Greg Krehbiel's Crowhill Weblog - Content

Thoughts on life — News, culture, politics, beer, art, science, education, religion and ethics

Other Crowhill sites:
Crowhill PublishingGreg's Book Publishing blog
Greg's Marketing blogHome Brewing blog

Boycott Apple

by Greg Krehbiel on 1 April 2015

Conservatives need to learn to punch back. Twice as hard.

-- 7 comments  ::  What do you think?  ::  2015-04-01  ::  Greg Krehbiel

Interesting take on “sacred beliefs”

by Greg Krehbiel on 31 March 2015

This story (HT Instapundit) has an interesting definition of “sacred beliefs.”

“One way to define the difference between a regular belief and a sacred belief is that people who hold sacred beliefs think it is morally wrong for anyone to question those beliefs,” Dagny wrote. “If someone does question those beliefs, they’re not just being stupid or even depraved, they’re actively doing violence. They might as well be kicking a puppy. When people hold sacred beliefs, there is no disagreement without animosity.”

What’s particularly interesting to me about her take on “sacred beliefs” is that religion has nothing to do with it. Secularists hold “sacred beliefs” in the same way that religious people do. We’ve seen that on display in the last couple days.

Why is that relevant? Well, many secularists love to pretend that it’s only irrational religious people who hold to beliefs in that way. That bonehead Chris Mooney comes to mind, as do the rest of the “new atheists.”

They want to pretend that religion is a threat to civilized society because it uniquely engenders these sorts of beliefs. But secularists have “sacred values” as well, and as many writers have pointed out, plenty of horrific evil has been done by secular organizations.

You don’t have to think that your belief comes from God to hold to it fiercely, emotionally and irrationally.

It’s important to note that this view of “sacred beliefs” cuts against some common conservative arguments as well. Many conservatives will say that secularists have no basis for their beliefs. But aside from some abstract philosophical argument, what difference does that really make?

Who could possibly argue that the left-wing demogogues who have been screaming and stamping their feet about Indiana’s new law hold their views any less “sacred” than some bunch of Baptists? IOW, secularists are perfectly able to hold “sacred beliefs.”

-- 3 comments  ::  What do you think?  ::  2015-03-31  ::  Greg Krehbiel

States should pass RFRA laws today and push back against bullies like Connecticut

by Greg Krehbiel on 31 March 2015

It’s time for other states to join with Indiana and fight back against the hate, dishonesty and intolerance of the left.

States that don’t already have a RFRA law on the books should pass one immediately and tell the bullies on the left to go soak their heads.

States should also start taking “back atcha” actions against Connecticut and other bullies. If a state boycotts Indiana, boycott that state.

Here are three good articles about the issue.

Corporations Can’t Have Consciences, Unless They Oppose Mike Pence

Want Evidence of Hysterical Anti-Christian Bigotry? Look No Further than #BoycottIndiana

The New Intolerance: Indiana isn’t targeting gays. Liberals are targeting religion.

-- 6 comments  ::  What do you think?  ::  2015-03-31  ::  Greg Krehbiel

Kids don’t have many rights

by Greg Krehbiel on 30 March 2015

I haven’t looked into this very carefully, but I think I agree with the court’s decision that a school has the right to overrule the “free speech” rights of students.

Supreme Court rejects free speech appeal over Cinco de Mayo school dispute

The school has to be concerned about students’ safety, and if they have a reasonable basis for believing that a particular shirt is going to cause trouble, they can tell the kids not to wear it.

I’m not saying I agree with all the decisions involved here, only that the school’s interest in safety trumps the free speech of minors.

-- 13 comments  ::  What do you think?  ::  2015-03-30  ::  Greg Krehbiel

SSM: from tolerance to shakedown

by Greg Krehbiel on 30 March 2015

Here’s an interesting quote from this article about the relevance of the social and main-stream media hysteria regarding Indiana’s RFRA law.

The myth that religious liberty can meaningfully exist in any historic sense of the term alongside gay marriage has now been debunked. … You can’t have it both ways. [You can’t have] a world where religious liberty is protected while endorsing a jurisprudence that describes opposition to gay marriage as animus.

The article is written in that unfortunate “I’m trying be smart” style, but the point is essentially correct. It’s not that it’s theoretically impossible for the two to co-exist. It’s just practically impossible because of the way the modern left works.

We’ve moved from “we’re only trying to get equal rights” to “anyone who disagrees must be crushed.” We’re now in the shakedown / crackdown phase.

--  ::  What do you think?  ::  2015-03-30  ::  Greg Krehbiel

No, Governor, the PC version of tolerance is definitely a 1-way street

by Greg Krehbiel on 30 March 2015

Mike Pence: Is Tolerance a Two Way Street or Not?

If a florist has to provide flowers for a gay wedding, does a doctor have to perform an abortion, or assist someone’s suicide (if it’s legal in that state)?

One of the problems with debates about rights is that people think there’s some sort of bright line that can be drawn that protects everybody. That’s an illusion. Often when you give one thing your take away something else, and it’s a matter of finding an appropriate balance.

If we continue on the path the left is on, pretty soon we’ll be requiring pastors to perform same-sex marriages, or requiring churches not to discriminate against people who are divorced and remarried.

-- 3 comments  ::  What do you think?  ::  2015-03-30  ::  Greg Krehbiel

Modern comedy is Russian Roulette

by Greg Krehbiel on 30 March 2015

I saw a headline about a comedian who is in trouble because of a tasteless joke. It doesn’t matter who or why.

ISTM that the majority of jokes from most modern comedians are tasteless. It’s just that people put up with them — until they offend the wrong person or group, and then all of a sudden the comedian is a pariah.

It’s not as if there’s a clear, objective difference between the tasteless jokes that don’t get you in trouble and the tasteless jokes that do. It seems like a mine field, and eventually your career is going to blow up in your face.

-- 3 comments  ::  What do you think?  ::  2015-03-30  ::  Greg Krehbiel

Fiorina and O’Malley impressed me

by Greg Krehbiel on 29 March 2015

I heard them both on talk shows this morning and they both did better than I expected they would. O’Malley wasn’t as boring as I thought he’d be and Fiorina was quick on her feat and combative.

There may be an interesting primary season this time.

--  ::  What do you think?  ::  2015-03-29  ::  Greg Krehbiel

Interesting religious liberty debate

by Greg Krehbiel on 29 March 2015

With all the talk about the Indiana law on religious liberty, I thought I’d waste an hour or so this morning listening to a debate on religious liberty. I found this one, which is pretty interesting.

A few tidbits I found interesting.

The stats on “religiously unaffiliated” people are often mistakenly used to mean secular or atheist. At least half of those people pray daily. So while it’s certainly true that the percent of unbelievers is on the rise, you have to be careful about how people use the statistics.

Some people on the panel in this debate were saying that the only right we have is freedom of religious opinions, not “free exercise” of religion. It’s important to keep those straight.

On the question of public accommodation and forcing people to serve everybody (e.g., forcing a florist to serve a same-sex wedding), would we force convenience store owners to sell beer against their religious convictions? Would we force doctors to perform abortions, or help somebody die? It seems to me we’re not thinking this “public accommodation” thing all the way through.

About the debate, Ben Shapiro is very intelligent and makes a lot of good points, but he’s also pretty obnoxious.

-- 5 comments  ::  What do you think?  ::  2015-03-29  ::  Greg Krehbiel

Let there be peace on earth …

by Greg Krehbiel on 28 March 2015

A friend of mine frequently posts partisan political stuff on Facebook. Recently this friend posted, “Let there be peace on earth, and let it start with me.” A nice sentiment, of course, but to me it seemed to conflict with this person’s habit of posting partisan stuff.

I was very tempted to reply, “Then quit posting partisan political stuff.” But I didn’t, for many reasons.

One reason is that I also post partisan political stuff — although mostly here, and rarely on Facebook.

Another reason is that I suspect that this person thought that the political stuff this person was posting would actually encourage peace. It’s common for people to believe that the path to peace is for everybody else to be reasonable, which means, of course, that everyone else agrees with them, since they are eminently reasonable. So posting partisan political stuff will lead to the peaceful future where everybody holds to the same partisan view of the world.

Where does this kind of confusion come from, and what is the remedy?

--  ::  What do you think?  ::  2015-03-28  ::  Greg Krehbiel

2015-03-27 :: Greg Krehbiel // General
Impeach him if he signs the deal
2015-03-26 :: Greg Krehbiel // General
Those dirty dogs
2015-03-24 :: Greg Krehbiel // General
Not the internet’s policeman?
2015-03-24 :: Greg Krehbiel // General
Don’t underestimate Cruz
2015-03-23 :: Greg Krehbiel // General
Obama’s radical agenda re: Iran