Nothing Is True, Everything Is Permitted*

Vox Nova is the Catholic Slacktivist. The contributor(s) are unashamedly liberal, deeply concerned for the poor and the suffering, welcome nonCatholics with open arms and preach understanding and tolerance over bigotry and hatred. You can imagine how that goes over in the Catholic blogosphere. You can also imagine that I like Vox Nova very much.

So it's not this post I am snarking on, I happen to agree that atheists have morals like everyone else, it's the inevitable "atheists so do not have morals and Hitler was an atheist and that proves my point!" (I have no idea why, but Vox Nova comments always set the land record for fastest unrelated idea to Godwinning.)

David, you are correct that many atheists do live moral lives, however my point was that there is nothing in atheist belief, or non-belief if you will that compels them to do so.

Doesn't that make us better than Christians? Think about this for a second. Chris here is living his life to attain heaven and avoid hell. At best, that's enlightened self interest. If I believed in hell and someone had a good argument that wearing hats made out of green jello was the only guaranteed way to avoid hell, you'd better believe my head would be covered in green jello at all times. Really, Chris' behavior is just like a person who stops at every stop light, even at 4am when no one else is around and you're waiting for nothing. You wait to avoid the possibility of getting a ticket. Chris behaves to avoid hell.

I, on the other hand, have no hell to avoid and no heaven to attain. I act morally because . . . well, it really doesn't occur to me to do otherwise. I bleed for the poor, the downtrodden, the abused and rejected because I know how that feels and "good" isn't in it. I help where I can because I have benefited from help, and to inspire others to help because the world needs more of that. But I'm not expecting anything out of it.

So who's the better person, Chris?

No one can judge one a “bad atheist” in the same way they can identify one as a bad Christian for example.

Ummm . . . I'm not really sure what that means, to be honest. A bad person is a bad person, Christian, atheist or otherwise. If he means a substandard atheist, I guess that would be an atheist who worships occasionally.

There are standards and norms by which one can judge one’s life to be a sound example of following Christ or not, but to one who denies God, there is really no such set of norms on which to judge them, at least not on moral grounds. They can easily change the rules of morality, as Stalin, Hitler and notable others have done to justify their barbarity in the name of a subjectively defined good; a master race, proletarian rights, etc.

Chris, anyone can change the rules to suit themselves. Neither belief in god nor god hisownself stops Christians from doing so. You want some "notable others" to add to your Godwin? How about every Catholic priest who molested children? You can't diddle children without changing your morals to suit yourself. (Hopefully.) How about every pastor who embezzled from their church? How about those Crusaders who spread war and death and torture across the Middle East to spread the word of a god who said that the meek shall inherit the Earth?

How about them, Chris?

*That quote is apocraphally attributed to Hassan i-Sabbah, and is quite a bit more difficult and thought provoking than a first look reveals.

**It's Simile Monday here in Hell! Feel free to add your own.

Rep. Broun Godwins the Entire World

hitler, godwin, conservative, GOP, obama, wingnut, socialism, marxism,

There is no possibility of reasonable discussions with a good portion of the GOP*. Exhibit "A": Representative Paul Broun of Georgia (do I need to tell you which party?) Godwins the entire world in his latest delusional rant.

"It may sound a bit crazy and off base "may"? "a bit"?, but the thing is, he's the one who proposed this national security force," Rep. Paul Broun said of Obama in an interview Monday with The Associated Press. "I'm just trying to bring attention to the fact that we may—may not, I hope not—but we may have a problem with that type of philosophy of radical socialism or Marxism."

In case you're not familiar with what Broun is referring to, it is Obama's proposal for a civilian reserve corps that could handle postwar reconstruction efforts such as rebuilding infrastructure—an idea endorsed by the Bush administration. Remember, Broun? Those guys you loved? Were just in power until 6 months ago?

"That's exactly what Hitler did in Nazi Germany and it's exactly what the Soviet Union did," Broun said. "When he's proposing to have a national security force that's answering to him, that is as strong as the U.S. military, he's showing me signs of being Marxist." Yeah, we probably shouldn't take history lessons from people that can't remember last year.

Broun said he believes Obama would move to ban gun ownership if he does build a national security force. I love all the weaselwording. "If he does . . . I believe . . . he may . . ." Once you've Godwin'd, you don't get to hide behind "I said he might do it . . ."

Obama has said he respects the Second Amendment right to bear arms and favors "common sense" gun laws. Gun rights advocates interpret that as meaning he'll at least enact curbs on ownership of assault weapons and concealed weapons. entirely different from banning gun ownership. seriously, who the fuck needs a concealed assualt rifle? As an Illinois state lawmaker, Obama supported a ban on semiautomatic weapons and tighter restrictions on firearms generally.

"We can't be lulled into complacency," Broun said. "You have to remember that Adolf Hitler was elected in a democratic Germany. No, he was not. Hitler was elected to a fairly minor political office, that's true. But he was appointed Chancellor of Germany (not a democratic move) and then appointed himself Fuhrer (again, not democratic) I'm not comparing him to Adolf Hitler. which is why you've mentioned Hitler three times in as many minutes? What I'm saying is there is the potential of going down that road."

This is what passes for reasoned discourse? This is what the First Amendment has come to? Godwinning the entire world every time someone sticks a microphone in your face? How long do you suppose it will be before some unhinged wingnut with concealed bazooka decides that the only way to save the world from SuperMarxistBlackHitler is to kill people? Given the hysteria, the extremity, the insanity, of right wing speech lately, I'm surprised it hasn't happened yet.

Mark my words: in a world where a congressman can call the President of the United States Hitler- with no consequences- violence is guaranteed. The only question is when.

*UNRR is more than capable of reasonable discussion. I just wish the entire GOP was like him.

The Post 911 Godwin

homophobia, homosexual, gay, marriage, godwin, terrorist, hitler, nazi,

In case you're not familiar with Godwin's Law (which would make this discussion rather confusing for you):

Godwin's Law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies)[1] is an adage formulated by Mike Godwin in 1990. The law states: "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."[2][3]

Godwin's Law is often cited in online discussions as a deterrent against the use of arguments in the reductio ad Hitlerum form.

The rule does not make any statement about whether any particular reference or comparison to Adolf Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate, but only asserts that one arising is increasingly probable. It is precisely because such a comparison or reference may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued,[4] that overuse of Nazi and Hitler comparisons should be avoided, because it robs the valid comparisons of their impact.

There are many corollaries to Godwin's law, some considered more canonical (by being adopted by Godwin himself)[2] than others invented later.[1] For example, there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically "lost" whatever debate was in progress.

I posit the Post 911 Godwin: we can now accept "terrorist" as being the equivalent of "Hitler" or "Nazi", and calling someone a terrorist is indeed a Godwin.

I mention this because I was totally Post 911 Godwin'd today (see screenshot above). Apparently, if you call someone a "homophobe", the terrorists have won! And I really need to work on my beard.