You're making a fatal error. Harrison is a conservative. He's not as evolved an individual as say.. a progressive human is. Recall maslov's hierarchy of needs? It's the same with moral reasoning and thinking. Think of how toddlers are very black and white thinkers who are very rule bound. For them, goodness is following the rules no matter how immoral those rules might be. That's where Harrison's human level is. Toddlers. when you get older, you start seeing the grey and you start abstracting the rules. This is why we are okay with the beggar who steals a loaf of bread but we are not okay with the billionaire who steals that same loaf of bread. Then, at some point, we start realizing that morals are flexible and abstract ideas to create a stable society. This is why older cultures regarded slavery as amoral. It was just devoid of any moral thinking because they just accepted it as it is what it is. But then, if you look at US slavery, you see excuses justifying slavery. Already, they're grappling with how to trick the progressive human into tolerating their barbarism so they'll invoke the Bible or even science to say "this is the reason I get to own black people". And progressive is only progressive in terms of that particular point of culture and time. A progressive Egyptian from 300 BCE would be hopelessly outdated for 2024. Harrison is on that level. I've yet to meet a conservative (granted I haven't met every conservative) who shows any capacity for moral reasoning above the toddler stage. It's all "the ten commandments told me so" or "the pope said so" or 'god said so" or "the law says it's so" rather than kind of moral reasoning that a higher level human would use that can differentiate between a beggar and a billionaire stealing a loaf of bread.
@@user-nz9pv1zx2d The only thing I disagreed with was the part where he said men set the tone for the culture. Both men and women do. Other than that, he was spot on. His message was specifically for a Catholic audience, which gave him a standing ovation, btw.
I’m a Catholic, and I’m gay. I’m sorry, but I find your comments repugnant. Whether it be self loathing, I don’t know and I don’t care. I’ve been out 0:08 since the 70s and and scratching our way to some sort of equality. I have no doubt you were probably in the closet. And now reaping the benefits of that. Shame on you. 0:08
OMGs thank you so much for this thorough and incisive rebuttal of Butker's hateful rhetoric. I'm sure he's totally blind to the irony of his calling out LGBTQ+ folks as expressing "sinful" Biblical "pride" in light of his own arrogant and judgmental attitudes.
Thank you so much for this amazing response to this ignorant and hate filled speech. As someone who has dealt with this issue for a very long time, your comments actually made me tear up. Please keep up with your excellent videos. Again, thank you.
Dan, thank you for this. “Pride” was chosen purposively, because what gays and lesbians had been told to feel up to that point was shame. Pride, not shame.
I can't help but feel they missed the mark slightly when they choose the word "pride". It's already a fairly loaded word (being one of the seven deadly sins - even if it is a different form of the word). The opposite of shame would be empathy or compassion. Gay Empathy month? Sounds a lot less loaded than Gay Pride month. Choosing "pride" instead opens it up to remarks like Butker's (even if he is PLAINLY conflating two different things).
@@SlimThrull , fair, but what was needed, also, was a word and an idea around which people would rally. Remember that “Pride” was a March to demonstrate solidarity and visibility for years before it became a parade and a celebration. It would have been difficult to get a march for compassion or empathy going.
@@Nymaz An even bigger irony: kneeling for the National Anthem is _not_ against any part of the U.S. Flag Code (United States Code Title 4 chapter 1). It _is_ a violation of the _Anthem_ Code (36 USC §301), but that’s much lesser, and no part of that defines any _criminal_ act punishable by fine and/or imprisonment. You know what _does_ violate the Flag Code? *• §8* (Respect for Flag) *sub-§ (c):* “The Flag should never be carried flat or horizontally, but always aloft and free.” So much for those huge flags being carried down football fields by a marching group in the opening ceremonies of a game. So many more I could list from that § alone, but let’s back up to the only § that _does_ define _actual criminal acts,_ imposing _real criminal penalties_ including fine and/or imprisonment: *• §3 Use of flag for advertising purposes, mutllation of flag:* “Any person who, within the District of Columbia, in any manner, for exhibition or display, shall place or cause to be placed any word, figure, mark, picture, design, drawing, or any advertisement of any nature upon any flag, standard, colors, or ensign of the United States of America; or shall expose or cause to be exposed to public view any such flag, standard, colors, or ensign upon which shall have been printed, painted, or otherwise placed, or to which shall be attached, appended, affixed, or annexed any word, figure, mark, picture, design, or drawing, or any advertisement of any nature; or who, within the District of Columbia, shall manufacture, sell, expose for sale, or to public view, or give away or have in possession for sale, or to be given away or for use for any purpose, any article or substance being an article of merchandise, or a receptacle for merchandise or article or thing for carrying or transporting merchandise, upon which shall have been printed, painted, attached, or otherwise placed a representation of any such flag, standard, colors, or ensign, to advertise, call attention to, decorate, mark, or distinguish the article or substance on which so placed shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punished by a fine not exceeding $100 or by imprisonment for not more than thirty days, or both, in the discretion of the court. The words ‘flag, standard, colors, or ensign’, as used herein, shall include any flag, standard, colors, ensign, or any picture or representation of either, or of any part or parts of either, made of any substance or represented on any substance, of any size evidently purporting to be either of said flag, standard, colors, or ensign of the United States of America or a picture or a representation of either, upon which shall be shown the colors, the stars and the stripes, in any number of either thereof, or of any part or parts of either, by which the average person seeing the same without deliberation may believe the same to represent the flag, colors, standard, or ensign of the United States of America.” In 1947 when that was added, $100 was quite a bit of money. Now think of all the “Blue Lives Matter” and similarly altered U.S. flags you’ve seen. Or those with “TRUMP 2024” or even №PO1135809’s face emblazoned on them that were flown at his DC rallies including the January 6 rally and insurrection. Because of the 10ᵗʰ Amendment, this § can’t impose penalties within a State, so it _only_ applies to DC, but guess where the insurrection happened? Heck, there’s a GOP _Congressman_ who proudly has a “Blue Lives Matter” flag in (or just outside) his _Congressional office!_ Guess where _that_ is?
It is definitely unconstitutional, but Judge Napolitano of all people shouldn't think that means it won't survive as he recognizes a great many laws that remain on the books as being unconstitutional.
It's true. As despicable as antisemitism is, this law is a plain content based restriction on speech, which clearly violates well established 1A law. There's no way this withstands strict scrutiny.
This is part of the reason why America is a morally corrupt place. None of our lawmakers care about whether something is the just thing to do, they only care whether it matches up with what a bunch of slave owning blowhards wanted 200 years ago
You have such a great command of the English language. I am always so amazed with each video. It seems so crazy to me how far the right has walked to be religious zealots. Passing a crazy law like HB 6090 in the House. Such a waste of tax payer money and time.
Harrison is what I call a "Rad Trad Chad." I unfortunately heard this kind of rhetoric from Catholic speakers as far back as over 10 years ago. However, I also know that he does not speak for all Catholics, myself included. Mea culpa maxima.
His position isn't even Catholic, it's just the "Rad Trads". If all women are forced to motherhood, then the nunneries will be depleted, consecrated vrgins can no longer exist, all female saints who never had children are revoked as they are "bad examples", and women can no longer support the church through their own work like the women who funded Jesus' ministry. And when Rad Trads are against educated women, then they are against St. Teresa Benedicta of the Cross. She had a PhD in philosophy and never married (she was a martyr at 50 years old). She wrote: "To cherish, guard, protect, nourish and advance growth is her [a woman's] natural, maternal yearning" but she also states that this does not mean biological children. She also wrote: "Each woman who lives in the light of eternity can fulfill her vocation, no matter if it is in marriage, in a religious order, or in a worldly profession". I would love for these Rad Trads to say that a saint was wrong, ESPECIALLY a patron saint of Europe, because that is a heresy.
I just call them christofascists. I used to make a point to distinguish between dominionists and trad caths and the like. But there are too many of these little sub groups for me to bother anymore. Two to three years ago when a lot of the secular fascists decided to start aligning themselves with various orthodox christian groups I just threw in the towel. They're all just fascists with a christian aesthetic.
while its reductive, i tend to view my fellow catholics as either following the traditions of pope francis, with love and inclusion, or cardinal raymond burke, for hate filled bigotry and cruelty. im thinking he is a fan of burke. im more of pope francis.
@@ryanweible9090 lol. How can you people remain catholic? After knowing what the "house christ" has really been up to for forever? This institution stole children for decades. What kind of god would allow this, in his own house? The kind that doesn't exist. Obviously.
Unfortunately, it's the loudest voices in any group that become the face of the group, especially if those voices spew vitriol or incite anger or hate. The funniest (in all senses) part is that when they are called out on their rhetoric, they then play the victim.
You ever see that podcast Charlie Kirk did where he started going on and on about Swift and "breeding". These dudes are deranged. And then they'll turn around and claim they aren't interested in controlling women.
I and many others would love for you to create Parts 2, 3, 4, 5, etc., to dissect the rest of Harrison's hate-filled speech. Thank you for your important work.
This is the type of rhetoric employed in many sermons. It’s why i can’t stand them. It’s a type of pseudo-intellectual red meat usually wrapped in word abuse, to create entertaining rhetorical flourishes, rather than communicating direct spiritual messages.
I wonder if "Rad Trad Chad" there understands the irony in his myopic Christian attack on the supposed deviance of the "other" while forgetting the similar position that early Christians were in under the Romans.
@@Nick-o-time Yes. And she was the ONLY vote against the war in Afghanistan because she recognized that it granted far more war-making powers to the President than necessary to complete any reasonable response to 9/11.
@@Nick-o-time I mean, Crime Bill Biden. Kamala isn't a weird choice by that metric. And even still the way she acts in most interviews makes you think they've got a sniper trained on her in case she ever shows even the least hint of personality. I can't believe these are our options...
My Dad was very gleeful when Fox News (also gleefully!) reported how Bud Light's sales dropped after they hired a transgender spokesperson. I wonder how they're reporting this one.
I struggle to understand why people who consider themselves Christian, act in ways which their saviour would, I'm sure, condemn. Prejudice & hatred, using religious terminology alongside violent rhetoric and trying to justify their own arrogant sense of superiority by claiming they are closer to God than the rsst of us and know his mind, strikes me as the epitome of taking the Lord's name in vain. But what do I know? I'm just an athiest who values facts and truth above belief, faith and blind obedience. Maybe their god and Jesus are also reprehensible tyrants.
@@BrentJohnson-ki7jy I appreciate you taking time to respond. I think everyone should have the right to believe whatever they feel is best but I do object to those who weaponise their religion. Thankfully, they remain a minority. It is my view that anyone who says, "I believe X to be true" should be left alone and campaigners for truth and facts, like me, should focus on those who say, "I know X to be true". May your god go with you.
@@theoutspokenhumanist and, I will stand beside you against those who weaponize their faith and demonize others. I wish you all the best in your pursuit of the truth. I’m sure I would learn something of lasting value from you.
It drives me a little crazy when Christians use the word Truth like they have a monopoly on it, especially considering that from any reasonable and rational/reality based observations, based on everything we see around us they are talking about things that are demonstrably untrue. They have to use Faith to justify what they call truth. The truth is none of us has seen Jesus get up from the grave. The truth is if anyone came to you and said that god just spoke to them as a human speaks to another even Christian’s would think they had lost their mind. The truth is that while the rest of us are trying to just exist they are the ones doing the persecuting and any push back that we put up against them, even if it’s just to say I don’t give a 💩 what you think god wants I just want to be who I am, they call that persecution. Us not allowing them to dictate how we live our lives, which is our right as human beings as well as Americans isn’t persecution. They are the ones judging and as far as I remember their own creed says that only god can do that. That’s the truth.
And growing up rich. He has no idea what the average guy goes through to make a living. Imagine, a millionaire who makes his money kicking a ball, coming down on others. The Benedictine nuns immediately said that this was not what they believe.
Can someone explain why a speech about a specific bill being considered by either chamber of the US congress doesnt constitute grounds for denying this church tax exemption?
I wish you had mentioned the motherhood part where he claimed all the graduating women in the audience were lied to and their calling is reproduction--not the workforce. It's not even Biblical either, considering women funded Jesus' early ministry and there are several Biblical female figures who worked while having children or who did not have children at all. And to specifically call out his supposed Catholic beliefs, St. Teresa Benedicta of the Cross had a PhD and wrote about how women who work are just as legitimate in the eyes of God as those who are mothers to children. St. John Paul II said this in a speech: "Thank you, women who work! You are present and active in every area of life-social, economic, cultural, artistic and political. In this way you make an indispensable contribution to the growth of a culture which unites reason and feeling, to a model of life ever open to the sense of "mystery", to the establishment of economic and political structures ever more worthy of humanity."
It's ignorant but definitely intentional. This was a prepared speech and he's given a speech like it in the past. He knows his rhetoric is hateful but doesn't care
People who self identified as catholic on the right side of the political spectrum have been at or very near the center of every fascist movement in Europe and the Americas in the 20th and 21st centuries. Juat saying.
Arguably fascism is just far-right political Catholicism married to state-governed capitalism. The German variation incorporated some additional ethnonationalist folklore tied up with some of the neo-Paganism ideals in circulation at the time, and other contemporary non-European reactionary movements brought in their own culturally informed variations of same (e.g. Japan and "State Shinto").
It was a catholic think tank that engineered the takeover of SCOTUS by the conservatives. I was following catholic fascist groups for years. Evangelical types had their fash groups but they were fairly small in terms of efficacy until the whole Trump phenomenon. Now many people associate christofascism with evangelicalism when the catholics have had that on lock, and been more effective behind the scenes, for decades. I guess the silver lining is that the evangelicals doing the whole christofascism thing louder and stupider than the catholics is that a lot more eyeballs are on "christian nationalism" than previously.
I deeply appreciate your response to Butkers speech. I have seen other channels refute him as well. I think, however, that you are being too gentle in calling his statements falsehoods. Let's call a spade a spade and denounce his blatant lies.
@@julianwilliams9088 Yeah he's currently one of the best kickers in the NFL. His team, the Chiefs, have won the Superbowl in 2020, 2023, and 2024, so they're inarguably the best team in the league at the moment. It's too bad he's using his platform to be queerphobic and misogynistic rather than spreading love and compassion
The main thing I have taken away from your videos is that religious texts can be manipulated to be for or against any subject. And doesn’t that make them absolutely useless?
It's quite worrisome when so many people don't hesitate to be dangerously incorrect as long as they accomplish a particular goal-- causing unnecessary outrage-- satisfactorily. I believe that correctness is obviously a good thing and much preferable to incorrectness. I sometimes am completely bewildered at how elementary our failure is. I suppose it's all about egotism, and fear, both of which are saturation us.
Yikes. Reminds me of those SNL skits where the guest commenter rattles on about a misunderstood problem then comes the intervention followed by "never mind."
i wouldn't call it conflation as much as a full-on inversion. he's explicitly saying that indignant, haughty behaviour is - as long as it comes from a "Christian" position - is actually a good thing whereas self-respect is bad. i do agree though in the sense that he is (probably very consciously and craftily) playing with an existing conflation. people probably do think that when queer people celebrate pride it's meant as being superior, bc whenever they themselves invoke pride it is specifically a means to elevate themselves over others. it's probably a craving they cannot seem to satisfy otherwise bc they don't genuinely feel loved and don't genuinely feel like their identity is giving them that bliss.. it keeps promising and shaming them if they don't feel like they belong so they try harder and in doing so become harder in there heart.
The problem I have with people who talk about God's purpose for people, is how do *they* know what that purpose is? The same people go on about God's Plan, as if they have access to it, but when they can't explain something that has happened, particularly something bad, they shrug it off as part of God's Plan. Yet they deem themselves fit to tell other people what that plan is for those people.
And certain types of Christians are so toxic one has to wonder if the ancient Christians were the same, would the lions have died from food poisoning? 🤔
Dan, would you be able to go more into other aspects of his speech? It amazes me that he sites the Holy Ghost multiple times in his speech, but the overall tone of his speech lacks any fruit of the spirit in my opinion.
I've never understood the whole "Jews killed Jesus" thing. According to Christianity, God came to earth in human form for the explicit purpose of being killed according to a plan he devised. If it were the Jews or the Romans who did the deed, it shouldn't really matter because they're just pawns in a design they had no input on
It was political. The early Christians, by and large, did not participate in the failed Revolts in Judea against Roman occupation, and this irreparably divided the two communities, as the Christians sought to distance themselves from the Jews to avoid Roman reprisals. E.g. I think Bart Ehrman has argued that the Gospel of Mark, the earliest of the four, and probably written just before or during the First Revolt in Judea shows Pilate and the Jewish authorities in agreement over the need to crucify Jesus, while the later gospels make Pilate more reluctant, practically bullied into the deed by the Jewish mob in John's Gospel. This served to absolve the Roman authorities of Jesus' death while shifting more of the blame to not only the Sanhedrin or other Jewish authorities but the Jewish people as a whole. Later, this evolves into theology.
@@digitaljanus I understand the purely political motivations, but I don't understand the underlying logic or why others would think it is a compelling argument. Also it makes no sense to blame an entire ethnicity for the acts of a few--acts that Christians are glad happened in the first place. It's frustratingly unsatisfying to me--I can't work out how any of it makes rational sense: Jesus was destined to die, Jews were destined to have him killed, the death was necessary so he could absolve people of their sins, Christians are happy about the sacrifice, but they're also mad at the Jews for killing Jesus. It makes no sense.
@@digitaljanus I have a hard time buying that first bit. The Jesus follower group was teeny tiny by all accounts. They were also a fringe cult with some weird ideas. I have a hard time imagining anybody in any of the mainstream groups cared much at all about what maybe a couple dozen people were doing. Frankly I'd be amazed if anybody important even knew the group existed. Paul's whole thing was evangelizing outside the Levant to gentiles, hardly the sorts one would ever hold to an expectation of participation in a revolt. I do think something happened between Mark and Matthew that drove the author of Matthew to take a more antagonistic stance towards the Pharisees. But I suspect it had more to do with the post war development where Rome was supporting the Pharisees in their efforts to realign cultic practice away from the temple. Like, it's strange that Matthew is both "Deuteronomizing" but at the same time becoming more antagonistic towards mainstream Israelites. It seems to me that whatever was going on, this thread of anti-Pharisee sentiment ballooned into a full on anti-Israelite sentiment over time. My guess is that the christ follower groups lost their connections to Israelite culture as their groups either dissolved or grew in number with almost exclusively non-Israelite people. All they knew was "Pharisees bad" and "Jesus good" and eventually all of that got mixed up into both a blatant confusion about the point of the whole Jesus story as well as a vile bigotry towards jews. Though I really need to learn more about Roman involvement with the Pharisees post war. I'm still hunting for a good book on the subject. There are some older books out there but I'm really hoping to find something more modern. A lot of older scholarship is pretty sus. Operating on some, by today's standards, pretty wild and baseless assumptions.
Because the Biblical narrative, such as it is, is one of exclusion. Hate is debatable. The Israelites are Bible god's chosen people. But what does that mean for everyone else? Jesus died for your sins and you can have his salvation so long as you accept him into your heart. But what does that mean for all the people who never will or don't want to? The Bible is many things. One thing you cannot say about it is that it is a particularly inclusive book. It's pretty blatant in its many efforts to draw in-group/out-group boundaries. A person taking that boundary making at face value is reasonably going to arrive at some pretty unacceptable conclusions, by modern standards. Modern standards are informed by things like post-Enlightenment philosophical frameworks. We today largely reject the messages of the Bible, we renegotiate their meaning, to borrow a phrase from Dan. If a group decides to reject those post-Enlightenment values in favor of closer adherence to the ideas in the Bible, then they are going to arrive at conclusions similar if not identical to Mr. Butker's. With the caveat that they too are imposing modern values onto the text, they are renegotiating meaning too. They just arrive at a meaning that happens to align with the exclusivity laid out by the Bible's authors.
- What are your thoughts on the latest video clip of Jordan Peterson saying he doesn't believe that lesbians exist (I don't believe in Lesbians was his exact wording)? I thought it was a joke (seriously), but it was true. That's a bizarre thing to say, I think.
I imagine his argument was probably something more akin to a bad faith attempt to reframe "lesbianism" as being inpossible since women technically cannot have sex with each other by some arbitrary metric that he introduces within that same argument.
JP conceives of sex the same way the Biblical authors' culture did: a social hierarchy of social superiors penetrating their social inferiors. Since this framework is largely unaccommodating to lesbian sex, no part of the Bible technically acknowledges lesbian sex as a possibility, ergo neither does JP. Which is to say: Completely Ridiculous!
As someone who considers christian zionism anti semitic what would you consider the zionist pastor who said jewish people are better and we need to accept it?
With the exception of the folks making videos with an agenda for either side of the gay pride issue(s), i think most people simply don't care to be honest about what you do in your private life or who you do it with. I know i don't. But there will always be children to stir the pot in God's family I suppose.
Is a weekend away from the hubub of the living world really a "sacrifice" anyway? And if it supposedly "paid for sins", why would it still be possible to sin? And who decided what sin is anyway? Oh, right, the guys sacrificing himself to himself as per his own system of crime and punishment in order to "save" people from what he will do to them when they inevitably do something he decided would be a "sin." You know, instead of just forgiving people in the first place.
While I disagree with the deeply flawed bill, and while his characterization of it is certainly wrong, I also don't think the bill itself is antisemitic or Christian Zionist, even if some who support it are motivated by those ideologies. It adopts the definition of antisemitism as defined by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, which I would not characterize as either antisemitic nor Christian Zionist.
