The day of the election, Michael Voris of the Vortex/Church Militant posted a strange video. The grey/blonde junkyard rat he uses for a toupee is noticeably tousled, and his voice is mildly agitated. He starts off by thanking god that the GOP was going to stop the evil ones, so he seems to be confident that there is going to be a Republican sweep (with reservations: the forces of darkness…have complete control of one political party and partial control over the other
, and we lost the war over morality, so evident today in even the GOP, which just warmly embraces sodomy as marriage
— it’s a bit of a mixed message), but his real message is simple: if conservative Catholics don’t get their way, then violence is justified.
You may notice his message here is also confused. He keeps insisting that political action is the first resort and that violence is the very last resort, but hey, if you can’t ban abortion and gay marriage, then yeah, go for it, start busting heads.
Now we are in a pitched battle in the political arena—the last remaining line before all-out civil war. If you love peace and you don’t want to see violence, then you better get involved on the political front.
And let’s be clear about this for all the phony or delusional pacifists out there: Violence in and of itself is not immoral. It depends on the circumstances, and sometimes, even, it’s necessary: self defense, the subduing of an aggressor threatening the life of your family, the Son of God in the temple violently whipping the money changers.
Wait. One of his examples is not like the others. I can agree that violence in self-defense against violence is acceptable, but if you’re the Son of God you’re allowed to be violent against capitalists? Bring on the Communist Revolution then. Except that Voris hates Communists, and that’s exactly what the Democrats are
. Except also that I suspect what he really means to say is that whipping The Jews is just fine and dandy.
The idea that violence must always, at all times, always be avoided is not Catholic. Remember the Crusades? Sometimes violence must be unleashed to protect the innocent.
Wait again. The Crusades were about protecting the innocent? What I remember is that the Crusades were violent invasions of the Middle East justified by a welter of complex political and religious excuses that mainly ended up killing a lot of people to no good end. I interpret this to mean that violence is bad except when religious rationalizations allow you to unleash it. He’s kind of arbitrary in what he accepts as “protecting the innocent”.
But lethal violence—because of its drastic, you-can-never-come-back-from-it consequences—must never be the first resort. In fact, it must always be the last resort, and then not be allowed to turn into an orgy of dominance over the foe.
Nonetheless, violence does — must — always be an option. Welcome to a fallen world.
Violence is bad, mmm-kay, but it must always be an option. I’ll let you know when the option must be exercised. Stay tuned to the Vortex for the signal!
Remember, no orgies. Orgies are bad. The Church Militant only endorses strait-laced murders.
N.B. The anti-orgy rule does not apply to the Vatican.
That is terrorism at the least and it is illegal.
If Voris wasn’t locked into his fantasy world, the FBI/Homeland Security would be paying him a visit about now. He is probably on a wannabe terrorist list somewhere though.
Gott Mit Uns!
“…not be allowed to turn into an orgy of dominance over the foe.”
-And that is why Voris will never have a large following of Christian nationalists. Most of that lot would welcome a new inquisition. Voris would be regarded as a hopeless wimp.
.
Another religion of peace: God Awful Movies has just posted an entry mocking a film white-washing a famous rival to christianity.
God Awful Movies # 126 Muhammad The Last Prophet https://youtu.be/QgpXTi_Q2_4
The oogedy boogedy xians are in spin mode right now.
They were predicting (prophesying in god babble) that god had their backs in this election and the demons, satan, atheists, scientists, Democrats, and normal people were all going to lose.
Their god isn’t very powerful.
Or their god hates fundie xians.
Or maybe, their god doesn’t actually exist.
The idea that violence must always, at all times, always be avoided is not Catholic. Remember the Crusades? Sometimes violence must be unleashed to protect the innocent.
Yeah, we remember them. We just don’t remember what they actually accomplished, or who they actually “protected.”
I wonder if this crank is in touch with Dave Armstrong of Patheos Catholic. He was also kinda big on Crusader cosplay, at least when he needed it to distract attention from his Church’s appalling derelictions in the area of clergy sexual abuse.
We just don’t remember what they actually accomplished, or who they actually “protected.”
The rise to prominence of Venice and the transfer of many books of knowledge, putting in train the renaissance.
It’s odd to think of that as an unintended consequence. The catholics were really just about doing a big fund-raising grift to make jerusalem great again. Smash and slice and grab something nice!
Now Jesus don’t like killin’
No matter what the reason’s for,
And your flag decal won’t get you
Into Heaven anymore.
Thank you John Prine
Didn’t Jesus let himself be killed rather than resort to violence?
Somebody read Michael Voris Acts 4. God IS a communist and commands Christians be communists. See also Acts 2. And of course, the ever popular sell all you have and give to the poor. Which few Christians do. Since we will have to put up with Christian Nationalists of the GOP for the next few years, thanks to the GOP taking over the house, good atheists should read things like. Acts 4 and Matthew 6:5-6 (pray in private) and push for True Christianity.
One of the crusades was against other xians, the Orthodox church headquartered in Constantinople.
It helped weaken the Byzantine empire, which fell to the Muslims two centuries later.
Not personally no. A bit before my time – assuming he means the Crusades crusades not metaphorical ones..
Nor do I personally recall the Alamo, the sinking of the Lusitania or the Maine either being blown upor blowing itslef up in Cuba. But I’ve read bout those.
From all I’ve read and leanred the Crusdaes were a horrible blood-stained, miserable failure that killed a lot of people and achieved sod all of lasting vale withtheposisble exception of bringing some SouthWest Asian items and notions into the northern~ish peninsular part of Eurasia. Distilled down, they got a lot of people killed and created a lot of human misery for very little if any good reason and in retrospect the crusades were a very bad idea.
Like fighting slavery and nazis maybe? What level of violence? Whose idea of “innocent” exactly? Who gets to define those?
Jesus attacking the money-changers wasn’t self defence.
It also didn’t really work. But whilst onthat what do ya reckon that ancient Herodian kingdom philospher would make of modern day televangelists being kinda like thsuper-sized moneychangers and hypocrites as as self-proclaimed religious “authorities” – the exact sort of peopel the Biblical Jesus was most furious about and roused toviolecne by. Well that and Fig trees being Ficus plants but that’s another even weirder & less logical story.
As for people physically violently thretaening your family? Sure. If someone is violently threatening your family, ok, you have the right to self-defece. OTOH, who exactly is doing exactly that and how now?
Other families and other people just being themselves living their own lives and not doing you and your family a skerrick of harm or posing any threat to them? Well, that’s not a threat and doesn’t give youa right toself defence or todoanything at all to hurt them so .. yeah. Leave them, the F alone.
Fig it! Figging italics fail. Guess yáll can see where..
PS. Bein’Cap’n Obvs obvs.
Needless to say or is it? Obviousness seemingly being in the mind of the beholders and all.
What did the Crusades accomplish? Well, for one thing… A fair number of blonde, blue-eyed Lebanese.
#8 cheerfulcharlie
I can see it now. Folks holding up a sign at a football game: Matthew 6:5-6
(I find this idea immensely funny.)
Wait, wait. If he gets completely bald, he can change his name to Vorbis*.
*Fans of Terry Pratchett will get it.
@ whywhywhy :
I’ll admit I lookied that up :
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%206%3A5-6&version=NIV
recognised it as soon as Isaw it -and yes. Yes it would be.
The extent to which these Fn people igore the very things their dude said to do .. Yeesh.
@9. raven : yes – and then there was the genocidal Aligensian crusade :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensian_Crusade
Which, I guess, folks could argue was one of the more (horribly and sadistically and brutally) “successful” ones in achieving its proclaimed goals?
@7. stuffin : “Didn’t Jesus let himself be killed rather than resort to violence?”
Arguably, Jesus of Nazareth / Galilee arranged for his own murder / suicide / execution by Roman “cops” in order to sacrifice himself to himself so he could avoid being a sadistic eternal torturer to, well, everybody.
Beause Gawd can do anything but just decide NOT to torture people for all eternity after a historically long – but geologicallyand atsronomically vanishingly short – time ago a non-existent rib-produced woman convinced a non-existent dust-produced man to eat a particular fruit that gave “knowledge” ( of you being nude?) because a talking & then walking snake made a persausive case for her to do so. Ah, that all loving, all merciful, all powerful, three in one XN Gawd.. Details may vary somewhat based on specific mythology believed.
@9
There was also this one a bit further north.
Let’s not forget that the Crusades resulted in the Sack of Constantinople, where the valiant Xian warriors… murdered a city full of valiant Xian warriors. They just weren’t the right flavor of valiant Xians.
I’m sorry, but this is bugging the shit out of me. Let’s rewrite it without the distracting 2nd helper verb:
Yeah. Shut the fuck up you grammatical douchebag.
At the risk of being accused of oversimplifying, I posit that all that PZ wrote, all these comments and any careful objective observation of the ongoing violence in society today point out one basic fact:
— We Have Never Left the Dark Ages. — Humanity constantly resorts to violence and destruction to be the means to an always selfish end. I fear humanity in general is too arrogant to settle for honesty, caring and peaceful productivity.
Crusades? The RCC had to start five, count them, five official crusades to crush the Hussites. Not to mention the counter protestant reformation.
and the “conservatives” christian catholic or “other” are always trying to depict the left as radical for attacking and threatening all of their cherished believes, “privileges” and freedoms while it is they who are loudly advocating violence and working to silence by any means possible any who oppose them.
I am not going to watch that or read any of that crap but I would be surprised if there was not some reference to an inquisition being a good thing like a test for wokeness?
the crusades were a clear and shining example of gods love as expressed by christians.
How odd that the citizens of Iran and Afghanistan are desperate to defeat their madbrained theocrat rulers, while many mad-bra9ned American citizens are desperate to instal,a theocracy in their country.
Artor@19–
The Sack of Constantinople in the Fourth Crusade wasn’t driven by sectarianism (although it played a part). The crusaders intended to take Jerusalem on the pretext of allowing safe passage for Christian pilgrims, but realised they didn’t have enough money or fighters and decided to raise what they needed by visiting Constantinople to give military support to one of the scheming Byzantine princes. Well, they beseiged the city long enough for the prince to maneuvre himself into co-emperorship, but the prince was so unpopular that he lasted only a few months before being deposed by mass uprising in the city. The crusaders, at this point, were horrified that the payments and political favours promised by the co-emperor they had installed would not be forthcoming and so decided (and yes, this was a premeditated decision complete with meetings and directives from their Venetian patrons) to sack the city to settle their debts (i.e. the favours promised by their puppet emperor).
Yes, there was a bit of sectarianism in that the crusaders saw themselves as belonging to a different Christian tradition than Constantinople and there were serious tensions between the eastern and western churches long before this, but the sacking was mostly about money. And the compelling evidence of this is that only 2 years earlier this same crusading army had sacked the city of Zara — a city of Catholics, in order to raise funds for the crusade.
There is an excellent article on the use and abuse of John 2:13-15 as a justification for violence.
The reference to Jesus using a whip was almost certainly about him using a leather thong to drive the livestock from the temple courtyard. According to the article, the grammar of the original Greek text makes it extremely unlikely that he used the whip on people. And furthermore, the story makes no sense if you assume he whipped people.
The weirder his hairline gets, the more extreme Voris gets. His vanity is acute (and perhaps—relative to his draconian Catholicism—even sinful). His humility is nonexistent. His cocksure pride is astonishing. Bizarre traits in so “holy” an individual. I suspect his hairstyle is a Trumpian comb-forward, judging from those ragged bangs of his. He might think it’s not fake because the artifice involves his own hair, but fake is fake (unless, I guess, it’s for the greater glory of God).
True believers will always be dangerous, any atrocity is easily justified when eternal damnation or bliss is in the balance.