Free loaves and fishes for all my friends. Does anyone need more wine? Don’t worry, I got it.

Guess Benny-boy never read the Shock Doctrine, huh?

Also, Locke was an athiest also too.

both are based on the John Locke-ian premise that man is special in the universe

…but he did watch “LOST.” Well, the first two seasons, anyway.

That’s because the same position that rejects the sanctity of unborn life tends to reject the sanctity of private property; both are based on the John Locke-ian premise that man is special in the universe, and that the product of his labor is an extension of his special place in the universe. Ignore man’s Godly origins and his property becomes a dispensable commodity rather than a fulfillment of a divine mission.

ergo,

The product of the woman’s labor becomes her property.

product of the woman’s labor

Band name. Or future NYT Bestseller, take yer pick.

Ignore man’s Godly origins and his property becomes a dispensable commodity rather than a fulfillment of a divine mission.

Gather ye iPhones while ye may.

Not to burst any “Lockean” bubbles here, Benny, but what if your property is derived from other sources like, say, outright theft a.k.a. colonialism or vulture capitalism i.e. other people’s labour?
Is that also part of a “divine mission”?
cf. Ten Commandments

That’s because the same position that rejects the sanctity of unborn life tends to reject the sanctity of private property;

I’m …. Ben that’s ……. WTF? He gets paid to write that drivel? There is no justice in the world.

There was a scene in “The New World” where a character arguing against worrying about the concern of the natives against their encroachment angrily lobbied,

God wants the land to go to those who will exploit it!”

Thank you, Glob.- http://www.tshirthell.com/funny-shirts/native-americans-should-have-fought-harder-you-pussies

“…the John Locke-ian premise that man is special in the universe, and that the product of his labor is an extension of his special place in the universe. Ignore man’s Godly origins…”

Uh, can someone please translate this? My reading of Genesis is that G-d created the beasts and flow and all that other stuff and then put man (well, Man, if you want to be specific) at the top of everything.

Is Benji the Unhunted saying that it was John Locke, not YHWH, who decided man was the most special of all creations? Someone failed his bar mitzvah reading…

I like the new Teevee that we bought but I’m not sure it’s divine. Shapiro knows that people are going to be stuffed to the gills and will not read this until next week and by then he will be on to the next load of underpants contents topic

Why is Ben SHAPIRO upset at the decline of American religiosity? In the days when American religiosity were greater, they wouldn’t have even let him into Harvard Law. Maybe, I should be upset at the decline of American religiosity then?

Anyway, it appears that Mr. Shapiro’s own religiosity is in decline:

both are based on the John Locke-ian premise that man is special in the universe

Did he miss the ending of the book of Job? Did he not pay attention during the many places in High Holiday services where the prayers talk about how un-special and not much above mere beasts we humans are (at least relative to God)? Isn’t the ultimate message of the book of Jonah not one of forgiveness or one of “you can’t run away from God” but rather “you did not build this!”?

As the one considered by that religion most Americans had in the days when American religiosity were not in decline once put it: you can serve either God or Mammon but you can’t serve both. It appears that Benny’s own religiosity is in decline that he’s decided to worship Mammon in lieu of God.

Apparently the primary qualification for becoming a lawyer is paying your tuition on time.

Jim Bakker went to jail for our not-sins.

I tried reading the comments but people that argue seriously about knowing the mind of God scare the heck out of the atheist in me (who they also misrepresent on just about every level).

Jesus had a bad weekend for your sins.

-or-

God sent God to die for God so that God could forgive God’s creations according to God’s unbending rules.”

Too Rube Goldberg for me.

OK, I can do this:

That’s because the same position that rejects the sanctity of unborn life tends to reject the sanctity of private property; both are based on the John Locke-ian premise that man is special in the universe,

“That’s because the same position that rejects the sanctity of J-Lo. tends to reject the wisdom of The Pantload; both are based on the Newtonian premise that FACTS MATTER, bitch…”

Yea and verily, we can play with little Ben all day long. It’s like Christmas Yule has come early this year!

I assume he is quoting an imaginary John Locke that lives in his closet.

Yeah, yeah. Xtians are all about the Mysterious Ways that Gawd moves when something incomprehensible happens (to them or one of their tribe), but then spend the rest of the time telling us exactly what S/He thinks about everything from Hollyweird Movies to what brand of crap pizza to eat in excruciating detail.

Schrödinger’s asshat: Ben Shapiro can be ether a dick or an asshole at the very same time depending on who is doing the observing.

“More than that, the religious society rests on two fundamental principles: personal responsibility and belief in responsibility to future generations. Secularism rejects both principles.”

This is why I can’t be bothered to argue with these people. Up is Down, 2 + 2 = banana, fuck me gently with a chainsaw…I’m grateful Mr. Locke is dead and unable to see this kid smear feces all over his work.

From the comments:

Atheism is a religion and what is more it is an oppressive one. There is absolutely NO lawsuits by Christians to silence atheism. THere is every trick in the book to accuse the Christians, who have almost ZERO voice now in the public, the schools, the government or media, of being heavy handed.

Christians have no voice in the public? And atheists are over represented? What the fuck are you smoking, dude?

ATheism has used PC to now be able to nearly drive Christians back into the catacombs and they have made secular statism, PC, same sex marriage, environnmentalism and animal rights the denominations to which ALL must convert or be punished….starts with maligning and then they sued and then silenced and upcoming is execution.

Yes, the logical conclusion to raising public awareness and going through proper legal channels is public execution of everyone who disagrees. Why, there aren’t even any intermediate steps needed between petitioning the courts for fair representation, and the murder of all your enemies.

Even an atheist can read history.

Atheists are well-known for being under educated.

Of course every time you all lose and God returns full force, sometimes with you too.

I have no idea what “with you too” even means.

I do hope Ben’s gonna reprint this one at Christmas.

New thread? I is confused.

[God spends] the rest of the time telling us exactly what S/He thinks about everything from Hollyweird Movies to what brand of crap pizza to eat in excruciating detail. – Cole

That’s why the world is in such a mess. God’s so pre-occupied with Hollywood movies, football games and pizza choices to actually do anything about the important stuff.

God is pro-pineapple.

John Locke is a males chastity belt, yes?

Ignore man’s Godly origins and his property becomes a dispensable commodity rather than a fulfillment of a divine mission.

“I have seen something else under the sun: The race is not to the swift or the battle to the strong, nor does food come to the wise or wealth to the brilliant or favor to the learned; but time and chance happen to them all.”

So, it’s “immoral” to “deprive” the MOTU of all the fruits of the labors of their employees that they stole, fair and square?

Funny how these douchnozzles are always the ones to point at liberals and harp about “moral relativism.” Here we’ve got the Virgin Ben openly stating that the laws of morality differ according to how much money you already have – if you’re a Walton, God’s fine with you continuing to steal the labor & time of your peon Wal-Mart employees by paying them shit wages that keep them so poor they qualify for food stamps & Medicaid. If you’re a peon Wal-Mart employee on the other hand, who thinks that people worth $20 billion should be paying more in taxes, to among other things help pay for the food stamps and Medicaid you qualify for thanks to the shit wages they pay you, that’s an immoral lack of respect for the right of the Waltons to anally rape you on wages.

This is why I can’t be bothered to argue with these people. Up is Down, 2 + 2 = banana, fuck me gently with a chainsaw…

It’s even worse in the comments. Logic means nothing to these people. They hear two statements strung together by an authority figure and they parrot it believing it makes them an authority. They hear two statements strung together by an authority figure used to support a foregone conclusion, and they parrot it believing it proves their conclusion. They are immune to any evidence, logic, empathy, common sense, counterexamples, or smacks upside da head that do not support their conclusion — and they will remember these things when used to “attack” them.

And, of course, not giving them everything they feel they are entitled to, including your submission to their opinions and rules, is “attacking” them.

Example mango:

Atheists reject God. Rejecting God is hatred of God.

Two nonsequiturs. But they have been taught these things as facts, despite that “it does not follow” applies to both statements.

I’d say they have simple minds, but they show an astonishing depth of deviousness when it comes to rationalizing their beliefs, manipulating facts and words to “prove” they’re right, and a surprising agility to dodge contrary evidence and arguments.

I can’t be bothered, either, frankly. Other than to learn enough to identify and avoid them.

Where the religious believer understands that it is immoral to deprive someone else of their property by force, even when such stealing is given legal cover by the state, the secularist believes that the morality of redistributionism takes precedence over the morality of respect for the rights of others.

Central To His Point = The explorers of the New World made a point of crucifying the Natives they found on “their” land in groups of thirteen – in honour of Jesus & his disciples.

Also Relevant: The European “Burning Times” weren’t just a vicious genocide of local pagan cultures that posed no real threat (other than the deadly threat of a good example) – they were also one of the biggest systematic land-grabs in European history that didn’t involve nations going to war.

Surprisingly – & perhaps deceptively – ClownHall let me give Shapiro’s gibberish the “Insane” rating it deserves, winthout registering or anything. Go on, give it a shot!

Where the religious believer understands that it is immoral to deprive someone else of their property by force, even when such stealing is given legal cover by the state

The state will only throw you in prison for a short time for not paying as decreed, while according to most of these fuckheads God will send you to Hell for eternity for preferring money to following his will. In both cases there are many who pay to avoid penalty rather than out of belief in the moral rightness of the act itself, so frankly the church wins the stealing by force prize.

Besides which there’s nothing in the Bible even implying taxes are immoral, nor that the takings of one’s business are entirely one’s own to do with as one would.

All right, I got a few minutes. Let’s dispose of this.

This isn’t to argue that secular people can’t be good, hard-working Americans; the vast majority of them are.

…Now watch me argue that all atheists are parasites.

If I may be serious for a moment:

For generations, the religious community looked to two sources for inspiration and support in times of crisis: God and fellow members of the community. The secular community looks to one source: the state.

This has been the one constant in the conservative hue and cry. All those people (for whatever value of “those”, atheists in this case) are just cradle-to-grave statists who don’t grasp the importance of traditional communities. The implication is that, in times of crisis, all those people go running to the government for help.

It makes me wonder if Shapiro has ever met an atheist (It also makes me question those studies that allege that cons understand libs more than vice versa). This argument, in every form, is the very definition of bad faith. Shapiro and his ilk have never considered that, maybe, people who disagree with them appreciate community and traditional sources of support, but have reached the conclusion that these are inadequate to address catastrophe. Yes, your local food bank can fill the cabinets of the poor families in your neighborhood, but can they handle the whole city? Are you going to be able to take donations to pay for surgery every time someone has a serious accident? And what about the destruction on the East Coast – are those people just supposed to drain and rebuild their homes themselves?

Conservatives making this argument are either blindingly ignorant of what others are like, or they’re being willfully dishonest. I’ll let you decide which one Shapiro is, but he doesn’t seem intelligent enough to pull off the latter.

On a less serious note:

That’s not because Republicans are pro-life and pro-traditional marriage; even if Republicans ignored the issues — as, indeed, Mitt Romney tried to do — secularists would still link a larger state with a pro-abortion, pro-same sex marriage position. (Emphasis mine)

One of these days, I’m going to have to corner one of these social con/glibertarian hybrids and get them to explain how increasing restrictions on health care and contracts is “small government.” It’s almost as though terms like “statism” and “big government” are just buzzphrases that don’t mean anything.

Oh, and Townhall is now selling a book about Agenda 21. These guys pulled the rabbit hole in after them.

Romans something 13 something …

Oh, and as long as we’re talking TownHall:

In the midst of the usual articles on how Romney would have won if he talked about queers instead of jobs, we have a fascinating piece from Thomas Sowell on how hotel rooms confuse him. It’s like an Erma Bombeck column from hell.

Thank you, D Johnston, for demolishing the first of Sowell’s two most asinine statements I was gonna tear into.

The second:

More than that, the religious society rests on two fundamental principles: personal responsibility and belief in responsibility to future generations. Secularism rejects both principles. Personal responsibility becomes societal responsibility in the secular view; we are all shaped by our genetics and our environment, both of which are out of our control. How, then, can we be held responsible for our actions?

At best, Sowell’s premise that atheists have no personal responsibility or responsibility to the future is a right-wing canard, a social conservative trope. But he states this as fact, without analysis. It’s BULLSHIT.

First, these “secularists” he decries have a much more solid record of responsibility, both personally and towards the commons – the estate that we all leave to future generations. It’s the conservatives who give it enough lip service to pull off the world’s biggest blowjob gangbang, but who in action demonstrate again and again both their moral bankruptcy and their willingness to rape the planet for their own immediate benefit, or sell it to those who would.

He knows it’s a strawman argument, but he doesn’t care. He’s scoring points by putting words together in a slightly new way but saying the same old bullshit: We Christians have a monopoly on truth, morality and the one true channel to God.

And the rest of you are oppressing us by not acknowledging it and worshipping us.

Fuck you, Sowell, with a rolled-up bible.

In the midst of the usual articles on how Romney would have won if he talked about queers instead of jobs, we have a fascinating piece from Thomas Sowell on how hotel rooms confuse him.
Seriously, this guy is paid? Not for his intelligence apparently. I don’t have the chance to travel and stay in hotels very often but I can figure out how to turn on the TV, shower and the lights.

Whups. I meant Shapiro… two times.

we have a fascinating piece from Thomas Sowell on how hotel rooms confuse him. It’s like an Erma Bombeck column from hell.

Oh jeez what a fucking idiot. I spend so much time in hotels I could probably manage one someday.

John Locke is a males chastity belt, yes?

Yes, and it hurts like hell if you forget to take it off before you fall asleep.

Finally watched that Thom Hartmann clip.

I’ve been ranting about that shit for 10 years. It’s why I’ll never vote GOP, ever. (And I don’t give the Dems much more credit… I hold my nose everytime I vote for a Dem, and it’s only because I feel the need to vote against the Republican.)

TY for the tip. I used to listen to his show daily until they moved it from 9am… didn’t know he had a TV show. Gonna watch that regularly, now!

The race is not always to the swift nor the fight to the strong, but that’s the way the smart money bets.

Besides which there’s nothing in the Bible even implying taxes are immoral
Tithing would be some sort of tax, wouldn’t it? Therefore, taxes are A-OK.

“Render Caesar’s things unto Caesar…”

One of these days … a guy is going to come up to you and show you a nice brand-new deck of cards on which the seal is not yet broken, and this guy is going to offer to bet you that he can make the Jack of Spades jump out of the deck and squirt cider in your ear. But, son, do not bet this man, for as sure as you are standing there, you are going to end up with an earful of cider.

Where the religious believer understands that it is immoral to deprive someone else of their property by force, even when such stealing is given legal cover by the state, the secularist believes that the morality of redistributionism takes precedence over the morality of respect for the rights of others.

Shall we discuss the treatment of the American Indians by the Founding Fathers? How about the history of Protestants versus Catholics in Ireland – or Israel’s policies toward the Palestinians?

Religious believers throughout history have always believed in taking the property of non-believers by force and redistributing it to the faithful. It doesn’t much matter which faith you choose, history abounds with examples.

At best, Sowell’s premise that atheists have no personal responsibility or responsibility to the future is a right-wing canard, a social conservative trope. But he states this as fact, without analysis. It’s BULLSHIT.

Ah, the “atheists as fatalistic” argument – a social con classic, and yet more proof that these guys don’t get out much.

The irony is, there is a group out there that is as nihilistic as Shapiro believes – Calvinists. Calvinism is rooted in the concept that the natural world is degenerate and doomed. Concepts like the long bend toward justice – very important in liberal thought – are mocked by Calvinists as “perpetual human improvement” and dismissed as heresy.

Did I mention that most American evangelicals self-identify as Calvinists? They specifically reject other schools of Christian thought, treating them as false doctrines. Of course, most evangelicals aren’t that nihilistic, either, but it is what they profess to believe and it certainly informs how they vote.

Ben’s gonna be disappointed when he reaches paradise and realizes, rather than being assigned 72 virgins, he is one of the 72 virgins assigned to someone else. And she ignores him for all of eternity.

This is disturbing: ” … the same position that rejects the sanctity of unborn life tends to reject the sanctity of private property … ”

It is abundantly clear that those worshipping the “sanctity of private property” regard “born” life as imminently, if not requisitely, disposable in the glorious crusade to acquire.

Atheists reject God. Rejecting God is hatred of God.

And our hatred of leprechauns burns brighter than a thousand suns.

I’m an atheist for simpler reasons: http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/279/atheism2.jpg

the religious society rests on two fundamental principles: personal responsibility and belief in responsibility to future generations.

You mean the future generations who are going to be suffocated by the global warming people like you deny exists?

This kid should think about growing a mustache or goatee. Or investing in photo-aging software. Why would anyone listen to a 12-year-old?

Nice to know that someone can articulate the way I think as an atheist. I have been having some trouble with my thoughts lately.
Thanks, Ben.

the religious society rests on two fundamental principles: personal responsibility and belief in responsibility to future generations.

You mean the future generations who are going to be suffocated by the global warming people like you deny exists?

NOT HIS FAULT.

This kid should think about growing a mustache or goatee.

Ben Shapiro with a neckbeard: instant credibility!

As an atheist, I find it equal parts frustrating and amusing when religious people try and fail to explain why I am an atheist and how I think and feel about anything.