Felagund
14d ago
You can't use DNA evidence from a place to prove you weren't there, which is what he's trying to do.
Felagund
14d ago
I was pretty sad to see that Louisiana v. Callais was delayed. I was looking forward to that.
Felagund
2mo ago
Why are you recommending extramarital sex right after invoking your religious affiliation?
Felagund
21d ago
I don't have an opinion on end times things at the moment (but thanks for the mention!). Among many of the contemporary reformed, I think amillenialism (we're living in the millenium right now) is the most common view, and is probably what you refer to as the most reserved interpretation, though there do exist postmillenials (especially among the Doug Wilson-adjacent) and premillenials. Dispensationalism is usually seen as beyond the pale, though.
Historically, many in e.g. the 17th century read Romans 11 as talking about a future conversion of ethnic Israel to Christianity, though that's less popular of a reading now.
Felagund
2mo ago
That wouldn't put an end to the problem. NGOs literally fly them into the country.
Maybe if one reads the 10th amendment broadly?
I suppose the real question is about what relation the founders would have intended the common law to have to the state governments, and what would they have considered to lie within their powers.
Felagund
2mo ago
Oh, absolutely. I also have the same tendency to focus too much on the latter things. I was reading Richard Baxter (a moderate and controversial puritan) two days ago, and found the next three or four pages after where it says section 3 to be pretty convicting. It's okay to be motivated to know about God and to defend his truth, but those shouldn't be the only things.
"I have ever observed that a violent passion called Zeal for a mans opinions, which he counts Orthodox, is so easie and natural, that there needs little means to kindle it: Nay, all the means that can be used will scarce allay the inordinate rage of it: But a Zealous love of God, and delight in him, and a Zeal in him for holiness, and against sin, and a Zealous love to Gods Truth as they hold forth Christ and Glory, and guide us to duty, this is so contrary to the nature of man, that no means is sufficient to excite it. O how easily without Grace, and against Grace do Carnal Ministers, and professors make a huge bussel in the world for their opinions, compassing Sea and Land to make a Proselite!"
And I'll cut the quote off there, even though it continues on with similar force. Do read the whole passage, it's not that long.
Felagund
2mo ago
It sounds like he trusted people in the 90s whom he no longer trusts, which was also part of why he dismissed Christianity. If the 'experts' were clearly wrong about other things societally, then why could they not also have been wrong about Christianity? Hence an increased openness.
Felagund
2mo ago
See, I really don't like how exclusionary the Eastern Orthodox tend to be. Why not recognize Christ's body throughout the world, even as it's racked by various grevious schisms? Why worsen them? At least the Roman Catholics are sort of willing to recognize the other church bodies, especially post Vatican II. And the ecclesiology seems kind of broken with the way that schisms happen—e.g. was the entire East not part of the church for taking the wrong side during the Acacian schism? And then just became, at once, the church again when they reconciled? And, like, then you have to disclaim the Church of the East evangelizing China in the first millenium just because they didn't follow Ephesus.
I'm quite happy over here with my Protestantism that's willing to recognize the entire community of the faithful, regardless of nation, as assemblies of my brothers in Christ, and parts of his single visible church.
Not a good look for Cremieux. That's a shame.
Edit: Not as bad as I first thought, as he included the source in a series of links at the end, labeled, "Links:"
Still not great.
Felagund
1mo ago
Why would they reject you? My impression was that forecasts were one of your big things?
Since you're choosing to believe, why not retvrn a little farther and believe in your culture's traditional religions?
Do you really think that your culture is the same as that of pre-Christian Europe (assuming that's your heritage)? No, not at all. The Europeans nations have been Christian for 1500 years, plus or minus a couple hundred, depending on the place. The cultures that we have been in, or that we were in at all recently, have been thoroughly steeped in Christianity. Those pagan men of 2000 years ago may have been your ancestors, but they were not really a part of your culture, your nation.
No, no, the place to return, at least, for the American (if it is returning to our roots that we are doing), is to traditional American mainline Protestantism, the religion of sober, hardworking men with large families clamoring after divine truth and a pious life. The old denominations have been captured by lefties, but there exist remnants to be found.
Felagund
2mo ago
I'd recommend historic protestantism. So neither modern evangelicalism, nor the woke mainlines. If you DM me your area, I could probably find some churches that have a reasonable chance of being good.
Felagund
2mo ago
A bigger factor than external restrictions is that the entire online world decreases the impetus to go out and do any of these things.
Felagund
2mo ago
And where did those European traditions come from? If the game here is simply to trace back as far as we can, then we should look at the first man. What did he believe?
I would suggest that he walked in the garden with the LORD, sinned and was expelled, and fathered us all.
Felagund
2mo ago
Thanks for bringing this back! I think this last happened when it was on reddit and I was only a lurker (still have no reddit account).
Felagund
1yr ago
Today's SCOTUS opinions
I'd like to post a little about these as they come out over the next few weeks. One of you said you like themotte's legal takes not too long ago, so I'll give my utterly uninformed ones. If there are new opinions out, and I haven't made a thread, by all means, make one.
Cantero v. Bank of America, N.A.
Written by Kavanaugh, 9-0.
This case is rather obscure. It deals with the question of a law in New York, regulating banks. There are two types of banks, national and state banks. The question is whether the statutes applying to federal banks preempt those applying to state banks. Everyone agrees that they sometimes do. In this case, the court argues that the Second Circuit should have applied a different standard than they did (they should have applied "nuanced comparative analysis" instead of a "categorical test," following the wrong set of precedents), but does not give any opinion on how that should be decided in this case, just that it should be looked at again by the lower court with a different standard.
I know, I know, exciting start.
Thornell v. Jones
6-3. Alito writes for the majority, which the conservatives join. Sotomayor and Jackson each write dissents, of which Kagan joins the former.
In 1992, Jones committed two horrific murders: he beat his acquaintance Robert Weaver, Weaver's grandmother, and Weaver's seven-year-old daughter to death in order to take Weaver's $2000 gun collection.
Under Arizona law, this was weighed, with the aggravating factors (committing multiple murders in the offence, motivated by money, heinousness, and a young child), and the mitigating factors (Jones had underwent child abuse, began abusing drugs young, suffered brain damage, and received psychiatric treatments as a child), and sentenced Jones to death.
Jones then filed a habeas petition with the 9th circuit, which they grant. Under Strickland v. Washington, he must show that he had insufficient counsel, prejudicing the case against him, and that this would make it reasonable (that is, a substantial probability) that this would have changed the sentencing.
Alito argues that the 9th circuit was wrong for 3 reasons:
- It failed adequately to take into account the aggravating circumstances (in their initial opinion, altogether, and in their later opinion, without the weight that would be given by the Arizona judge)
- They apply a rule that courts may not assess strength of witness testimony
- They held that the Arizona court erred in attaching diminished weight to Jones' mental health conditions because they weren't connected to his actions in the murders.
(some of those sentences closely follow Alito's wording, don't come after me)
Alito then provides his own analysis of the case, considering the new evidence, and that it would be unlikely to cause any revisions (applying Strickland) to the Arizona courts judgments, because it's not really claiming all that much more, and is in the same categories, and so reverses and remands the case.
Sotomayor and Kagan agree that they should have considered aggravating factors, but did not think that Alito should have judged the merits of the specifics of the case (what I talked about in the preceding paragraph).
Jackson thought that the Ninth circuit acted sufficiently in their methodology, and just because they decided wrongly (per Alito) doesn't mean that they were procedurally wrong. Also, she disputes 1 and 2 above.
Legally, I don't have a clear enough view of what SCOTUS is willing to cover to judge whether the dissents are right.
My own (not legal) takeaways: What the heck are we doing as a country that we can't manage to carry out a death sentence 30 years after he was sentenced? Second, activist courts are really a problem. The liberal justices would all yield to those courts, as they misapply standards. If Jackson's right, their process suffices, even if they're entirely dishonest in their evaluation of the evidence. Third, I'm not a fan of a bunch of these mitigating factors. Being abused as a child shouldn't really be an argument against being put to death for murder.
NRA v. Vullo
Sotomayor (!) writes for a unanimous court. Gorsuch and Jackson each file concurrences.
Vullo, in her capacity of Superintendent of the New York Department of Financial Services had pressured insurers to drop the NRA, saying that she'd found errors, but they wouldn't be prosecuted for them if they did so. Further, there were letters to businesses saying they should drop the NRA to minimise risk.
The court holds that this is illegal coercion, and violates the first amendment, by punishing the NRA for speech through government action. The indirectness of it does not change that.
Gorsuch writes to clarify that this means that some standard tests aren't always right.
Jackson thinks there is more to be said about whether there's a first amendment claim (so, I think, disagreeing with the majority), but agrees overall.
Felagund
2mo ago
My sense is that most theists here tend towards an old earth, and if not, they stay quiet.
Felagund
2mo ago
Yeah, you were very competent in the one discussion I remember us having.
Felagund
2mo ago
It's progressives, generally speaking, who dislike "child marriage" being legal (which usually means, you can get married at 16 or 17, provided that a parent or the court system signs off on it being fine). I don't think that this is accurate.
Why bother? Because forcing yourself and the other person to dig, think through unexpected things, etc. makes both of you come to more nuanced, defensible, in-touch-with-reality versions of your positions.
And secondly, for the sake of those watching, who may not yet have committed to positions.
I'm agreed with you that we're on a terrible trajectory. E.g. the judiciary and presidency are on a crash course almost no matter what happens, given that, right now, all the district judges are making ridiculous TROs far overstepping their power (so that ignoring the courts is a growing sentiment on the online right), and on the other hand, the democrats want to pack the court. The chances we have a judiciary functioning properly in 30 years feel much lower than I would like. That's just an example, across the board, from both sides we're seeing escalations, radicalization, degradation of norms, which invites more of the same.
More options
Context Copy link