JK Rowling and the Biblically Iliterate Bible Quotation

The biblically illiterate author of the Harry Potter series, a woman with no experience in foreign policy or the United States government and constitutional law, recently decided to talk about US immigration policy by using Bible quotes:


This was in response to a tweet from Mike Pence a couple of years ago:


As Matt Walsh has already put it, brilliantly, anyone who pretends that Trump’s immigration orders were bans on Muslims is a shameless liar. Even if you disagree with the order, that’s not what it is or what it does.

Rowling’s own post, despite making other biblically illiterate liberals happy (by supposedly bashing Pence with his own religion), is so out of context as to be laughable. Here’s the full context, out of Matthew 16:

… Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.

Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. “Never, Lord!” he said. “This shall never happen to you!”

Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.”

Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me will find it. What good will it be for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul? For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what they have done.

“Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”

Rowling apparently thinks the phrase “gain the whole world” is referring to anything she finds distasteful. This is a common liberal mistake when reading Scripture called eisegesis. The text always means whatever they want it to mean, context be damned.

Of course, the context is the whole point. Jesus isn’t telling His disciples that if they don’t share JK Rowling’s view on a short pause on mass immigration to the United States from a small handful of nations which generate 99.999% of the world’s terrorists that they are trading their soul’s for the whole world. It sounds pretty bizarre when it’s laid out so starkly.

Rowling wasn’t the only one on Twitter who was excited as could be to demonstrate her illiteracy:


Leviticus, for those who have ever studied it, is a book of law written by Moses under God’s direction for the nation of Israel. This fact often eludes those who want to ignore it’s moral precepts and jump all over it’s specific legal statements (as those in the “God approves of same-sex sexual acts” debate often do).

But the verse itself provides enough context to know that the person who posted it is a dishonest hack. United States citizens were not foreigners in Egypt. The immigration pause from a small set of countries is not mistreating or oppressing foreigners living in the United States.

The context of the verse within the verse itself is enough to reveal that it is not being used properly. As Matt Walsh said, these people are shameless liars.


There’s No Such Thing as Free

This image has been popping up on social media frequently the past few days. I thought I’d critique the hell out of it, because its content is as foul as the language it uses:


Let’s take this emotional-tirade-pretending-to-be-an-argument one falsehood at a time so as not to cause ourselves permanent brain damage.

What .. is wrong with Americans who aren’t on board with free healthcare.

  1. You’ve already committed the fallacy of equivocation.
  2. There is no such thing as free healthcare.
  3. Presuming you are actually referring to a system where the government taxes its citizens and pays hospitals directly or funds universal health insurance, there are economic, moral, and practical reasons to oppose.

I’m Canadian and I don’t care that I pay extra taxes…

  1. Is this an argument?
  2. Why do your preferences constitute objective moral law for everyone?
  3. You probably don’t pay taxes in the first place. If you did, you’d probably care.

… so a little boy in Alberta can have open heart surgery or an elderly man in Nova Scotia can get the heart medication he desperately needs.

  1. This is sentimentalism, which is not an argument. Feelings do not constitute an argument.
  2. I bet heart surgery is covered by private insurance. So is heart medication.
  3. Government subsidized college in the US has increased in cost by magnitudes in only a couple decades. Do you suppose medical costs might parallel this? Do you simply not care about these implications, or have you never taken a course in basic economics?
  4. Even if it is noble for these people to receive money to cover their needs, why is it noble to take that money from people by a government backed by military force? Charity is one thing. Taking money by force and redistributing it is not charity.
  5. Do you donate money to such causes?
  6. Are you aware that scarcity exists whether the state pays for something or not? A market can easily get goods and services to where they are needed most by price increases and decreases. Your system devolves into rationing to people the government picks. They probably won’t pick that elderly guy in Nova Scotia.

It’s called taking care of people.

  1. It’s called socialized medicine. Whether it more effectively “cares for people” than a free market is a dubious claim.
  2. Your tax dollars being whisked away by an unseen government, put into a giant pot, and then that same government spending money on drugs or surgery is not “care” any more than a machine “cares” when you press buttons on it and it makes you coffee.

I’m glad I pay so that people can have a good quality of life.

  1. You probably don’t pay. I suspect you are a leech on the system. What you mean to say is that it makes you feel good that other people are forced to pay because you vote for liberals to take their money.
  2. Did people not have good quality of life before bleeding edge medicine? If not, how can you make bleeding edge medicine a prerequisite for good quality of life?
  3. Are you sure the system increases quality of life in the first place? Are you sure everyone’s quality of life might not be enhanced without government theft?

It’s called being a decent *** human being.

  1. It’s called socialized medicine.
  2. Your childish moral superiority complex does not constitute an objective moral standard by which you can bash everyone else.
  3. People who oppose socialized medicine have good reasons for it. You don’t have good reasons to ignore them.
  4. You’ve equated being a decent human being with being a socialist. Are you sure you want to do that? Are you really really sure? Because I can think of some people you might not consider decent who were socialist demagogues and who maybe, just maybe, murdered hundreds of millions of people. It was for a good cause, though.
  5. You are a pompous ass, not a decent human being.

The most irritating thing about all of this that you know the woman who wrote it is convinced she is better than you because she votes to take away people’s money to give to others. She’s never thought about any potential flaws in the system (rationing, cost increases, inefficiencies causing death because of no market corrections to fix them). But it doesn’t matter.

On second thought, the most irritating thing about it all is that her vote is equal to the vote of an economic scholar.

We Need More Guns

I have a terrible habit of reading the comment sections of local news sites, looking for opportunities to have my intelligence or conscience insulted. Today, I indulged the habit once more.

The article was about the recent attempt of a homicidal maniac to shoot a bunch of civilians for the fun of it. The particular event isn’t important, because what caught my attention in the dreary comment section was a shot of sarcasm: “The answer is definitely more guns.” I think he’s right and his sarcasm was misplaced.

Think back to the last few years’ worth of psychotic mass shooters (or anyone who has attempted to become one but failed). Get a clear picture in your mind of the sorts of people we are dealing with. Every single one of them is either demonically evil, clinically insane, or drugged up to resemble one of those two things. Some are a combination of all three.

Gun control laws follow a basic form: You are not allowed to use possess certain firearms in certain locations. Most would not have a hard time with this, even if it is frustrating or inconvenient. But what sort of people would have a hard time with it? What sort of people would ignore it? The people who commit the crimes that motivate the laws in the first place.

An average person isn’t going to break the law intentionally. But the average homicidal maniac isn’t concerned with laws. If he were, he wouldn’t be a homicidal maniac.

It’s could be worded as a syllogism. Gun restrictions would only effectively protect people from firearms if the people who would follow such restrictions are the same people who would harm others with firearms. But the people who would harm others with firearms don’t follow even fundamental moral laws like “Do not murder”, so they certainly won’t follow gun restrictions. Therefore, gun restrictions are not effective.

Taking a Joke

I’m reading through a book on philosophy at the moment and the male author of the book does not hesitate from making jokes at the expense of men in general. This is all well and good. Being able to make fun of yourself is a big part of levity; of not taking yourself too seriously.

Western women, in general, don’t have this sort of levity. Feminists in particular seem to have none of it. They are gravely serious when the topic is themselves. While men frequently use self-deprecating humor to lighten a mood, feminists affirm what they say and then talk themselves up.

I’ve seen a man say “women must be better than men, because they have to put up with us!” only to have a woman respond with “that’s right we are, and don’t you forget it!” or something similar. While there may be some cases where both sides understand the humor and don’t take what they are saying with any seriousness, these cases are rare. It is far more likely that this sort of exchange results in awkward silence.

If you don’t think this phenomenon takes place, you may want to pay more attention.

Feminism hasn’t simply drained the joy out of marriage and motherhood by sterilizing both and making husbands and children into burdens. It has literally drained the joy out of being a woman because it has made levity impossible. Feminism has made it an act of betrayal for a woman to not take herself with grave seriousness. The effect isn’t women who need to be taken seriously, but women who are too serious altogether. Do feminists believe women aren’t capable of anything else? More likely, feminists are afraid their fraud would be exposed.

The best way to handle the grave seriousness of feminism is for women to use self-deprecating humor.

Politically Correct Infestations

With greater frequency every year, LGBT “alliance” groups are popping up in high schools across the US. They already exist in most companies and on virtually every college campus, but the target audience of these groups seems to be younger all the time.

What are these groups? The ‘LGB’ portion of the acronym at least has some sort of cohesion to it: All three indicate groups of people who desire intimacy and pleasure from others of the same sex. It’s a strange thing to unite about; a strange thing to want to “ally” with.

The ‘T’ is even more strange. What was, until very recently, a letter representing “transvestites” (people who dress like the opposite sex) has morphed into “transgender” (an ambiguous term without any agreed upon content). Just as the president redefined the terms “sex” in Title IX to mean something which simply did not exist as a concept when the law was written, LGBT proponents have silently updated the content of their terminology over time. This should give us pause when considering the intentions of these groups. If the very essence of these “alliances” changes so violently over such short periods of time, do these groups have a purpose?

Alliances are typically made for mutual defense. Giving away more ground than is deserved, the same could be said for the early LGBT movement. The original purpose was this: those who are attracted to the same sex or who want to dress like the opposite sex should not be treated as criminal. On this point, many people may agree¹.

However, we don’t have that sort of situation anymore. Sodomy is no longer illegal. It is extremely rare for a person to be attacked for their sexual proclivities or their desire to wear the clothes of the opposite sex (on the contrary, such things are celebrated by popular culture, in magazines, in film and television, by the president of the United States, and by academia. Such fanfare is hardly associated with “marginalized” groups).

So what purpose do these groups serve?

In virtually every case, each LGBT “alliance” group is focused on one thing: removing any dissenting views. This is easy to do, given that dissenting views, when found, can be cast as hate-speech and prosecuted as though such speech is criminal. LGBT “alliance” groups are in this way a lot like parasites which infect a host organization and which then systematically target anyone who might be a perceived threat. These groups use “alliance” in a militant and violent way, seeking conquest instead of toleration and peace.

This makes it more important than ever for Christians, conservatives, and sane individuals of varied beliefs to unite against them. LGBT alliance groups must be opposed at all costs. Like their forebears in the Marxist Frankfurt School which infiltrated academia last century, they cannot be tolerated as another voice, and it must be always remembered that their purpose is not to seek justice, fairness, and tolerance but to drive out all dissenting voices with extreme prejudice.

I don’t know how practical this purging would be, and it need not be violent or malevolent, but it must be done swiftly and completely. If not, the same thing will be done in reverse, as has happened at Mozilla, among other companies.

1 – I disagree, even on this point. There are very good reasons to outlaw same-sex behavior and cross dressing, and this would result in being “treated badly” by way of being arrested. Among these reasons are: public order, public health, safety of children, and enforcement of a basic moral code based on human nature. On this final reason, it should be noted that while I would need to justify my view of morality, even laws that permit the behaviors in question are making moral statements. A law that permits or is silent on an issue is making a moral claim, and that moral claim must be justified as well.

I find it sad that so often, Christians are as cautious about saying things that might offend or hurt others engaged in serious sexual sin as a soldier might be on a minefield. This caution is not afforded to any other vice, however (husbands leaving their wives, etc).

It’s the Current Year (2017)

I’ve never posted to this blog consistently, but I’d like to. With 2017 and a new schedule, I have the opportunity to fix this problem. My aim is to post daily by the end of the year on a variety of topics related to ethics, human nature, philosophy, and religion. We’ll see how it goes.

Character Requires Moral Absolutes

MTV, a former music video channel, recently posted a video of “White Guy Resolutions 2017”. Condescension, racism, sexism, virtue signalling, and the rest of the garbage it contained aside, there was a single line which struck me as being written with so little self-awareness that I can’t help but think the writers and actors spoke the words without having them enter their minds.

“Be better!” is spoken several times throughout the video. This is ironic, because the people speaking it are presumably moral relativists. That seems to be the rigidly enforced moral framework of the “progressive” left. But how can one “be better” in a morally relativistic system?

The cultivation of character is a lifelong process. A man or woman must spend time fighting urges to do evil and lazily avoiding what is good. But if morality is relative and we should just “be ourselves”, as the progressive left is fond of telling those who have objectively disordered attractions to the same sex (for instance), then there can be no cultivation of character. Everyone has already arrived at moral perfection; everyone is already good just the way that they are.

Moral relativity is unlivable, so it makes sense that MTV’s paid actors would say “be better!” in reference to those things they think are actual moral evils. What’s fascinating is that these same people never question their lists of vices or apply their own criticisms inward. But maybe that’s asking too much. Who would MTV hire if not hypocrites?