5 Comments
User's avatar
⭠ Return to thread
Logician's avatar

While Gender Ideology has been widely acknowledged as a cult and a kind of secular neo-religion, no one has yet suggested that its entwinement in law and education be challenged on that basis.

As both a legal and constitutional matter, if beliefs like "gender identity" meet the threshold of religious beliefs -- which they do -- then should they not be subject to the same parameters?

What's happening presently is exploiting a perceived loophole in the First Amendment. While it's commonly agreed that "freedom of worship" is protected, the prospect of an aggressively evangelical movement seeking to circumvent church/state separation in order to use the instrument of government to indoctrinate youth, and to seize legal protections which would otherwise not exist, has been poorly considered.

Why is there no lawsuit asking the Supreme Court to do what it has unfortunately failed to do in the past, and furnish a precise definition of what constitutes a religion? Any faith based belief system, whether or not it calls itself a religion, should be both protected in their freedom of belief and constrained from being taught in public schools or having its doctrinal tenets recognized in civil law.

A Supreme Court ruling to this effect would end this madness once and for all.

Expand full comment
Kevin Byrne's avatar

Right! A Supreme Court ruling "would end this madness once and for all" --- Just like Roe V. Wade ended the abortion debate. [That would be "irony" --- if and only if you are the sort of "logician" who can only manipulate alphanumeric "chicken scratch" courtesy of Bertrand Russell, Gottlob Frege and fellow travelers in the "logic" business --- but if you can actually think, in English, then you already got the irony]

You alleged "logicians" are the people who have, for many years, promulgated various and interestingly DIVERSE, so-called "theories" of truth, when the founder of the discipline of LOGIC [Aristotle], clearly said that the first Principle of Logic, which is truth, CANNOT be "hypothetical", while repetitively affirmed hypotheses eventually become accepted theories.

Rather, argued Aristotle, the first Principle of logic must be AXIOMATIC. That axiom, called the Law of Contradiction by morally neutral folks, or the Law of Non-Contradiction, by those who are logical moralists, is based on the pure "faith" that basic sentences, called propositions, must be either true or false with no "middle ground" between those 2 polar opposites [So-called LAW OF EXCLUDED MIDDLE or LEM in addition to LAW OF NON-CONTRADICTION or LNC].

But what did you skeptical "logicians" do? You invented specious arguments against Aristotle's theses about truth. Then you invented specious arguments against every one of your own diverse so-called "theories" of truth. Then you invented "fuzzy" logics, after successfully transforming logic into a parody of alphanumeric algebra, when Aristotle had previously told you "logicians" that numbers had "peculiar properties" that were not applicable to other categories of thought and of being. You logicians apparently liked numerous potential middle terms between harsh dialectical opposites, such as true vs. false with "fuzzy" logic. So why are you apparently opposed to numerous potential genders between MALE vs. FEMALE?

In short and in sum --- Your diverse "logics" have come right back into your lying "logician" faces and you don't know how to refute the lies with so-called "Natural Language" sentences. Q. So what do you call for? A. The argument from authority --- the weakest of all philosophical arguments. Q. And what authority, since it is the Supreme Court of your Country? A. Why that would be the authority of lawyers arguing to and before lawyers, while lawyers are the most CONTEMPTUOUS of TRUTH people in the history of civilization. Not only do lawyers NOT know the truth. Their specialty is casting so-called "reasonable doubts" about the truth while admonishing their own clients to SHUT UP.

Who do you think "invented" Critical Race Theory? He was a civil rights lawyer named Derek Bell if memory serves. Who picked it up and ran with it? Uh, that would be Marxist lawyers and professors. What do you think LENIN's profession was, before the revolution? Duh, he was a lawyer. So cut to the chase --- you guys are going to be required to NOT KILL ALL the lawyers, as one of Shakespeare's characters said --- but only the HALF of those lawyers who are the "bad guys" representing the cases of "worse guys". Trouble is --- you don't have FAITH in a logical system [Aristotle's] which enables you to make such distinctions between TRUE vs FALSE and GOOD vs EVIL anymore. So good luck with the next American Revolution because that is where you are going having destroyed all FAITH in ancient logic and its PRINCIPLES.

Kevin James "Joseph" Byrne

Expand full comment
Logician's avatar

That's a lengthy, rambling rant which doesn't address the issue.

I'll clarify.

The First Amendment establishes the law of the land on religious liberty -- both for those who practice it and those who wish to not have it imposed upon them.

It does not offer a definition of "religion," however, but rather relies upon the assumption that everyone knows what "religion" is. Unfortunately, in the post-Marxian era, that furnishes a backdoor to those who would seek to circumvent the First Amendment by simply seeking to have their religion recognized as "science" or "fact" without having to meet the same empirical standards as other facts.

Bringing this matter to the Supreme Court is less about seeking the Supreme Court ruling than forcing the "no debate" crowd into a very public debate they cannot possibly win. Because it would expose the simplicity of this:

"I don't believe in God... so why should I have it imposed on me as a belief?"

"I don't believe in gender or gender identity... so why should I have it imposed on me as a belief?"

There is no daylight whatsoever between the non-evidentiary nature of those two claims. Yet one is given favored status under the law which is universally denied the other. Why?

There is no argument which can be made to excuse that contradiction. The hypocrisy prevails only insofar as it remains unchallenged. Challenge it openly -- and the court of public opinion will rule long before the actual courts rule. And the matter will be over.

Americans, humans, the world in general is deeply opposed to this nonsense -- they simply don't know how to articulate it. Smoke the issue out by dragging it into the courts and the court of public opinion -- and the public will quickly learn precisely how to fight it. And the "no debate" cowards will crumble.

Expand full comment
Kevin Byrne's avatar

Spoken like a true post Marxist obscurantist. It doesn't matter whether your moniker is Ky' Zan' or "Logician" or "MarkM" who is "Ann Doshi", or any of the other names under which you post. You clarify nothing. You post non-sense.

Expand full comment
Logician's avatar

I haven't a clue what you're talking about. There's some strange, paranoid conspiracy theorizing going on here.

If you can't articulate why the First Amendment exists and what it means by "religion," then you're really not qualified to carry on this conversation.

And I don't know what "post-Marxist obscurantist" means. I'm also not those other people... whoever they are. Also not clear why you're in a knot about this. My question is simple: why can't we treat gender ideology as the religious cult that it is and get it removed from the public square, from law and legislation and from the schools on the same basis that Catholic, Jewish, Islamic and Hindu theologies are so excluded?

If you can answer that question without devolving into a rant or deploying the language of a Berkeley doctoral dissertation, by all means do.

Expand full comment