Thread by @PnictogenHorses

there's a legalistic definition of "sanity" that runs something like, "sanity is when a human being can tell right from wrong".

in other words, "sanity" in this legalistic view is equated with *morality*. to be "insane", by this rule, is to be incapable of moral behavior.

(1/x)

there's many reasons why I myself detest this equation of sanity with morality—in general, the demands of Western "criminal justice" have exerted an insidious corrupting influence upon #psychology and #psychiatry, warping them into tools for oppression and incarceration.

(2/x)

but the chief problem with "sanity = morality" is that it's absurd and contradictory. one may be insane and still moral; one may be sane and immoral.

and it's *this phenomenon* I wish to discuss here: the sane, immoral person. the @dalepartridge, the @MattWalshBlog.

(3/x)

in general, the fanatical right-wing #Christian is a person who is "sane"—at least they themselves would assert that they were sane—but can't be trusted with moral decisions. can @MattWalshBlog, for example, actually tell right from wrong? I suggest that he's incapable.

(4/x)

why has this happened?

in general it's because right-wing #Christians of this sort have decided, based on their personal spiritual experiences (of which I can say nothing), that they've been chosen as agents of God's infallible will on Earth—i.e. they never make mistakes.

(5/x)

it's one of the fundamental tenets of #Christianity that all human beings are prone to error—"original sin", they call it. hence, logically speaking, Christian bigots like @dalepartridge and @MattWalshBlog ought to recognize themselves as capable of error. but they don't.

(6/x)

they believe that they've had *some* kind of insight—some "personal gnosis", to borrow a term from outside #Christian discourse—that proves they've been washed clean of sinfulness and now they're inerrant instruments of God's will. they don't admit the likelihood of error.

(7/x)

therefore @dalepartridge, @MattWalshBlog, @PastorMark, and other extremist #Christians of this sort have *consciously* made themselves into people who are incapable of applying moral judgment to their own actions and decisions, because they're convinced they're infallible.

(8/x)

@MattWalshBlog sees something and desires it; the mere fact of seeing the thing and desiring the thing must "prove" that God meant for them to see it and want it. God didn't *have* to send the sexually tempting teenager towards Matt Walsh but there she is! a gift from God.

(9/x)

I speak hypothetically, of a truly *nauseating* topic—namely, @MattWalshBlog's evident sexual attraction for children, which leaks out into open view through his apologia for child molesting Christians like @joshduggar and Catholic priests, and through...other actions.

(10/x)

#Christians have *many* ways of rationalizing their lusts; if you want some taste of how a ceremonial Christian priest might approach this matter, permit me to suggest watching the film "V for Vendetta", and paying close attention to Fr. Lilliman.



(11/x)

@MattWalshBlog has openly rejected the concept of *consent*—that in itself is a sign of moral corruption, because violation of consent is what separates mutually enjoyable sex from assault and rape. already Walsh has _permitted himself_ to contemplate assault and rape.

(12/x)

if you could somehow ask @MattWalshBlog *why* he's rejected the concept of consent, he'd probably blither something along the lines of "it's not in the Bible" or "it's not a concept in Catholic doctrine"—Walsh is #Catholic, like my friend Chara.

herein lies a problem.

(13/x)

the Bible does not contain all human concepts. there are many trivial examples of this—for instance, chemistry is not mentioned in the Bible. *abortion* is not mentioned in the Bible (although @dalepartridge and possibly @MattWalshBlog may think it's in there, somewhere.)

(14/x)

the *absence* of a human concept from the Bible or from any other body of #Christian doctrines is not in itself proof that the concept is meaningless—yet this is EXACTLY how @dalepartridge, @MattWalshBlog, &c. do their moral reasoning. they depend on outside authorities.

(15/x)

it's an article of faith in right-wing #Christian circles that it's impossible to be moral without external enforcement—without reference to an all-seeing, all-punishing God.

@MattWalshBlog &c. reveal themselves: they're saying they're only moral when someone's looking.

(16/x)

but I'd like to get back to the Bible, and how it contains only a limited subset of human concepts. huge areas of human endeavor appear not at all in the Bible—and thus do right-wing #Christians, who have an extremely sterile culture, come to detest most human endeavors.

(17/x)

"it's not in the Bible, therefore it's immoral" is absurd moral reasoning, but that really is about how @dalepartridge, @MattWalshBlog, &c. enforce their moral code—AND they demand that all society coöperate in enforcing their puerile notions of what's "Biblical" or not.

(18/x)

do you know what *is* in the Bible, if you know where to look?

incest, and sex with children.

sexual mores have changed drastically over the last few millennia. human beings have a better idea generally of what's harmful and damaging and what isn't, in sexual matters.

(19/x)

so if @joshduggar or @MattWalshBlog searches the Bible looking for passages that might tell them whether it's acceptable to rape children...it's highly likely they'll be able to find *some* passage or other that they can construe as _permission_. "it's in the Bible &c."

(20/x)

and they certainly won't find direct prohibition.

therefore I suggest to my readers that right-wing #Christians like @MattWalshBlog and @dalepartridge, people who believe they're God's agents on Earth, cannot tell right from wrong. they've chosen to discard that ability.

(21/x)

@MattWalshBlog &c. are "sane", yet they cannot be trusted to be moral. they've arrogated God's infallibility for themselves; they're no longer capable of seeing the immorality of their own actions. they feel they have implicit permission from God to do anything they want.

(22/x)

the withering and corruption of #Christianity has brought us to this awful outcome. people like @MattWalshBlog and @dalepartridge are dangerous beyond measure; they are people who would betray their own families in a heartbeat. there is no line they will not cross.

~Mona Drafter

@threadreaderapp unroll