who claim to be in possession of the truth. Christ was the way the truth and the life. Holy Mother Church is in possession of the Truth because she is the bride of Christ and Christ is the head. If you don’t know that, really Scotty, you shouldn’t have anything to do with adult education because you are disqualified by the lack of assent of your will. That would be like me giving tolerance classes for the LGBTQ union. You must not allow yourself to poison the minds of those who would seek to give the assent of their wills to the very precepts that you refuse to assent to. I hope you do read Abolition of Man soon, but if you read all those other wonderful C.S. Lewis books and you refer to him and his “ilk” it is likely you will get nothing positive from him. I do however wish you luck in your search for self and I hope by God’s grace that search turns into the search for Truth. - Achilles Mon, 26 Mar 2012 06:29:30 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/anatomy-of-a-smear.html#comment-10571 And, Scotty, you are very clearly wrong about what can and cannot happen in a liberal secular society. It happens all the time, has happened from the beginning and will continue to happen that way. Sorry you do not like it. But, it is what it is... - Austin Ruse Mon, 26 Mar 2012 05:43:11 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/anatomy-of-a-smear.html#comment-10570 Actually, Scotty, that marriage is for begetting and raising children is an argument from science and from social science. - Austin Ruse Mon, 26 Mar 2012 05:40:52 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/anatomy-of-a-smear.html#comment-10569 Achilles: "I am charitable in my heart towards you but not your ideas that come from outside the tao." Why your tao? That is the heart of the matter. If you truly believe that your beliefs are so closed from outside access - and from outside criticism - then by what standard can you possibly judge the superiority of your beliefs compared to other systems? The Muslim is as assured of his connection to truth as you are. Very well. How is an outsider to judge between the two? "Our dispute is about the source of truth" Indeed, although we likely agree that we can discover things through the senses and experience; that is a shared, common starting point. "By all means, read Thomas Aquinas’ subtle responses and read them as many times as you must until you are able to abandon “open mindedness” about ultimate things. " Ironically, I must be open-minded to do this; you are basically asking me to be open-minded only for as long as I disagree with you. Once I agree with you, you would ask me to be closed-minded. I tell even people who share my beliefs to be open-minded; if what you believe is really the truth, it should stand up to any inquiry and any scrutiny, and you should never be afraid to investigate charitably every objection and opposing system there is. It has been my experience that closed-mindedness is born of two things: the pride of believing oneself to have all the answers, or the fear that one might be wrong. I am not saying that you fall into either of these categories: I am saying that many who share your assertions do. "Where you might say “do it if it works for you.”" That is not what I say. I say to homosexuals, even if I disagree with you - even if I believe that what you are doing is a sin - you deserve the protection of law against targeted discrimination and persecution. "You would encourage homosexuals to do what will shorten their natural life and put their eternal life at risk. " I do not encourage anyone to be a homosexual. I also do not believe that being homosexual determines your eternal fate. God is a bit more subtle than that, seeing that He created a universe in which people would be born with homosexual desires. "I searched and sought and the Catholics have it right." Again, why? "Scotty, I have never met a Catholic who said he was infallible." You seem to; you seem to believe that you cannot be in error about the truth of the Catholic faith. Additionally, under certain circumstances, the Pope claims to be infallible (this is actually what I was poking fun at earlier; if a man on the street walked up to you and said, "This statement is infallible, and the next statement I make is infallible, too," you would likely be skeptical. "Biting arguments are not my concern, truth is. Your mindset is of calculation and I strive for principle regardless of outcome. Your choice is whether or not you want to join the fold." Truth is not a matter of choice. If I choose to "join your fold" (whatever that means, since I am already a Catholic), it would have no effect whatsoever on the truth or falsity of the Catholic faith. - Scotty Ellis Mon, 26 Mar 2012 05:29:16 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/anatomy-of-a-smear.html#comment-10568 Austin mentioned, in regard to Scotty's comments that similar arguments can be made for polygamous marriage. But that's not all...how about marriage or sex with what we now consider minors? Are not our current ideas about the age of consent just as arbitrary and religiously influenced as our ideas about homosexual marriage? Are there not civilizations far and wide which accepted a much, much lower age of consent about things sexual, than ours? Should we not give up our ageophobia? And wasn't there a famous homosexual organization which advocated destruction of age of consent laws? And isn't homosexual porn loaded with images/stories of sex (real or simulated) with what we now consider minors? - BPS Mon, 26 Mar 2012 05:12:44 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/anatomy-of-a-smear.html#comment-10565 Dear Scotty, I am sorry to be uncharitable, I am young in the faith and coming from very bad places. This is no excuse. I assure you I take you seriously or I wouldn’t have tried so many times to talk to you. I am charitable in my heart towards you but not your ideas that come from outside the tao. I am intolerant of moral and cultural relativist ideas because they are lies. The direct line of Truth is Jesus Christ. I am not open to beliefs outside of the truth and really, can you show me someone who is? Our dispute is about the source of truth. I am not my own source and when I was, I was in grave error as is everyone else who is their own source of truth. By all means, read Thomas Aquinas’ subtle responses and read them as many times as you must until you are able to abandon “open mindedness” about ultimate things. No one here advocates violence against homosexuals. No one here advocates coercing the will of anyone to do or not do anything. Like the heroic addict, we say it is gravely immoral to abuse drugs because it is damaging to the drug user. The same with homosexual acts. We never propose to force a will, we just call what is wrong, wrong, and in the end this is charitable to one with same sex attraction. Where you might say “do it if it works for you.” You would encourage homosexuals to do what will shorten their natural life and put their eternal life at risk. Scotty, I was born into an atheist skeptical family that was very anti-Catholic and I was never a defender of their view. I searched and sought and the Catholics have it right. This is no accident of time and space and no I would not have been a zealous Muslim. Scotty, I have never met a Catholic who said he was infallible. Me personally, my life is a testament to my own fallibility and error. If I were as scientific as you I would recognize that statistically it would be impossible for me to even recognize the truth. But such is the grace of God with a wretched heart, I can see the truth and I am not that truth. It sounds awful to me that you teach RCIA, my RCIA teachers were like you and it was not very edifying. I had to go to the Church Doctors. Biting arguments are not my concern, truth is. Your mindset is of calculation and I strive for principle regardless of outcome. Your choice is whether or not you want to join the fold. God bless you Scotty. - Achilles Mon, 26 Mar 2012 04:17:49 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/anatomy-of-a-smear.html#comment-10560 Austin: "Scotty, you said you had never heard ANY arguments for traditional marriage except those from religion and natural law, which to you is the same thing. I ask you; is "marriage is for begetting and raising children" an argument from religion or natural law?" Both; that particular argument is a Catholic natural law argument. You should be careful with your terms, however: "traditional marriage" is quite vague. Which tradition? There are traditions of marriage which accept polygamy, for example, and not all monogamous definitions of marriage held historically are identical to the specific Catholic definition of "sacramental marriage" (although they are quite similar to "natural marriage"). I suspect you mean the tradition within Abrahamic religions (which is still a broad tradition). "You say that religion cannot effect public policy in a liberal secular democracy. You say that it is not possible to be religiously motivated in the development of public policy? So, all those Christians and Jews and even Muslims --- left, right and center --- who have entered politics in any way over the past few hundred years were doing precisely what?" I was speaking prescriptively, not descriptively. In retrospect, I should have used "should" or "ought" to make this clear, but as I was speaking of a completely abstract entity (the "secular liberal democracy" is admittedly something not perfectly instantiated) I did not foresee that someone would interpret what I said to be descriptive. Of course peoples beliefs, religious and otherwise, have been the impetus behind their political actions. This is, however, assumed within a liberal democracy: there is no reason a person cannot be motivated towards the enactment of public policy due to a religious belief, even explicitly (in fact, it is probably much rarer that this would not be the case). What I said specifically is that such beliefs themselves cannot (or, more precisely, ought not) be the basis. For example, to use the current subject: someone might be motivated by a certain sort of religious belief to propose or support legislation to prevent homosexuals from adopting. However, it would not be acceptable for them to argue in a liberal secular society, "my faith teaches me that these individuals are sinning and/or are not adequate parents; ergo, we should enact this legislation." Although their motive might be religious, they should present their case in such a way that it appeals, not to the specifics of their own faith, but to a broader, more empirically justifiable grounds. Now, in a nation in which the majority share some common faith, practically speaking this will not always be the case (and U.S. politics today make this very clear). Because the political system simply looks to majority votes, a politician whose religious views happen to coincide with the majority of voters is in a position to practically use this to his advantage, and will likely couch his arguments to appeal directly to the religious basis instead of a broader approach. I happen to believe that this sort of action, though certainly to be expected, fundamentally undermines the advantages of a liberal democracy (and if you disagree with this, just imagine: how would you feel living in a democracy filled predominantly with individuals of a religion which you believe to be erroneous, in which the vast majority of legislation is passed simply due to its harmony with the prevailing religion: certainly, I would imagine you would wish that voters would look at broader arguments, and that politicians would move to more universally applicable terms rather than using religion to secure legislation which might go so far as to discriminate against you). - Scotty Ellis Sun, 25 Mar 2012 15:47:25 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/anatomy-of-a-smear.html#comment-10559 "Though I am no mental giant, I do have a degree in history, and contrary to you, I am aware that my degree has served more to hamper my intellectual growth than to enhance because I put my trust in the University of California system instead of in Truth." I am happy to hear that you have such a direct line to the Truth; I have not reached this level of enlightenment, being more interested in the complexities and ambiguities of history. "Your asinine statement about the prevalence, acceptance and promotions of homosexual acts in 50 % of known cultures us unconscionably irresponsible." My source for this statement is a work from Oxford University Press called Adolescence and Puberty. It is quite possible that this number is imprecise, given the difficulties of ethnographic studies, but even if it was off by a wide margin it would still indicate that there is no universal human consensus about the morality or immorality of homosexuality. "I can only assume that your sources come from the LBGTQQ headquarters and here on The Catholic Thing, that source holds no weight." Again, Oxford University Press. "You are a cultural relativist and a moral relativist, Our Holy Father speaks against this “dictatorship of relativism” in eloquent and convincing terms. I don’t think anyone here can take your arguments seriously. (except maybe for Tom)." I am sorry you are unable to engage in a charitable and critical dialogue with people of other beliefs; St. Thomas Aquinas took his interlocutors quite seriously, for example, even while maintaining a solid ground within Catholic orthodoxy. He never simply dismissed the ideas of others, but rather would issue a subtle respondeo dicendum which incorporated the thoughts of objectors. "You have made the most dangerous of separations, the separation between public and private morality." I am not unaware of the potential dangers of this separation, but I believe that it is far less dangerous than the alternative, which is the legislation of a public morality with an exclusive vision of the good life and the highest good. "In the chapter The Way he is discussing the universal moral law that the vast majority of civilizations share and Scotty, nothing is in it about homosexual acts being moral." I completely agree that there is no universal moral law that homosexual acts are moral. The problem is that Lewis, like many writers of his ilk, somewhat unreflectively assumes that the cultural standards within the Abrahamic tradition are universal; to some degree, this is not something he should be blamed for, as it has been the standard of thought in the West for centuries. Indeed, the encounter of the West with truly alien cultures, such as the culture of the native Americans, has much to say about European self-image, including his label, "savage," that he applied to those with vastly different customs, morals, and ways of life. "You are hostile but incapable of being critical." I do not believe I am being hostile, and ironically I am nearly the only commenter who has put forward a critical view of the article. I weigh each of your arguments carefully and charitably. I do not believe I have the answer to this question, nor is there any particular dogma which I believe it necessary to uphold. My stance is simply that I do not believe it to be wise to oppose legislation protecting individuals from discrimination based upon their sexual identities or preferences. However, I would like to note that your quote from Lewis actually serves to highlight the difficulty of the entire situation: your argument has no bite except amongst those who have already accepted a specific interpretation of what it means to be a Catholic, and unfortunately you are unable to provide any persuasive arguments for those outside of this fold. I believe that I have put forward an argument that should have bite for anyone, which is simply that, regardless of your beliefs about the morality or immorality of homosexuality, recognizing that your position with a homosexual could theoretically be switched - and that, given a hypothetical set of circumstances in which heterosexuals were targeted with threats, violence, or legislative prohibitions based upon their sexual orientation, you would view such acts as immoral and would be in favor of a resolution stopping them - you would be willing to extend the protection of the law to a group with whom you disagree simply for the sake of consistency and self protection. As a side note, not all beliefs are subject to the difficulty which Lewis notes. Beliefs based upon observation and evidence are more easily justifiable. "Scotty, even C.S. Lewis would suggest that you be silent and reorient your mind and soul to the Truth." I am constantly seeking truth. I am skeptical, however, of groups which claim to already know the Truth, and know it absolutely; the Catholic Church is not alone in making the claim that it knows the complete Truth, nor are its claims entirely original. In other words, I am faced with a wide variety of groups claiming to know the Truth: how am I to judge between their claims? The majority of Christian thinkers, even eloquent and quite insightful ones such as Lewis and Chesterton, have yet to digest the implications of the pluralism of religious claims. Why is one a Catholic? Is it really reducible to accidents of time and space? Had you been born to a Muslim family, would you at this very moment be as zealous- or even more zealous - in your defense of the absolute truth of the revelations to Mohammed? And, knowing this, have you come up with a larger justification for being Catholic rather than Muslim, one that does not already assume the truth of the Catholic faith for its rationale? Please note that I am not trying to mock: I really would be interested in such a justification, if you have one. "After this last point I will cease to use C.S. Lewis on this post, but I highly suggest that you read, with understanding, all the C.S. Lewis writes in Abolition of Man. It would edify you greatly if you were able to understand." I have read much of Lewis: Mere Christianity, Miracles, The Great Divorce, and A Grief Observed, but I have yet to read Abolition of Man. I am currently reading Gibbons, but believe me that when I am done I will read the Abolition of Man. "You have taken the wrong position Scotty." No matter what position I take, there will be someone out there who will say this. For this reason, I need more than what you have written: I need some form of justification. "These facts are indisputable from inside the tao." I believe that this statement probably sums up the entire reason why I am skeptical of what you have said. Taken at face value, you are basically creating a tautology, a neat circle of self-referring logic: when you believe a system to be absolutely true (that is, when you are inside the tao), you find the system to be (unsurprisingly) absolutely true. The problem is that there are multiple taos, and from within each it is possible to become absolutely sure of the truth of one's own belief and condemning of all outside the tao (even atheists and agnostics do this: one of the greatest failures of modern atheism is its absolute lack of self irony, as it fails to recognize itself as a system with the same flaws that it criticizes in others). By the way, for purposes of self-disclosure, I am a Roman Catholic. I go to Mass. I even teach an adult education class. The main difference between myself and many conservative Catholics is that I do not believe myself to be in possession of an ultimate truth: I believe myself to be fallible, and thus any conclusion I reach is potentially fallible and subject to correction. I also am of the sort to chuckle slightly at a man saying "I am infallible, and this statement proves it." - Scotty Ellis Sun, 25 Mar 2012 14:55:10 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/anatomy-of-a-smear.html#comment-10558 Scotty, you said you had never heard ANY arguments for traditional marriage except those from religion and natural law, which to you is the same thing. I ask you; is "marriage is for begetting and raising children" an argument from religion or natural law? You say that religion cannot effect public policy in a liberal secular democracy. You say that it is not possible to be religiously motivated in the development of public policy? So, all those Christians and Jews and even Muslims --- left, right and center --- who have entered politics in any way over the past few hundred years were doing precisely what? You know for a fact that their religious beliefs had nothing to do with what they did and do in public policy? Really? - Austin Ruse Sun, 25 Mar 2012 14:01:16 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/anatomy-of-a-smear.html#comment-10557 Austin: "Scotty, Again, where do you get the idea that public policy cannot be founded on religious belief. You are not making arguments. You are simply making assertions." I am saying that public policy in a secular liberal democracy cannot be founded on religious belief precisely because a secular liberal democracy refrains from making judgments about the highest good; it is simply a matter of definition. This does not apply to governments other than secular liberal democracy. As to the reason why liberal democracy does not permit religious belief to be the basis of public policy, we must simply turn to the fact that such a democracy is founded on each citizen's right to pursue his own private view of the good (or a view of the good he shares with a particular subset of citizens). Citizens cannot be condemned for their view of the good life in itself nor compelled to adhere to some particular account of the good, because such compulsion or persecution runs contrary to the commitment to each citizen's right to pursue his own private view of the good. These rights form the basis and limits of freedom under such a constitution; I am prohibited from taking actions which will interfere with other citizen's right to pursue their view of the good. The government thus regulates precisely those goods that are common to all men, regardless of their view of the higher good or good life: the primary goods. So, you see, it is simply a matter of liberal democracy's commitment to rights that forms the basis of its rejection of religious beliefs as the basis for public policy. "In your assertions about marriage above you say it is between two committed people etc etc etc. Exactly where do you get this idea of two?" This is a matter of custom in the west, especially owing to its legacy of the Roman legal tradition and Christian morality, among other factors. Custom precedes law, and if the customs of our nation were substantially different or changed, so too would civil marriage. "The fact that marriage is for creating and raising children. Is that a natural law argument or a religious argument?" Well, your statement already defines marriage as being "for creating and raising children." This is a fine definition, but is not the only possible definition: marriage could also be defined as for companionship and mutual aid between spouses; or it could be simply defined, in the case of civil marriage, as a certain form of legal arrangements. In other words, it is a matter of how marriage is defined. I am not making judgments about which definition is "better," but simply noting that there are differing opinions on the matter. You have defined it in a way harmonious with the Catholic natural law tradition, which is ultimately a religious argument, since the natural law is defined as man's participation in the divine law through his rationality. - Scotty Ellis Sun, 25 Mar 2012 11:12:26 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/anatomy-of-a-smear.html#comment-10555 Dear Scotty Ellis, You fine writing skills have been outstripped by the lunacy of what you express. Though I am no mental giant, I do have a degree in history, and contrary to you, I am aware that my degree has served more to hamper my intellectual growth than to enhance because I put my trust in the University of California system instead of in Truth. Since recovering from that delusion, I have spent many years studying history. Your asinine statement about the prevalence, acceptance and promotions of homosexual acts in 50 % of known cultures us unconscionably irresponsible. Just to mention the Greeks as if they promoted it wholesale is to ignore much of what is easily know about them and the issue of homosexuality. I can only assume that your sources come from the LBGTQQ headquarters and here on The Catholic Thing, that source holds no weight. You are a cultural relativist and a moral relativist, Our Holy Father speaks against this “dictatorship of relativism” in eloquent and convincing terms. I don’t think anyone here can take your arguments seriously. (except maybe for Tom) You have made the most dangerous of separations, the separation between public and private morality. Between form and content, between the word and its meaning and by extension, between the body and soul. You have “married the spirit of the times and you will soon be a widower.” Thomas Aquinas is a much better spokesman than I am, but you can’t hear him either. Please let me share with you some things C.S. Lewis said about you in The Abolition of Man. In the chapter The Way he is discussing the universal moral law that the vast majority of civilizations share and Scotty, nothing is in it about homosexual acts being moral. He says to recognize the natural law one must inside the law to see advances in an understanding of the law but that: “The outsider knows nothing about the matter. His attempts at alteration, as we have seen, contradict themselves. So far from being able to harmonize discrepancies in its letter by penetration to its spirit, he merely snatches at some one precept, on which the accidents of time and place happen to have riveted his attention, and then rides it to death—for no reason that he can give.” Scotty, you clearly do not operate from within the law and C.S. Lewis goes on to explain more: “ From within the Tao itself comes the only authority to modify the Tao. This is what Confucius meant when he said 'With those who follow a different Way it is useless to take counsel'.5 This is why Aristotle said that only those who have been well brought up can usefully study ethics: to the corrupted man, the man who stands outside the Tao, the very starting point of this science is invisible.6 He may be hostile, but he cannot be critical: he does not know what is being discussed. This is why it was also said 'This people that knoweth not the Law is accursed'7” You are hostile but incapable of being critical. But here we come to perhaps the most important point where your posts here are concerned. You encourage in the most unhealthy way that others have an “open Mind”, well here is what C.S. Lewis says about an open mind, these are words of wisdom to be heeded by us all. “An open mind, in questions that are not ultimate, is useful. But an open mind about the ultimate foundations either of Theoretical or of Practical Reason is idiocy. If a man's mind is open on these things, let his mouth at least be shut.” Scotty, even C.S. Lewis would suggest that you be silent and reorient your mind and soul to the Truth. After this last point I will cease to use C.S. Lewis on this post, but I highly suggest that you read, with understanding, all the C.S. Lewis writes in Abolition of Man. It would edify you greatly if you were able to understand. He speaks truthfully to you as you try to speak to the issue of homosexual rights: “ He can say nothing to the purpose. Outside the Tao there is no ground for criticizing either the Tao or anything else. In particular instances it may, no doubt, be a matter of some delicacy to decide where the legitimate internal criticism ends and the fatal external kind begins. But wherever any precept of traditional morality is simply challenged to produce its credentials, as though the burden of proof lay on it, we have taken the wrong position.” You have taken the wrong position Scotty. No Catholic would ever say that homosexuals don’t have the same rights as any other citizen, but homosexuals also have the same responsibility to civilization as any other citizen and in this particular case that involves in calling homosexuality what it is, a sexual perversion whose actions and agenda lead to the destruction of civilized society and a furthering of the culture of death. These facts are indisputable from inside the tao. - Achilles Sun, 25 Mar 2012 10:41:14 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/anatomy-of-a-smear.html#comment-10553 Scotty, Again, where do you get the idea that public policy cannot be founded on religious belief. You are not making arguments. You are simply making assertions. In your assertions about marriage above you say it is between two committed people etc etc etc. Exactly where do you get this idea of two? The fact that marriage is for creating and raising children. Is that a natural law argument or a religious argument? - Austin Ruse Sun, 25 Mar 2012 10:00:11 +0100