Headline from MSN: “Jewish senators alarmed by Alito’s pro-Christian agenda“.
Jewish Democratic senators are alarmed by conservative Justice Samuel Alito’s sympathy for basing government on Christian principles — something he expressed at a Supreme Court gala when he endorsed the idea of returning the nation to a place of “godliness.”
Government must be based on some principle. Somebody, or bodies, must impose this principle, and eschew or proscribe all others.
Now the men who founded the country wanted Christian principles to be the principles imposed. They didn’t want any one Christian sect to be officially imposed, hence the “First Amendment”. But that the guiding moral principles were meant to be Christian is clear.
Well, so what. Those guys are dead, their world is long gone, and we are here now. That they get to impose their old rules on us is another belief imposed on us. Who said they get to keep imposing? We get to pick the views imposed upon us. Rather, somebody must pick them for us. Somebody’s views must always be imposed.
The trick of complaining about having somebody else’s views being imposed, while trying to sneak your own in the back door, is The Imposing Your Beliefs Fallacy (blog, Substack). It amplifies your cause, when using this fallacy, if you can claim to be a Victim. Which is, of course, irrelevant, but it does soften the mental faculties of most.
Senate Democrats say members of the Supreme Court have a right to religious freedom but warn that when they try to impose their religious views on others, it crosses a line.
There’s the Fallacy right there, in all its glory. But remember this, dear Anon, all the political science you need ever learn. If you don’t impose your beliefs, somebody else will impose theirs.
Different beliefs are imposed at different times. The USA had different views imposed at its beginning than now. Like that “First Amendment” thing. Used to be it imposed the belief that people were free to associate with whom they would, and not with those they did not want to. Most enjoyed that view being imposed. But not all. Now rulers impose the view that people must associate with whomever rulers say you must associate, especially if you are an employer or seller.
The two beliefs about association are utterly incompatible, and so cannot both be imposed at the same time. One belief must rule. Which one? Well, that depends on who has the power of imposing. Is it you, dear reader, who has this power? It is not I.
One of the Senators quoted said, “I don’t think there’s really any doubt. I don’t think Alito and [conservative Justice Clarence] Thomas are being shy. They have a view of the world,” which they are using, he implied, to do their imposing.
This Senator is right: there is no doubt. We know that this Senator also has a view which he would like to see imposed. Of that there is also no doubt. Only, since he didn’t give his name, he is shy about naming what this view would be.
Another Senator:
He said the conservative majority’s [on SCOTUS] erosion of individual rights, including the right to abortion and potentially the right to contraception or same-sex marriage, is especially worrisome “to those of us that have different religious views.”
Which is natural. To worry, I mean. Right now, this Senator’s views are being imposed on us. Men like him invented the “right” to “same-sex marriage”, and so forth. “Rights” which the Senator’s enemies do not want are imposed, by him, on them. (All “rights” are imposed, because all “rights” imply duties.) His enemies would rather, as the Senator correctly fears, impose their views on the Senator, and not have his imposed on them.
The good news, for the Senator, is that he and his indeed have the power, which is to say, they now have the use of threat and the use of violence and punishment to keep their views imposed. But he can see the slim, the very slim, possibility that views other than his might be imposed.
The threat is indeed small, but even the remote possibility cannot be allowed, hence his crying out now, lest he enemies gain strength.
Somebody’s beliefs must be imposed. Alito’s, or somebody else’s.
Subscribe or donate to support this site and its wholly independent host using credit card click here. Or use the paid subscription at Substack. Cash App: $WilliamMBriggs. For Zelle, use my email: matt@wmbriggs.com, and please include yours so I know whom to thank.
What are rights? A declaration of hostility. In harmonious groups it is qualities that count : honour, loyalty, self giving and so on.
And the purpose of rights in conflictual groups, for example large heterogeneous populations ruled by force, is to protect the citizen from the rulers.
And here comes the subtle destruction : by introducing numerous privileges to be exercised by one group against another the rulers achieve two objectives : antagonism between groups and the establishment of the rulers as the arbitrating power.
Thus it is that as the number of privileges has increased (they are called, wrongly, rights) the rights of the citizen against the government have decreased.
They didn't express this concern when there was a Jewish majority on SCOTUS:
Funny that.