domain:nytimes.com
IGI-111
God was a dream of good government.
2hr ago
Not challenging illegal government authority is a slippery slope. Presumably.
If nobody does anything about undue power it becomes normal, and eventually legal.
HereAndGone
2hr ago
truly atrociously poor record of handling abuse cases
Which seems, by the first media reports, to be a whopping two cases, one of which wasn't on him and another of which may be tied up with a dodgy society which was dissolved by Francis.
The dossier against Prevost — released by some unreliable digital outlets — claims that in April 2022, three sisters met with the bishop to report that two priests from his diocese had abused them in 2004 when they were between the ages of nine and 14. According to the accusers, Prevost told them that the Church had no means to investigate the matter, although he encouraged them to report it to civil authorities, assuring them that an investigation would be initiated within the Church once the case was reported.
The sisters claimed that Prevost referred them to the Listening Center, an institution created by the bishop just weeks earlier to help abuse victims. According to the dossier, the sisters then approached the police to file a report but were told that the case had already expired due to the statute of limitations.
The 18-page report also accuses Prevost of covering up another sexual abuse case involving a priest in Chicago, when the now Pontiff was the provincial superior of the Augustinians. The Vatican states that it has investigated these allegations as well and found no evidence to support them.
So he told the alleged victims to go to the police who then failed to prosecute on a technicality. That does not sound like "cover-up" to me.
I do wish my fellow conservative brethren in the church would stop swallowing down at a gulp media reports, do we not remember that the media wants a pliant, Zeitgeist-compatible, church and so any sniff of scandal is grist to their mill? And that people with agendas will rush to put their story forward the second any new major appointment happens?
HereAndGone
2hr ago
I think trying to go for change in the law would work better because the DMV is not discriminating, it's not that "everyone else can get their common law name but they refused my transgender client". If you're going to work the discrimination angle, it has to be real discrimination.
HereAndGone
2hr ago
I suppose I have a tendency to imagine worst case scenarios, but if the DMV or wherever just accepted "Oh hi, yeah I know my birth cert says my name is Tom Smith but everybody knows me as Joey Browne - 'Joey' is my second name and 'Browne' is my mom's name which I took after she divorced my dad - so can I get new ID in my common law name?" and then it turns out oops, Joey Browne is Tom's cousin and Tom is using his name so he can avoid being held responsible for that car accident he caused... yeah, it'd be a mess.
It's not like we don't already have people giving fake names and addresses to police, or such a thing as identity theft. Or in my own country, a sub-population where traditionally people of different generations often have the same name (e.g. John Murphy grandfather, John Murphy son, John Murphy grandson and of course all the other cousins called John Murphy after grandfather) without the American frills of "Snr, Jr, III, IV etc." and not wholly surprisingly, often some of these people rely on the confusion about "so it was John Murphy of Windy Gap Road, but which John Murphy?" when the cops come calling or try to investigate crimes.
So I would tend to err on the side of "sure, everyone calls you Joey Browne, but your official paperwork says you're Tom Smith, please come back with something official to show that you're known as Joey Browne".
TheBailey
soapy mop
2hr ago
I'm filling out this form verbally fellating a judge “praying” that he “grant” a fucking permit for something I (should) have every right to do “without resort to regal proceedings”.
That I rolled over and complied with these (arguably) illegal demands, because it was more “convenient” to do so, is essentially a vote of support for the State to shoot down the guy who eventually tries to make the DMV actually abide by the law, on the basis that it's the "usual process" or something like that.
hydroacetylene
2hr ago
He was also a registered Republican.
Mantergeistmann
2hr ago
Except Cognac, which is Black-coded in the US for reasons which are completely opaque to non-Americans.
Alright, I'll bite: this is the first I'm hearing of that, please do go on.
Mantergeistmann
2hr ago
Interestingly, the previous Leo was not exactly pro-Socialist...
To remedy these wrongs the socialists, working on the poor man's envy of the rich, are striving to do away with private property, and contend that individual possessions should become the common property of all, to be administered by the State or by municipal bodies. They hold that by thus transferring property from private individuals to the community, the present mischievous state of things will be set to rights, inasmuch as each citizen will then get his fair share of whatever there is to enjoy. But their contentions are so clearly powerless to end the controversy that were they carried into effect the working man himself would be among the first to suffer. They are, moreover, emphatically unjust, for they would rob the lawful possessor, distort the functions of the State, and create utter confusion in the community.
TheBailey
soapy mop
2hr ago
Arguing that the DMV and whoever else needs to accept the new name based on Alabama law concedes that the probate court was within their rights in denying the name change.
Good point, even the ACLU may prefer to force that angle rather than making the DMV abide by the law...
Jiro
2hr ago
He's asking you because multiple parentheses are a dogwhistle for antisemitism (although that's actually three, not two).
anon_
2hr ago
Sadly, I already took this “coward's way out” cutting a check to the local probate court rather than raising the matter the hard way, and am now far too satisfied with my legal name to fuck with it any further; someone else with a similar impulse will need to tackle this.
Why is this the coward's way out? If it's more convenient or efficacious to do an extremely minor amount of paperwork and pay a trivial filing fee, that seems totally reasonable.
[ For real law nerds, the real question is why does Alabama use - as the delimiter for their legal clauses rather than . like everyone else. ]
TheBailey
soapy mop
2hr ago
Even if some federal law prohibits STAR IDs (Alabama's implementation of READ ID) from being issued in the legal name of a person whose name has been validly changed under common law—which I doubt—the DMV policy banning common law name changes is not restricted to STAR IDs anyway; it applies to all photo IDs.
FiveHourMarathon
Wawa Nationalist
2hr ago
Probably only if they make the claim that transgenderism constitutes fraud.
VoxelVexillologist
Multidimensional Radical Centrist
2hr ago
Surely the REAL ID Act and Alabama's decision to certify its driver's licenses to comply have a lot to say about names the DMV prints on licenses.
Rov_Scam
2hr ago
I think you're confusing the issues here. The ACLU may be interested in someone's right to change their name. I doubt they'd be interested in a procedural argument. You presented evidence that the Alabama DMV's procedure is inconsistent with Alabama law, and I have no reason to claim that it isn't. But the state legislature could change the law tomorrow and statutorily require a certain process for name changes, superseding the prior court rulings. Hell, there was a concurrence in the opinion you linked where one of the judges said that this would be a good issue for the legislature to take up.
So, if as @ulyssessword suggests, a court were to refuse a transgender person a name change, I doubt the ACLU would press the common law name change thing too hard. They'd probably raise a general civil rights argument and ask a Federal court to grant a mandamus order requiring the probate court to issue the necessary paperwork. Trying to raise the common law issue would actually be counterproductive, the likely fact pattern being that the transgender person was refused a judicial name change, then tried to get around it through common law and ran into obstacles. Arguing that the DMV and whoever else needs to accept the new name based on Alabama law concedes that the probate court was within their rights in denying the name change. This becomes problematic because if you win and the state legislature decides to formally abolish common law name changes, now they have to go back and make the civil rights argument again. They run the risk of getting a victory for one person that has no prospective effect.
TheBailey
soapy mop
2hr ago
That the federal government does not have any statutory ban on putting common law adopted names on federal voter rolls should have no bearing on whether the state has any statutory restriction barring the department of motor vehicles from accepting certain (otherwise perfectly valid) name changes.
Are you saying you've found some state law that would warrant this refusal?
CommittedToTheG
2hr ago
Sorry I assumed your denomination! What you say about Whelton's take on ecclesiology is intriguing, and I'll have to look further into it. I don't remember anything he said on the matter striking me as potentially incorrect, but then I come out of the OCA which tends to follow St. Vladimir's Seminary and thus the tradition of the Paris school that was a big part of the ressourcement you, I think correctly, identify.
I agree that Augustine is unnecessarily vilified. He is a great saint of the church (in my parish he is one of the great hierarchs depicted on the apse). With some nuance, I think Orthodox and Catholic ideas about original sin could be reconciled. There are unhelpful polemics by both sides, and the Orthodox often end up attacking something more like the Calvinist understanding. I was recently reading this piece which definitely "problematizes" a simplistic view of things.
I am not a big fan of what I know of Romanides, and I have always had a view of Heaven and Hell that is very C.S. Lewis (though maybe something like The Great Divorce is not juridical enough for you?). I definitely believe that Christ will return as Judge, and I am not a Universalist (we can hope, perhaps, but I reject certainty on this question). In general, I tend to be fairly apophatic about the next life and can tolerate ambiguity on the details. How far does that put me from the central Orthodox belief? I am not sure. I don't know if you ever had the stomach for Lord of Spirits (I have to listen on 2x speed), but the content of their episode on Hell/Universalism (What in Tarnation) is pretty good, and my beliefs would fit within their framework.
I agree that some Orthodox thinkers (polemicists?) are too negative when it comes to "Western reason", but the idea that the Eastern fathers were against reason or that modern Orthodox theologians and thinkers are not philosophically sophisticated can also be a caricature of the East. You may or may not have heard of Dr. Nathan Jacobs, but I've recently been following his exploration of the philosophy of the Eastern Fathers. My take would be that the East is skeptical of systematic theologies that are Rationalist/Cartesian projects, but this is probably unfair to nuanced Western thought (I love me some Paschal, for instance).
Enjoyed hearing about your story and your general thoughts! I'm glad I finally have something I am an "expert" in (my own theological thoughts and opinions) that I can share with The Motte by responding to you.
TheBailey
soapy mop
2hr ago
My issue here isn't about voter registration, though; it's about updating the name on your Driver's License.
Nothing in the Alabama v. Taylor court opinion that I could see relied on the fact that Taylor's issue happened to be the voter registration department and not the department of motor vehicles; the issue was the State refusing to accept a common law name change as valid per se.
DradisPing
3hr ago
The "absence of statutory restriction" might also involve federal laws, since as far as I know state and federal have the same voter registration.
Tenaz
3hr ago
Certainly some people do that. I think personally seeing and maybe interacting with a semi-important piece of Gods history can have a big impact on someone. Its not separate in the sense that its an inevitable part of whatever happened to and with it in the first place. Visiting the holy land is similar, and propably seems less idolatrous.
Sure, that's fair. I guess I just get an idolatrous vibe from it, but there's nothing objectively wrong per se.
And since its apparently fine that heaven is made from divine matter thats invisible, I dont think the lack of apparent changes is a problem either.
My source on this is solely D&C 131:7-8
There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes.
We cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter.
So I need to correct myself--actually heaven should not be invisible at all, at least not for that reason. It's just spirit matter that's imperceptible, not perfected normal matter.
Is a sacrificial animal harmed by what you do to its flesh after the sacrifice? And yet that is clearly its body that youre eating. I dont think theres anything contradictory about it being both Jesus flesh and not part of his current living body. And since its apparently fine that heaven is made from divine matter thats invisible, I dont think the lack of apparent changes is a problem either.
Thanks, this makes a lot more sense to me.
DradisPing
3hr ago
Trump's comments were incredibly influential in the election.
The boomer left has a very strange relationship with the US. They love Obama, vacation in the US all the time, and frequently fantasize about living in NYC. However they rage against the US and Americanization.
The "51st State" comments triggered a key part of their political identity.
The results aren't so much that Conservative support collapsed. It did go down a little, but the NDP basically committed suicide this election. Hyperbole, they can come back later obviously. But this is their worst result ever, and they've been running since 1963. 7 seats is 2% of the house. They got 9 seats in 1993, but that was 3% since there were fewer seats. They lost 70% of their seats in the House.
The Bloc Québécois also lost 10 seats, or 30% of their seats.
The Green Party went from 2 to 1.
Basically the Canadian left decided to rally behind Carney.
I think the motivation isn't so much that they thought anything would happen. It's more that they see Canada as a showpiece of centre left governance, and losing to the Conservatives after Trump's comments would be globally embarrassing.
There's a lot of dislike for how Trudeau II ran things but the Liberal Party brand is incredibly strong in Canada. Back in the run up to the first Quebec separation referendum in 1980, Trudeau I, in the name of national unity, talked the Conservatives (then the Progressive Conservatives) into backing a new national identity that was closely related to Liberal policies. So "Liberals Good" is basically taught to all school children east of Winnipeg.
Switching to Carney allowed them to create some space from the unpopular policies. Most of which are probably going to continue.
Is it because they really like what Canada is becoming under Trudeau?
This is actually a very interesting topic. It's surprisingly easy and common for Canadians to not follow what's happening in Canada too closely.
Canada has two cable news networks, run by CBC and CTV.
What's the most popular cable news network? CNN.
Plus the Liberals ramped up subsidies to news media in 2018, so reporters have a strong financial incentive to stop the Conservatives from getting in.
As a result people tend to be less aware of problems than you'd expect. Things sort of have to penetrate their social networks to become aware of them.
Also the age breakdown is interesting.
https://x.com/JackPosobiec/status/1918071839365980483/photo/1
The Liberal victory came from voters aged 55+. People who are much less concerned about things like housing affordability. Also they probably figure that staying the course until they die will be less painful for them personally than making dramatic changes.
phailyoor
3hr ago
You don't need a driver's license to vote. Here is the list of acceptable voter ids: https://www.sos.alabama.gov/alabama-votes/voter/voter-id So as long as any of these would honor a common law name, the state potentially has a way out.
But on the other hand, I'm not even sure this sort of catch-22 would hold up in court. The court says that your common law name should be honored, but that doesn't mean that the state has to give you an id or anything else if you don't bring the prerequisite documents. A person asking for an ID under his birth name would have trouble too if he couldn't produce proof of it. So I could see potentially that the court upholds that "we agree that's your name, but you still need docs proving it to get an id or vote"
Lykurg
We're all living in Amerika
3hr ago
arguing for physical resurrection
To be clear, Im in favour of all three points. I dont want to say agree, since Im an atheist and that would make it even weirder than it already is, but Im anti-gnostic.
I'm not against the idea of holy objects or corpses, but relics imo verge into idol worship, where they seem to have power of their own.
Certainly some people do that. I think personally seeing and maybe interacting with a semi-important piece of Gods history can have a big impact on someone. Its not separate in the sense that its an inevitable part of whatever happened to and with it in the first place. Visiting the holy land is similar, and propably seems less idolatrous.
while that may be symbolically violating Jesus I'm confident he's not actually harmed, so common sense tells me that the Communion isn't literally part of his body.
Is a sacrificial animal harmed by what you do to its flesh after the sacrifice? And yet that is clearly its body that youre eating. I dont think theres anything contradictory about it being both Jesus flesh and not part of his current living body. And since its apparently fine that heaven is made from divine matter thats invisible, I dont think the lack of apparent changes is a problem either.
I'm staring down the barrel of this as well, my daughter is 5. We play a smattering of board games with her, with the occasional concession (Carcassonne, Ingenious, Kingdomino, My First Castle Panic), and she's watched me play some old games (Super Mario Brothers, Gradius, Galaga). I'm trying to plant the seeds of good behavior by choosing games that have a natural end time (1 credit, 3 lives, etc) and then walking away when I'm done. I also emphasize that I finish all my "daddy chores" after dinner, and she has to have her teeth brushed and get ready for bed before she can watch me play.
Lately she hasn't really cared to watch me play anything, and has preferred I read Lord of the Rings to her instead.
My wife has most of the same fears you do about video games devouring her attention, but none of the first hand experience to discern addicting slop from a fun game, so it's all scary to her.
Personally, I think going with old, offline, preferably couch coop experiences is best. Any old two player NES or SNES game or old arcade games. I have a retro lan in my office, and that may come into play at some point, but it's not part of the plan at the moment. I plan to keep it limited, and keep it in person and social within the friends and family. I do want to avoid hard time stops though. I knew kids who's parents put everyone on strict 15m time limits, and it drove me up a wall when I'd be having a really good run in say, Super Mario Brothers, and they booted me off in World 5 with 4 lives left. I do want my kid to have that sense of accomplishment that video games can give you, and not cutting her legs out from under her with arbitrary limits. But I'll cross that bridge when I get to it I suppose.
More options
Context Copy link