What Banezian wrote is quite correct. If by nothing else this ought to be screamingly obvious due to mere fact that Johnson rejects it.
I presume no one here would object to the statement “There are only two sexes”, yet using Johnson’s logic he would have to object since there exists the condition of Intersex. Similarly he would have to object to the statement “Humans have ten toes” since there are humans are born with less than ten toes. Why don’t we say “humans have between zero and ten toes”? Because we don’t put error, abnormality and exceptions on the same level as truth, normality and what is commonplace.
Johnson’s trick is to turn such statements as Banezian’s into absolute ones, when, in reality, there are very few absolutes. To give a few examples: the rules on driving down a one-way street are suspended for a fire truck needing to attend to a fire. ‘Honour thy father and thy mother’ doesn’t hold for the child whose father asks him to steal, and while ‘Thou shalt not kill’ we know in times of conflict and self defence it is permissible. Why didn’t God say to Moses “Thou shalt not kill except under the following conditions …”? This is a necessary question *if* we accept Johnson’s perverse rationality.
Johnson’s next trick is to puff up his grievance into an act of tyranny by the State thereby justifying his (and others) rebellion. The fact is this: it IS within the power of the civil authority (a duty even) to care for the common good – in this case to control a pandemic – and to put in place measures to achieve this. The use of face masks is one measure, but this infringes on Johnson’s own rights of man. If the idiot had bothered to read the abstract of the Aquinas article he promotes, he would have read “… liberty and life (basic individual rights) are subordinate to or even sacrificed for the supposed public good.”
Next Johnson encourages lying; the pretense of having a medical exemption. Not only that, he applauds the use of the law to avoid wearing a mask. But wait a minute, did he not condemn Fr. Robinson for using the law to open the Church’s in New Jersey? The hypocrisy of this man is breathtaking.
It’s not surprising that the Menzingen shill should make an appearance in this thread: After all, the SSPX is basically endorsing his position.
But let’s troubleshoot it a bit:
1) His first argument is that there are exceptions, and exceptions do not disprove the rule. Agreed. But what he misses, is that the post by Banezian which he is defending admits of no exceptions. He wants to make Banezian say something other than he has: That we do NOT have to obey in all that is not sinful.
Banezian says exactly the opposite.
Consequently, the shill’s dishonest attempt to morph Banezian’s argument implicitly acknowledges that in fact, it is erroneous.
You see, it is Banezian who made the absolutist statement, and it is I who pointed out the exceptions to obedience (eg., tyranny, detrimental to the common good, etc.).
2) Next, the shill wants to declare the state’s right to issue mask mandates is not synonymous with an act of tyranny, because such mandates fall within its sphere of competence.
Agreed!
But what both Banezian and the shill miss (and desire you to miss), is that this mandate is based on a lie/hoax:
On the one hand, we are not talking about Ebola virus, but a malady which is not mortal to 99.997% of the population who contract it, and on the other hand, is backed by no credible study declaring their usefulness and effectiveness in preventing COVID19 transmission (the boxes of cloth medical masks say this right on the box), but there are many studies testifying to their ineffectiveness.
In other words, there is neither a serious danger which could justify such a measure, nor any scientific evidence demonstrating a benefit even to that small minority which could allegedly benefit from the mandate.
3) At least so far as the Minnesota Executive Order mandating mask use in public spaces is concerned, it is based on the Governor’s Emergency Powers legislation, which did not envisage application to an alleged healthcare crisis, but for natural disasters and civil unrest. The Governor is currently being sued by a state representative for his abuse of these powers, which is the essence of tyranny:
The mandate lacks a legal basis in the legislation upon which it is allegedly founded.
4) As for the accusation of hypocrisy for encouraging resistance to the mandate by claiming medical exemption, I would first note the illegitimacy (ie., legality) of the mandate itself; that aside from legitimacy is the fact it is based on a lie (it will prevent COVID19 transmission), and that every mask wearer suffers diminished blood oxygen and carbon dioxide toxicity.
So there is actually no lie in claiming a medical condition at all.
Topic: SSPX Facemask Order in Minnesota (Read 4373 times)