What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.

About

What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

What the country needs now is more Matt Walsh

I know conservative Christians who feel squeamish about Matt Walsh. There's just something too combative about him, too brash, too offensive.

Lately I have been thinking about the major, salient reason why Walsh represents what conservatism needs more of, summed up in one word.

Sanity.

Let me state a principle that seems obvious to me but apparently is not obvious to everyone else: It's very important that people think right about things, and this includes being horrified when reason calls for horror and outraged when reason calls for outrage. It also includes knowing what we should be doing with ourselves instead of committing and excusing atrocities. (I'll get to the latter in due time in this post.)

In several areas of our country (abortion being one), reason has left the stage long ago, and outrage was not far behind. Hence even pro-lifers wince at the thought of showing pictures of aborted babies or calling abortionists "baby killers." Walsh recalls us--Americans, conservatives, pro-lifers, any sane people who happen to be left out there anymore--to our better selves by reminding us that we need to be capable of horror and outrage.

Viz.

The creepiest and most gruesome thing in the batch -- possibly the most disturbing out of any that have been released, and among the most disturbing things I've ever seen in my life -- is footage of a different panel discussion, also at the NAF baby killer party.

A German abortionist is speaking to an audience, trying to explain how to morally rationalize the murder they commit every day. Some parts are muffled, and the accent is pretty thick (giving the whole thing an even more potent Nazi-like feel), but she appears to be reading comments from other abortionists struggling with the morality of baby murder. Here are some notable portions:

"Another said 'I find second term abortions grotesque.' Well, I'm OK with that [laughter]. It's not for you. It's for the women... you have to be strong and fight for them..."

"My coping mechanism is to focus on the BABY fetus. Reverence for something that WAS ONCE ALIVE AND NOW IT'S NOT. That's the hard part about this stigma..."

"An eyeball just fell down into my lap! And that is gross! [laughter]. But I say to myself, this abortion is going well, and it's going safely [uproarious laughter and applause]."

To review, a woman recounted killing a baby and having its eyeballs fall out of its skull. The room full of abortionists laughed hysterically and applauded. And, if you recall, these are people who fully admit the "fetus" is actually, in their words, a "baby," a "person," and "alive." They fully admit it is, again in their words, "violence" and "killing." Yet they find it funny and charming to hear about a dead baby's severed eyeballs.

I feel very certain that many of these people -- abortionists and abortion industry executives -- are demonically possessed. Or maybe that's almost wishful thinking. Maybe I still, after all this time, cannot bring myself to believe that human beings who are not insane or infested by demonic legions would not only kill children, but laugh and joke about it. How can a non-crazy, non-possessed person be THAT incredibly, profoundly, fantastically evil?

I can't understand it, but they can be. They are. The "how" is sin, we already know that. But there's just something about watching these women sit in folding chairs in nondescript hotel banquet halls, under florescent lights, with a tray of snacks on the table in the back of the room, talking calmly and even excitedly about stabbing children in the head. It sends chills down my spine. I feel like I'm looking right into Hell itself. And, in some ways, I guess I am.

[snip]

Pro-aborts: abortion doctors admit they are murdering human babies, and they think it's funny. How do you feel about that? Forget tissue sale. How do you feel about the fact that you are in favor of something the abortion industry itself describes as killing babies? How do you feel when you hear a room full of cackling psychos laugh and applaud at the thought of a dead child's eyeballs rolling around on the floor?

That, folks, is why we need Matt Walsh. Because he says important things that are true and says them in words anyone can understand.

And y'know what? That's important if even one person, one person reads it and thinks more clearly about the evil of abortion than he did before. And mark this: That one person could be someone who is already pro-life.

Because we pro-lifers have sometimes become afraid to be horrified. I understand that. This is all so bad, so horrible, that we don't want to be having nightmares every night. We don't want to think about it. I think it was some snarky pro-choicer on Facebook "dialoguing" with me who said something like, "I don't know about you, but I don't burst into tears every time I pass a Planned Parenthood clinic." Well, buddy, maybe you'd be a better person if you did.

And when something has been treated as a right in our society for so long, and we've had to debate it in a polite way, it's hard to keep on talking like Matt Walsh. And when he does it, even some fellow conservatives get jittery.

Here's something to put that in perspective: Ryan Anderson and Robert P. George were invited (!) to submit an article about the Planned Parenthood videos to a secular ethics journal, the Harvard Health Policy Review. I don't know how that happened, but it's true. Here it is, in full. But when they sent in the invited piece, the editors requested that they make a few changes. Anderson and George had written things like this:

The government should not fund Planned Parenthood for a simple reason: it deliberately kills innocent human beings.

But intentionally killing innocent human lives is never good; and that’s why the federal government has rightly insisted that no funding through the Department of Health and Human Services may be used for elective abortion. Unfortunately, Planned Parenthood receives government funding for other services it provides. This is morally bad public policy. Planned Parenthood and other providers of elective abortion should not be eligible for any government funding.

That was not acceptable academic-ese, and they got some pushback.

The editor responded, “In general, we would prefer to avoid absolutes, as they do not convey an academic tone. Could this be rephrased?” “Bad,” they were told, “is a non-descriptive word and not appropriate for this article. Could this be rephrased?” And, “Words such as ‘killed’ and ‘innocent’ should be avoided if they are just being used for emotive effect.”

George and Anderson didn't use "baby killers" or "cackling psychos." But such concessions to academic dignity were insufficient to make the editors feel comfortable. Anderson and George refused to change, however, pointing out to the editors that words such as "killed" and "innocent" were being used because they are accurate. In other words, any emotive effect is a result of the reader's own response to plain language, not a result of sophistry or manipulation on the part of the authors. And the absolute terms did stay in the final version, as the above link shows. Good for George and Anderson.

That, however, is what we're up against when we enter the arena of public discourse and argue for the pro-life case--the demand that we not speak truth. I maintain that the result is that even pro-lifers are likely to get desensitized, and Walsh's article is a good corrective to that.

In this piece, Walsh talks about the utter insanity of the transgender movement, including the recent demand that an Illinois school allow a boy to change in the locker room in front of girls. (Which presumably also means that the girls have to change in front of the boy.)

Notice how much more sensible Walsh is than evangelical Mark Yarhouse, who thinks that Christians owe it to gender-confused people to call them by their preferred titles and treat them as whatever they say they are. Yarhouse couldn't be bothered to address issues like the locker room, the showers at the gym, the privacy issues, but Walsh does:

This story is very similar to many others we’ve heard in recent months, but it sets itself apart somewhat because it’s the first time President Obama’s federal government has stepped in so definitively to coordinate the victimization of high school girls. And make no mistake, allowing a boy to change in front of girls, and requiring that girls change in front of him, is sexual abuse. The problem isn’t simply that non-”transgender” predators can easily pretend to be “transgender” in order to gain access to the women’s facilities — although that does happen and it is a completely unavoidable outcome – but that allowing any man of any persuasion to watch girls use the bathroom or change their clothes is appalling and exploitative. It doesn’t matter if the man is “transgender” or regular gender or quasigender or nongender or gendergender. If he’s a man, he doesn’t belong there. Period.

Precisely. While I agree that the possible exploitation by people who aren't even gender-confused is a relevant consideration, it isn't the most important consideration.

And then this:

It’s not debatable. It’s not a matter that can be discussed among intelligent grown ups. There exists not a single morally or intellectually sound justification for this madness. I am often accused of being too harsh and too absolutist in my pronouncements on issues. Whether my gorilla in a China shop approach is always appropriate is another matter, but in this case, with this sort of thing, when dealing with the mind-numbing lunacies of “transgender” propaganda, I think every opponent should be adopting a hard-line stance. This is wrong. It’s demented. It’s evil. It’s dangerous. It’s abusive. Every argument in favor should be dismissed as the blathering nonsense it so clearly is.

This is why people who like Walsh like him. They sit around in the madhouse that the West is becoming listening to people talk like madness is debatable and wondering who is crazy--they or the opinion-makers. Walsh tells them the truth: It's not you. It's the opinion-makers.

And make no mistake. That's important. Because a major mechanism by which whole societies go mad is peer pressure. There is a huge segment of our society that follows the rule that you must treat anything as debatable that your peer group treats as debatable. So if your peer group says that infanticide is fine, then you have to wrestle with that. If your peer group says that gender is fluid and a man can turn into a woman, maybe it's true. The step from that to just believing whatever the crowd believes is a small one, and the effect is particularly pernicious for children and young people, who are programmed by God or nature to learn what is normal from those around them. Walsh has truly inherited the mantle of those who stand athwart the course of history crying, "Stop!" He tells us not to start pulling at our beards, looking pensive, and wondering how in the world we can answer the "arguments" of the transgender movement. Just as he tells his readers that they are right to be horrified about the dismemberment of unborn children and don't need to treat that as a debatable matter, he tells us that we may condemn transgenderism out of hand as the pernicious craziness that it is. That is an important social function, especially for those who still retain sprigs of sanity in themselves but need the plant nurtured.

Walsh also gets the zero-sum game of the homosexual movement, and there are many Christians who absolutely need to hear this and take it in:

This Illinois case is incredible considering how far the school district went to accommodate the deluded young man. Administrators first changed the pronouns on official school records to reflect whatever sex the “transgender” is pretending to be. That wasn’t enough. They allowed boys to play on girl sports teams, needlessly endangering safety and providing an unfair advantage to the team with the cross dressing male. That wasn’t enough. They let “transgenders” use the bathrooms of their choice. That wasn’t enough. They even let the boy use the girl’s locker room. The only stipulation — the only attempt they made to offer the real girls some shred of privacy and decency — was to ask the boy to change and shower behind privacy curtains, which they had specially installed for him. That wasn’t enough.

The school, like most schools in the country, bent over backwards to grant enormous and unreasonable favors to a small and demanding branch of an already tiny demographic. They made girls give up their sport’s teams, their bathrooms, and most of their privacy in the locker room, but the one single concession they asked of the boy was that he use a curtain. It still was not enough. It is never enough.

In liberalism, there is simply no demand that can be made, no requirement that can be expected, no line of distinction that can be drawn where “transgenders” and homosexuals are concerned. They must be given everything. Everything. And it’s never enough.

This is what the marriage fight was all about. Many states had already offered homosexuals an arrangement that would carry all of the same legal benefits as marriage, just without the title. But it wasn’t enough. Most homosexuals aren’t even interested in monogamous relationships, but they wanted access to marriage — marriage itself, not something close to it — because, well, just because. Because it’s never enough.

At the same time, Walsh is not simply the Christian version of "Islamic rage boy." And this is important. The temptation is strong in the face of so much craziness in the world to become merely destructive and bitter. Walsh may be an angry young man, but he is more than that, much as the squeamish among conservatives, and a fortiori the left, would like to portray him as merely a shock jock. On the contrary, he counsels constructive action--marriage, commitment, child-bearing, home schooling (and here). He uses words like "virtuous" and "beautiful," and has this to say about being a father:

My kids aren’t my life. But I’m not my life, either. I was at one time, or I thought I was, but not anymore. And their lives are eternally tied to mine, and mine to their, and every decision that I make will have an impact on them, for better or for worse. This is a responsibility that I must always keep in mind, all of the time, no matter what.

It’s not my life. It’s hers, it’s his, it’s theirs, it’s ours. Ultimately, it’s His, and He has given it to them. So my life — MY life — is over.

This is true. This is beautiful. This is why parenting is a high calling.

And that is conservatism.

Conservatism is about conserving something. Yes, that often (especially nowadays) does require righteous anger, and the fact that Walsh can dish it out is the reason why some people can't handle him. They need to get over that. But ultimately, conservatism is about building, not tearing down.

Do I agree with every word that proceedeth from Matt Walsh's keyboard? Of course not.

But I wish we had several million more like him.

Comments (49)

If more pastors would respond to relationship complaints the way he did to this woman, the church would be far healthier on dating and marriage.

I know conservative Christians who feel squeamish about Matt Walsh. There's just something too combative about him, too brash, too offensive.

It doesn't help that many "conservative Christian" men are about as masculine as a castrato.

"The school, like most schools in the country, bent over backwards to grant enormous and unreasonable favors to a small and demanding branch of an already tiny demographic."

They did it, in part, for fear of law suits. All it takes is one liberal judge to bankrupt a conservative school system, but this would still be more preferable than caving into immorality. Unless a person understands the first rule of moral theology: one must never use an evil means to a good end or its equivalent, one may not do a great evil for a little good, they have no right, in my opinion, to be a judge. Many problems in society have been caused by wicked judges - wicked in the sense that they judge evil to be good and good to be evil.

The Chicken

I am so thankful for this post. I get discouraged by conservative Christians who turn their noses up at Walsh because he doesn't meet their standard of philosophical jousting and the speech of the academy. I much better understand his blunt truth than their impressive terms. I sometimes wonder if his popularity is envied by others who have far more impressive credentials. He gives voice to the average Christian who thinks as he does, but is reticent to express their outrage. It does indeed give them the courage to also speak out.

Thank you, Lydia

Although I am not a fan of his delivery, I think there are certainly places and contexts for the Walshes of this world. He speaks to a certain audience. Everyone shouldn’t try to emulate him, though, in every circumstance. The foot shouldn’t say to the eye, etc., too.

Communicating the truth to a diverse world is the real place that we need diversity. It takes more effort, though, for one has to really know their audience and empathize without compromise – a very, very difficult thing for we are hopelessly human. There are audiences that literally shut down when someone like him begins to speak.

They still need to hear the truth, though. There might not be any way to reach some without compromising on orthodoxy, but it is worth a try. They are worth a try. I have actually seen a more gentle approach work with a very angry feminist/atheist over abortion and Christianity. I have seen it fail with others.

There is a time and place for everything. Context matters. People matter. Truth matters. They can all work together, too. There is no one way. Some need to be beaten over the head (including me, at times), others need to be gentle chided, others, somewhere in between the two. I think we can see this in how God interacts with us, too, or in how Paul delivered his message to different audiences (“being all things to all people” without compromising truth). We have to prayerfully consider what our words might do as they are released into the world.

W.r.t. the transgender issue and locker rooms – calling out the how it victimizes the girls, yes, but also express deep sympathy for someone that is struggling with it, for they are victims (of themselves and our debauched culture), too – especially a child.

In the end, how one delivers their message is not a litmus test for orthodoxy or piety– the content of the message is. There are other ways to say the things that Walsh says, other styles of delivery that are just as orthodox and are no less valuable / necessary. It all depends on the people that one loves enough to speak the truth to.

Sometimes, we are called on to be a Walsh with them. Other times, more gentle. For some of us, being a Walsh is more difficult. For others, being gentle is hard. That’s why we all need each other in the Body. The eyes need the ears, feet, hands, etc. We can truly learn from each other and we always have something to learn. I hope that makes sense!

Rebekah, I agree that there are times and places for a different style from Walsh's. I would say though that everyone could use his clear eye, however they end up expressing what they see clearly. The seeing is primary.

As for this "transgender" boy, I suspect that at that age it is a mix of his victimization by ideology and willfulness on his part. And certainly on the part of his parents. In one sense, I feel sorry for him as a corrupted, badly messed up soul, but not nearly as sorry as I would feel if he were six years old. And he and his parents are joining in persecuting the other girls to make a point. They could just gracefully agree for him to change in a different room from the girls, but that isn't enough. Everyone else has to go along fully, including the embarrassment and loss of privacy to all the girls. There's a kind of vindictiveness about that, and I think that vindictiveness takes away a lot of this boy's claim to our feeling very sorry for him.

As for the content of the message versus the style, to some extent that is true, but there is truth to the saying that the medium is the message. Take, for example, the description of an abortion procedure. You literally can't get the same _content_ across without the description of the graphic details of the procedure. That doesn't mean that all times and all places are the times and places for such graphic details. But it does mean that "Abortion is wrong" and "An abortionist is a baby killer" do not express the *same content*, and neither of them expresses the same content as, "In this abortion, the abortionist tore off the baby's arms and legs while the baby was still alive and then detached his head."

So one problem with any strong separation between content and manner, especially if done with the intention of "not alienating people," etc., is that some important _content_ may end up being ruled off-limits because too alienating. I think we need to be careful about that.

There's a recent survey that shows most women who have abortions don't regret it. That is a good sign that the left's "you go grrrl" rhetoric and the right's unwillingness to shame women has not had the effect that people like Rebekah seem to hope for.

If abortion is murder, then consider the victim. It is a tiny, defenseless child. Most likely that child is killed for the most capricious reasons. Reasons that, when used to justify a murder that is recognized under law today would leave the jury chilled to the bone at the depth of the sociopathic reasoning.

Imagine saying to the jury "I had to smash his head in with a hammer and leave his brains on the sidewalk because he was an impediment to my Political Science degree." Or even better, "I didn't want to be inconvenienced by having to deal with this annoying guy so I shot him between the eyes."

Abortion is a context where many of the details cannot be gently communicated. That's what I meant by context and that's why I didn't refer to Dr. George's difficulties in the academy. Again, context and audience is important.

I was referring more generally to Matt Walsh's typical approach to communicating truth. Sometimes it works, sometimes it truly is a "bull in the China shop" in that it does more harm than good. I wonder if sometimes he cares more about his image than his audience. He wants everyone to know just how clear his eye is, even at the expense of helping people.

We can all get caught in the trap of caring more about what our words say about our supposed piety / righteousness rather than changing people's minds and hearts. Whether its being too gentle when gentleness is impossible without compromise or being too harsh because that's our shtick. We can err in either direction, I think. That's why we need each other ... and humility ... tons of humility.

I have a very dear relative that is extremely politically and historically astute. He says a lot of very good things. He kills his message with his angry delivery and certain "colorful" adjectives he uses, though. I listen because I love him and know him very well - he has a very good heart. Others do not have that kind of context with him, so they dismiss him (I have seen this) and totally miss his good message. He throws out a lot of stumbling blocks that keep his message from getting through.

A general rule: if to keep from alienating, you have to compromise on truth, then don't do it. You are going to have to alienate. The key is being prayerfully perceptive of what is needed.

This all reminds me of what Jesus said when he was asked what the greatest commandments were: love God (righteousness)and love others as yourself (be sensitive to the needs of others - Phil 2). Sometimes, doing both is the greatest struggle. I don't always do this well. Walsh doesn't, either. It's not simple.

Well, Mike, I don't entirely agree with you either, as you probably know by now.

I think the person who actually commits the abortion is much worse than the person who commissions it.

I also think there are some really hard-hearted women and some messed-up, muddled women and some arm-twisted women, some outright coerced women, and everything in between.

I don't buy the line that the woman is always the "second victim" in the abortion. That's facile and too often untrue. But I also don't buy your line that we should assume the mother is always equally evil with the abortionist and set out to shame all women who have had abortions. Yeah, I guess that means I think my position is more nuanced than either of those, and I know that sounds self-congratulatory. In any event, it's where I stand.

But there is no possible ambiguity for the person who actually dismembers the child. That's why I always call *that person* the baby killer.

Rebekah, first, I entirely agree with you that foul language is per se counterproductive. That's why I don't use it as a "technique," and I don't see Walsh using it either, though I might have missed something. Despite my main post, I probably have read less of him than you have!

I do see something a little lacking in your approach to these questions, and that is an assumption that the _main_ if not the _only_ purpose of writing about various culture war issues such as abortion, homosexuality, etc., is "changing people's minds and hearts."

I think that's a false assumption, and I think we need to enrich our set of concepts of the purposes of communication. Here are a couple of quotes, one from the main post and one from Gina's comment, above, that are relevant. Here's me in the main post:

That's important if even one person, one person reads it and thinks more clearly about the evil of abortion than he did before. And mark this: That one person could be someone who is already pro-life.


This is why people who like Walsh like him. They sit around in the madhouse that the West is becoming listening to people talk like madness is debatable and wondering who is crazy--they or the opinion-makers. Walsh tells them the truth: It's not you. It's the opinion-makers.

And make no mistake. That's important. Because a major mechanism by which whole societies go mad is peer pressure. There is a huge segment of our society that follows the rule that you must treat anything as debatable that your peer group treats as debatable. So if your peer group says that infanticide is fine, then you have to wrestle with that. If your peer group says that gender is fluid and a man can turn into a woman, maybe it's true. The step from that to just believing whatever the crowd believes is a small one, and the effect is particularly pernicious for children and young people, who are programmed by God or nature to learn what is normal from those around them. Walsh has truly inherited the mantle of those who stand athwart the course of history crying, "Stop!" He tells us not to start pulling at our beards, looking pensive, and wondering how in the world we can answer the "arguments" of the transgender movement. Just as he tells his readers that they are right to be horrified about the dismemberment of unborn children and don't need to treat that as a debatable matter, he tells us that we may condemn transgenderism out of hand as the pernicious craziness that it is. That is an important social function, especially for those who still retain sprigs of sanity in themselves but need the plant nurtured.

Here's Gina, above:

He gives voice to the average Christian who thinks as he does, but is reticent to express their outrage. It does indeed give them the courage to also speak out.

So here are several functions that are not the same thing as "changing hearts and minds" (a phrase that, to be honest, I think should maybe be given a rest).

1) Keeping people's minds clear who already have generally right ideas about these subjects but are in danger of being desensitized.
2) Giving courage to people who think rightly about these matters but are nervous about speaking out.
3) Giving a kind of "virtual peer group" to people whose instincts are basically right so that they don't come to think they are the crazy ones.
4) Helping people to realize that they don't need to treat crazy things as even _debatable_ just because the media and the opinion-makers treat those things as given.

For all of these functions a blunt style, generally similar to Walsh's (and mine, for that matter), is not only appropriate but even necessary.

Lydia,

I just want to say an amen to your four points to Rebekah -- I think an under-rated and important function of people like Walsh and blogs like this is to provide a sort of online support group (or as you put it, "virtual peer group"), especially for those of us surrounded by liberal co-workers, family members, friends, etc.

It can be discouraging and demoralizing to be the only one in the room concerned about -- pick your poison -- let's say the welfare of an unborn child and no one else around you either cares or has a warped liberal perspective on the issue. To come here to your virtual home and read inspiring stories of those who do care, those who do speak out, those who write forcefully and clearly about the moral evils of X, Y, and Z is very, very encouraging and acts like a moral booster or call to action from your platoon leader! Suddenly you aren't alone and you don't feel isolated and your ideas are given a clear and powerful voice. It is a cathartic release and a great feeling to read someone like Walsh on the evils of abortion, because as you say, it can be easy to become desensitized and cautious when surrounded by your enemies.

For the record, as far as abortion goes, my position is probably closer to Mike T's than Lydia's.

Call it what you want: Peer pressure, coercion, arm-twisting, societal norms...a woman decided it would be in her best interests to have her child killed.

This choice is hers, and hers alone. Nobody else's.

However many outside influences there might be it doesn't change the simple, incontrovertible, unassailable fact of the matter that a mother made the decision to kill a child.

In fact, my first impression is to say that the majority of the time the mothers are MORE at fault than the abortionists. When you hire a hit man to kill a guy we generally consider the murderer to be the guy who called the hit. The actual assassin is an instrumental cause - an evil human being, no doubt, but they're not the real murderers here. They're just the instruments.

>>In general, we would prefer to avoid absolutes, as they do not convey an academic tone.

So in other words "we would prefer to avoid truth."

Ah, academics. Did anyone read the article submitted by two health care professional saying that defunding Planned Parenthood was "Ideologically Driven and Dangerous"?

The hired man still possesses free will and is culpable. As an abortionist, he is fully a murderer. The degree of culpability of the other party varies, as Lydia correctly notes.

Every argument in favor should be dismissed as the blathering nonsense it so clearly is.
I wonder if Walsh means it only for transgenderism, or also for other innovations-abortions, same-sex marriage. It has been my position too, that no debate should be done with the pro-choice party. A debate only serves to legitimize their insanity in the public sphere. For instance, too much blathering on monogamy paved the way for same-sex marriage by inviting the obvious rejoinder--give us a way to be monogamous. There was not enough stress on the complementarity. The conservatives were forever trying to scare people with the slippery slope to polygamy

Certainly, it was a very poor strategic choice--to emphasize monogamous aspect of marriage over complementarity. And it was done in order to have civil dialog with the pro-SSM people.. For, to emphasize complementarity would have meant to ridicule the pro-SSM out of the court.

ut I also don't buy your line that we should assume the mother is always equally evil with the abortionist and set out to shame all women who have had abortions. Yeah, I guess that means I think my position is more nuanced than either of those, and I know that sounds self-congratulatory.

The objective nature of the act of abortion is the same across all scenarios. It's only the subjective facts that vary. There are plenty of women who are deluded about what abortion is, but that doesn't make them less guilty of an objectively evil act.

And obviously, not all women who have had abortions should be shamed. The ones who have repented should not be shamed. Anything else, I don't buy it for the simple fact that you say the abortion is murder, and I can't imagine you ever substituting another crime and saying you don't buy that we should always set out to shame people who have committed rape, robbery, arson or murder in the first degree.

The hired man still possesses free will and is culpable. As an abortionist, he is fully a murderer. The degree of culpability of the other party varies, as Lydia correctly notes.

Actually, it really doesn't vary that much under law. If you contract a hit or organize a democide as a political leader, you are held to be in conspiracy to commit murder. You may not be guilty of the very specific act that caused the unjust killing, but you are guilty of forming the intent to organize and facilitate the act.

Do note that we have generally not hesitated to execute or imprison for life powerful men who relied on subordinates to do the murders they wouldn't do themselves. That's why this argument rings so hollow. You want to say that no, really, an abortion is not all but precisely analogous to a contract assassination involving a hitman, with the mother playing the same role (morally) as the one paying for the hit.

Who is more evil, the mob boss who contracts 10 hits or the men who carry them out? You don't know, you aren't God, but you can know this simple fact. The mob boss formed intent to cause a murder, sought out a man who would do it and provided him ample incentive to do it. From a human perspective, the difference between the two really doesn't amount to a damn thing in terms of guilt when the actual hit happens.

However many outside influences there might be it doesn't change the simple, incontrovertible, unassailable fact of the matter that a mother made the decision to kill a child.

That's false, MA, for many reasons, but just one is that there are plenty of actual recorded cases of literal force--young women, sometimes minors sometimes not, who either change their minds or make it clear from the outset that they don't want an abortion and are literally dragged away into the room or held down on the table. You'd be surprised how often it happens. I think often if the girl is a minor she believes her parents or others actually had the legal authority to do it and hence it never occurs to her to try to bring charges. Move from that one notch further: Girls who are told by their parents (it often seems to be the parents), "I don't want to hear it. You're getting an abortion." They don't, let's say, actually get dragged off kicking and screaming, but they believe their parents can make them, and they have no choice. Now substitute "boyfriend" or "husband," and that also happens.

I understand that when it gets to the point of "mere" arm-twisting or, "I'll leave you if you don't have an abortion," you think there is at that point a simple, unassailable, incontrovertible fact. We disagree there. For one thing, how many mob bosses were pressured to have somebody bumped off by their wives' threatening to leave them? Yeah, not many. So the analogy breaks down.

You want to say that no, really, an abortion is not all but precisely analogous to a contract assassination involving a hitman, with the mother playing the same role (morally) as the one paying for the hit.

Yeah, because it happens all the time that people lie to the mafia boss and convince him that the would-be victim of the hit, whom _they_ want to bump off, is "just a clump of cells." Happens all the time.

Yeah, because it happens all the time that people lie to the mafia boss and convince him that the would-be victim of the hit, whom _they_ want to bump off, is "just a clump of cells." Happens all the time.

That's why I don't think the Nazis were really murderers. They really did think the Jews were subhuman!

More than that - sure, if you have a 14 year old girl wrestled into an abortion by her father she shouldn't be held fully culpable, just like I don't think a 14 year old girl is fully culpable if her parents force her to sell drugs for money under pain of disownment or beating.

But I don't buy that a bullying husband or boyfriend counts. Women are moral agents - they're the ones making the choice. Hubby or boyfriend just can't make them do something they don't want to unless they're literally threatening to kill them if they don't get the abortion - and I just don't think that happens in more than a fraction of a fraction of abortions.

Yeah, because it happens all the time that people lie to the mafia boss and convince him that the would-be victim of the hit, whom _they_ want to bump off, is "just a clump of cells." Happens all the time.

There is not a woman in the industrial world, with an IQ above room temperature, who is unaware of what she is doing at a basic level. That she accepts some bull#$%^ argument about it to make herself feel better is not mitigation, it's just the acceptance of bull#$%^. In fact, the mob boss at least can be said to be fully aware of what he is doing. There is something to be said about clear-eyed awareness of the act versus living in a fantasy state.

But I don't buy that a bullying husband or boyfriend counts. Hubby or boyfriend just can't make them do something they don't want to unless they're literally threatening to kill them if they don't get the abortion - and I just don't think that happens in more than a fraction of a fraction of abortions.

Wait a minute: So is the distinction supposed to be that parents threaten to beat females but boyfriends or husbands never do (!!), or that an action done by someone over the age of eighteen under threat of beating is fully culpable but one done by a minor under threat of beating isn't? Or that if a husband or boyfriend threatens to beat the girl up it doesn't count unless he threatens actually to kill her, but parents' threats merely to beat and not to kill mitigate culpability, or...or...or?

MA, it just looks to me like you haven't thought this through in much detail.

There is something to be said about clear-eyed awareness of the act versus living in a fantasy state.

Which is blatant special pleading, and I will say quite obviously motivated by a ridiculous desire to find something that sounds better to say about a mob boss ordering a hit than about a woman who has an abortion. There's "something to be said for" carrying out an evil action with one's eyes wide open, in full knowledge of the evil one is doing, versus being partially deceived by others and partially self-deceived into believing that it isn't an evil action? Whatever there is to be said about that, it isn't that the former is clearly _less bad_. Good grief.

I'm factoring in age - you apparently aren't.

I'm also assuming women are moral agents.

MarcAnthony,

The Nazi/Jew example is actually useful for the purposes of illustrating Lydia's point -- imagine a young German boy at an early age indoctrinated into Nazi propaganda regarding the Jews. Everyone around him, including his parents buy into the lies and soon he is made to believe that the Jews are indeed in some sense not German, not really the same as human beings, somehow dangerous to the well-being of his family, the German nation, the European people, etc., etc. The boy grows older and is recruited into the German army and becomes a willing foot soldier in the effort to guard a concentration camp, maybe even shooting an escaping Jewish prisoner to death.

Now, is the German boy/now soldier culpable for committing evil acts? Of course! The natural law is still at work and the boy's heart shouldn't be totally hardened to all moral reasoning (I'm leaving out the additional complication of obeying orders from a commanding officer, but you get the idea.) Can we, however, understand why he might be given some leeway at a sentencing hearing for his crime and how years of propaganda might change our understanding of his crime? How growing up in such a place, without alternate influences (or very few alternatives) would color his view of Jews?

Now think of a liberal woman who has grown up surrounded by like-minded family and friends when it comes to abortion. She has access to alternative views but closes her mind (and eyes) to such views and chooses to believe the lies about a clump of cells, her body-her choice, etc. Should she be held responsible for the murder of her unborn child? Of course, but again, take some pity on her -- she literally has been indoctrinated all her life into an insane worldview that you and I are fighting against with only limited success every day. One would hope that someday the woman does regret her decision, repents, and perhaps even decides to value life and become a mother to many children. We can only pray for her conversion and repentance -- but in the meantime, as Lydia suggests, we must not give in to hatred and despair for all our liberal fellow-citizens. The goal is to convert them or defeat them politically, not establish some sort of dystopian dictatorship over them.

Jeffrey,

I get what you're saying. I've just gotten into enough conversations that I'm tired of hearing people try to make excuses for baby-killers. My experience is that people will bend over backwards - conservatives and liberals alike - to avoid placing any blame at all on the mother, while being thrilled to blame *everybody else* for the abortion.

You can see, I'm sure, why I'm not overly willing to give the person who chose to have her baby's spine snipped an excuse to wriggle out of blame.

...in the meantime, as Lydia suggests, we must not give in to hatred and despair for all our liberal fellow-citizens.

Thst's fine, as long as you agree that the same courtesy be provided to abortion doctors. After all, they do believe they're helping women.

But I don't buy that a bullying husband or boyfriend counts. Women are moral agents - they're the ones making the choice. Hubby or boyfriend just can't make them do something they don't want to unless they're literally threatening to kill them if they don't get the abortion - and I just don't think that happens in more than a fraction of a fraction of abortions.

MarcAnthony, I agree with your point that adult women are free moral agents, and their consented abortions generally are gravely culpable acts.

Nevertheless, I agree also with Lydia that for many unmarried women being pressured by their boyfriends, and by all married women being strongly pressured by their husbands, the moral culpability is changed by the fact of the pressure being brought to bear. The mental and moral pressure that a man exerts, especially a husband upon his wife who normally has an obligation to obey him, is not inconsiderable. We understand this clearly when we talk about forms of torture and the evils thereof. One of the ways you can use psychological torture is to threaten the welfare of someone else who is dear: "If you don't kill the man you are guarding, we will rape and kill your wife" is a horrible, horrible tortuous threat to a man. It constitutes psychological torture. Yes, if the guard gives in and kills the man he is supposed to guard, THAT IS MURDER. But we still account the culpability as lessened. His consent is altered so that it is no longer entirely free, it is partially constrained.

That's also why we have more than one category of murder crime. First degree murder might be murder in cold blood, whereas second or other degrees of murder might be not in cold blood or somehow lessened in culpability - while remaining murder. That it is, objectively, murder, doesn't of itself imply that the culpability is the same as that of cold-blooded murder.

When a man hires himself out as a contract killer, both he and the hirer are guilty of FIRST degree murder, for BOTH parties it is fully consented, fully intended, fully deliberate as murder. The instrumental position of the contract killer does not lessen his culpability. He is not less free for being the instrument of another, for he is freely willing to be the instrument of another.

This is fully analogous to the woman who goes to an abortionist without any outside influence, but just decides on her own not to "submit" to the inconvenience of having the baby: for both her and the doctor / hired killer, the murder is fully consented, fully intended, fully deliberate. However, the analogy is less applicable to the woman being pressured by her husband who insists that "it's the wrong time to have a child" for all sorts of reasons having to do with family situation, and threatens to divorce her if she won't abort: the crime, though still objectively that of murder, has its culpability modified by the psychological pressure in much the same way that the above psychological torture on the guard does.

Can we, however, understand why he might be given some leeway at a sentencing hearing for his crime and how years of propaganda might change our understanding of his crime? How growing up in such a place, without alternate influences (or very few alternatives) would color his view of Jews?

No. All of his senses and reason tell him that the Jew is a human being. He deliberately chose to ignore what was right in front of him and commit those acts anyway.

Tony,

It would depend greatly on the nature of the coercion the husband brings to bear. If it is a threat of divorce, I don't think that is comparable in any way to the threat of "kill this man or we'll rape your wife." Rape just is significantly worse of a threat than abandonment.

What baffles me is that I get the sense from Lydia's comments, and she should correct me if I'm misreading her, but she thinks that if a woman was pressured into an abortion, is not ashamed of it and tries to defend herself we shouldn't shame her. I've seen plenty of people make that argument, even if she's not making it and I'm misreading her. It makes no sense because if a woman unabashedly pimped out her kid because her husband wanted more money most people would just call her a monster and a bitch for not leaving him. Yet it seems like abortion is an area where it's like "no, no we shouldn't try to shame her."

To me, it seems like a Christian-approved version of the feminist movement's outrage over slut shaming.

"Thst's fine, as long as you agree that the same courtesy be provided to abortion doctors. After all, they do believe they're helping women."

Haha, exactly. "Let's not criticize liberals because atleast they have good intentions". What was that saying about good intentions and hell and all again?

Pandering to liberals has gotten us nowhere.

I do disagree with you a bit, I put less culpability upon women who get abortion than upon abortionists, but at the same time, if we're going to judge people by their good intentions as opposed to the results they bring (only results matter), then no one ever has ever done anything wrong, hell, even Judas must have thought 30 pieces of silver was a good intention.

But at the same, I am not likely to lambast women who get abortions because lots of those who do deeply regret it. It's best that we continue to encourage such women to become good mothers in the future since you know, in the words of Mussolini "War is to Man as Woman is to Motherhood".

". We can only pray for her conversion and repentance -- but in the meantime, as Lydia suggests, we must not give in to hatred and despair for all our liberal fellow-citizens. The goal is to convert them or defeat them politically, not establish some sort of dystopian dictatorship over them."

Defeat them politically how? Asking them to play nicely this time?

She has access to alternative views but closes her mind (and eyes) to such views and chooses to believe the lies about a clump of cells, her body-her choice, etc.

Wait, I missed this my first read. Why, exactly, should we be making excuses again?

Another addendum to my response above, most people are horrified by the whole scene described in the excerpt with the eye falling out and all, even liberal women (the moderate kind) and to not be horrified by such a scene to the point of laughing at it probably means you've gone beyond the point of no return.

The Nazi-Jew Analogy with abortion has many flaws and holes in it. [edited LM]

MarcAnthony,

In response to your query, I think I would point to Ajax's comment that follows and argue that many liberal women deliberately live in a cocoon, or liberal bubble and are never exposed to the CMP videos and/or grow up closing themselves off from ultra-sound pictures and other pro-life images that might help them get in touch with what they know in their heart to be true -- that the life they created after their one-night stand is human, is worthy of dignity and respect, and is growing inside them to become a beloved child of God. But when you are closed off from a religious tradition, when you are closed off from pro-life stories and images, etc. -- that's what I mean about access to alternative views but never really getting exposed to such views.

Ajax,

The idea that the Germans and the Jews that lived among them were "vastly different races" is interesting to say the least. Please note as well, that a certain percentage of abortions take place in the early weeks when the developing child is indeed very small and if the abortion is done before three weeks of pregnancy, then most organs haven't even developed yet and the fetus is not recognizably human. I still think you are right -- this is the mother's flesh and blood -- but again, we are talking about taking pity on a hardened heart that has grown up believing in the devil's lies about clumps of tissue and all the rest. One could easily make the case, as Mike T did, that shooting a Jewish mother and child at point blank (or herding them into a gas chamber) is just as horrific if not more so. But I'd rather not play the game of which evil sin is more terrible -- the point is only that some good people are corrupted at an early age with lies and hatred and I agree with Lydia that we should take pity on them as we fight the good fight. Defeating our enemies politically means just that -- winning office, changing laws, and enforcing those laws against those who would break them. Nothing more, nothing less.

she thinks that if a woman was pressured into an abortion, is not ashamed of it and tries to defend herself we shouldn't shame her.

It depends entirely on _how_ pressured the woman was and _how_ she is not ashamed of it.

My point is only that situations vary for the woman (and for that matter, for any non-abortionist involved in the situation, whether male or female) far more than for the abortionist, not that there are _no_ situations in which a woman who procures an abortion ought to be ashamed or deserves to be shamed by her community. There are such. Just not uniformly, and not in as high a majority of cases as you seem to think there are. Moreover, in general, when A pressures B to do evil against B's inclinations, A deserves a millstone in addition to the guilt of the act itself. This applies both ways, by the way. If a heartless woman pressures her husband to pay for an abortion against his pro-life inclinations (and there certainly are such), then she has the additional guilt of corrupting another human being on top of the guilt of the abortion. I read one such story about a woman who didn't want twins (I think it was, or possibly triplets) and _insisted_ that her husband "support" her in having the heart of one child stopped by a lethal injection in utero. The husband told the story with anguish of feeling he had to go along and sit there and watch the procedure. It was horrible. There, _she_ was by far the more guilty one. Did the husband know that he did wrong? Indeed. But one scarcely needed to "shame" him. He was obviously already ashamed all on his own.

In contrast to all of these varied scenarios, abortionists do these "procedures" day in, day out. They handle the little limbs and heads. Their hands are literally red with the blood. They _cannot_ deny anything. They _know_. And often they lie to the women or instruct their assistants to do so. Nor do they stop at one time. They keep on. That is why they unequivocally deserve to be called "baby killers," "ghouls," etc., as Walsh does in the quotes above.

In response to your query, I think I would point to Ajax's comment that follows and argue that many liberal women deliberately live in a cocoon

That "deliberately" still makes it seem like a pretty weak defense.

Lydia,

I see the shaming issue falling into three primary categories of women:

1. Those who are "loud and proud" about their abortions.
2. Those who openly defend it, but act like it was a necessary evil.
3. Those who admit it was the wrong choice.

I see no reason to shame women who are in category 3. The purpose of shaming here is to apply social pressure on women to conform to the moral law here. The women in the third category are more or less already there now. Simply seeing women in category 1 bludgeoned with rhetoric and women in category 2 continually told to stop justifying what they did would be enough to prevent most of them from backsliding.

Jeff,

Defeating our enemies politically means just that -- winning office, changing laws, and enforcing those laws against those who would break them. Nothing more, nothing less.

It would certainly feel dystopian to much of the left, but then not getting their way generally feels like the end of the world which is why you shouldn't pay much attention to their claims of suffering.

If you want to change and enforce the law in a meaningful way, you are going to face real opposition. You had better be prepared to take the kid gloves off and put the fear of God into someone because they won't take it lying down.

"The idea that the Germans and the Jews that lived among them were "vastly different races" is interesting to say the least"

Jeffery, I am not going to argue this point since I know that it makes certain people uncomfortable, but I recommend you open up a Pre-Boasian Anthropology (or a more modern book by Gregory Cochran) book or even just up the words "European" and then look up the word "Semite": (You'll be surprised to learn what "Semite" means. Being anti-Palestinian or anti-Arab is as equally anti-Semitic as being anti-Jewish, since newsflash, they're all Semitic the same way eagles and falcons are both equally "raptor").

"But as an aside, "Please note as well, that a certain percentage of abortions take place in the early weeks when the developing child is indeed very small and if the abortion is done before three weeks of pregnancy, then most organs haven't even developed yet and the fetus is not recognizably human. I still think you are right -- this is the mother's flesh and blood -- but again, we are talking about taking pity on a hardened heart that has grown up believing in the devil's lies about clumps of tissue and all the rest. One could easily make the case, as Mike T did, that shooting a Jewish mother and child at point blank (or herding them into a gas chamber) is just as horrific if not more so. But I'd rather not play the game of which evil sin is more terrible -- the point is only that some good people are corrupted at an early age with lies and hatred and I agree with Lydia that we should take pity on them as we fight the good fight."

Killing is a morally neutral term. Murder however is the sin of intentionally killing an innocent and non-aggressive individual. So yeah, killing an innocent Jewish mother and child is a sin. That being said, I did notice how the Bible makes a huge deal about the fratricidal story of Cain and Abel more than it does about the deeply disturbing extermination campaigns (as ordered by God) as described in the Old Testament against the Canaanites and other similar heathenistic peoples including what seems like obviously immoral violence against infants and children but even non-nonsensical gratuitous violence against livestock (who have no ability to be moral agents which makes this sound like violence for violence's sake). The justification for this act was laid out as basically "they're wicked people, they deserve it".

As an aside, I don't know what to take from that, but I sincerely want to know how you deal with that aspect of the Bible.

Back to the topic at hand, it does seem from both natural human impulses and instincts and from the Bible, that killing your own is the worst thing to do and the worse kind of killing your own would be mother-child fillicide since the act is deeply unnatural.

"Defeating our enemies politically means just that -- winning office, changing laws, and enforcing those laws against those who would break them. Nothing more, nothing less."

You do realize that when you make laws, some people might find those laws to be oppressive and unfair? And you do realize some people might flaunt those laws right? And you realize what "enforcing" a law entails right? Hint: It's violent.

And When you have a divided and extremely diverse populace with no common moral, cultural and social consensus, Freedom in the Early American Republic sense or the Classical Greek sense from which it derives is damn near impossible.

And don't get me wrong, freedom and liberty are good things and I definitely don't want to live in a totalitarian hellhole (we do live in a soft totalitarian one since having dissenting views is punished), but you don't seem to acknowledge that the game has changed drastically. These aren't patriotic America-firster Leftists that were nothing but lovable, witty and humorous rogues like Ambrose Bierce, Mark Twain, Gompers, Mencken, London, Long, or Hemingway. What we see now with the post-WWII Cultural Marxist and their spawn the SJW is a whole 'nother beast all together. We're not going to have that fun and challenging G.K Chesterton-G.B. Shaw friendship/rivalry with them. And since they are the religious fanatics of a Christian heresy (Cultural Marxism is a secular, Godless Christian heresy that takes the more softer Christian virtues and turns them up to 11 without any limits in regards to God or nature. It is neo-Gnostic in spirit), we should treat them like we treat Muslims, who are also the religious fanatics of another Christian heresy (look up Hillaire Belloc if you find this idea interesting as well).

Things change and part of winning involves seeing changing circumstances and adapting in the correct manner to these changes.

Ajax,

Let's respect Lydia's boundaries and keep the race realism discussion for another day (for the record, I'm a big fan of Gregory Cochran and Henry Harpending and think their book "The 10,000 Year Explosion" is fantastic.)

Since you are new to the blog, you don't know about the previous discussion we've had here regarding the Canaanites:

http://www.whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2014/08/on_paul_copans_attempted_solut.html

Finally, to the extent we might have to use violence to capture and/or bring to justice someone who is breaking the law, so be it. Any talk of violence beyond that is premature and reckless at this point in our history. Let us all pray that this country never experiences the horrors of a civil war again.

"Let's respect Lydia's boundaries and keep the race realism discussion for another day (for the record, I'm a big fan of Gregory Cochran and Henry Harpending and think their book "The 10,000 Year Explosion" is fantastic.)"

Jeffery, I just want to say, much respect. Anyone who appreciates Cochran is good in my book.

"Finally, to the extent we might have to use violence to capture and/or bring to justice someone who is breaking the law, so be it. Any talk of violence beyond that is premature and reckless at this point in our history. Let us all pray that this country never experiences the horrors of a civil war again."

I guess my issue is that the focus is on symptoms not upon the causes. Yeah abortion is a terrible evil but at the same time, it is symptom of a deeper root cause. We could ban abortion tomorrow and we'd still have more abortion than any of us would like but if we do things the right way, we could have theoretically have Roe V Wade still on the books and still have little to no abortion. I used the term "little to no" because I want to be realistic and say that all societies no matter how devout they are will have murder, infanticide, abortion, fornication, rape, adultery, usury, treachery and other grave sins. The difference between a righteous society and an unrighteous one is the stance taken on these issues. In the same way, the difference between a healthy society and an unhealthy one is the the frequency of the sins listed. In a righteous, healthy society, we would have a strong stance against abortion and little to no abortion.

The root cause is a combination of deep set cultural malaise mostly likely caused by decadence and epitomized by a morally, emotional, mentally and physically weak population (the Moral Majority in America never existed after the arete of the Pioneer/Cowboy days) which is partially caused by/most definitely aggravated by the transient nature of this population that has no real ties to people or place and which causes a deep, deep sense of emptiness within people from all of the alienation and isolation and is usually filled by the vast majority via overeating, porn, promiscuous sex (from where most abortions come from), Ideology-As-Faith beliefs, drug abuse, alcoholicism, watching too much TV or netflix, or playing too many videogames.

The reality is that we have to completely reinvigorate the dull, weak and insipid spirits of the vast majority. We have a populace that has no ties, that have no real sense of a Higher Power, nor do they have any sort of overwhelming drive to move out of their pitiful circumstances and achieve their full potential.

Obviously repentance is the answer but the likelihood of a nation-wise repentance seems unlikely especially with a Church that has fallen prey to the same sort of thing.

I guess, ultimately, I think that focusing on symptoms like abortion instead of the root cause will only lead to one particular symptom to hide for a little bit until it resurfaces again and maybe even more virulently.

Well, Ajax, my priorities are a great deal different than yours. Since for some rather obscure reason you've decided to hang out in our comboxes, get used to the fact that I, and others, will be discussing many things you regard as "mere symptoms" and putting a lot of energy into them. And that's just how it is. So get used to it while you're here.

"Well, Ajax, my priorities are a great deal different than yours."

So I'm guessing that you think that there is no spiritual degeneration within the populace and that abortion occurs in a complete vacuum and as long as we make abortion illegal (while ignoring the root cause all together), it'll all work out, am I right? Basically, lets treat the chancres (which like abortion are bad in it of itself) but let's completely ignore syphilis (the underlying condition) all together and then when our patient gets a full-fledged case of neurosyphilis and then dies, we can just shrug our shoulders and say "well, we atleast treated his chancres, he can definitely have an open casket".

"Since for some rather obscure reason you've decided to hang out in our comboxes, get used to the fact that I, and others, will be discussing many things you regard as "mere symptoms" and putting a lot of energy into them. And that's just how it is. So get used to it while you're here."

I'm not complaining. Just pointing things out.

"So I'm guessing..."

What an accurate verb!

So I'm guessing that you think that there is no spiritual degeneration within the populace and that abortion occurs in a complete vacuum and as long as we make abortion illegal (while ignoring the root cause all together), it'll all work out, am I right?

Yeah, that must be it./sarc

Stop digging, Ajax. I refuse to have my time wasted on your rabbit trails. This most recent one is along the lines of, "Why you should be writing about what I'm interested in instead of what you're interested in."

For that purpose, please, get your own blog and write there to your heart's content about what you are interested in.

""So I'm guessing..."

What an accurate verb!"

Of course it's accurate. I truly am guessing, I definitely don't claim to know it all. I don't claim to have any solutions here, I'm just looking for causes and I definitely am not sure about what the causes of what we see here are. I'm reaching for answers just like anyone else.

But please, feel free to comment on the accuracy or inaccuracy of all the other verbs I use. For instance, in that last line, I use the verb "use". Is that verb also accurate? Please tell me, I really am not sure. I don't think I'm sure about anything anymore, I've never been so shaken to the core regarding verb accuracy before.

"This most recent one is along the lines of, "Why you should be writing about what I'm interested in instead of what you're interested in." "

I'm in not telling you what to write about, I've just been commenting on what you've been writing about, because this is a comment box right? That is what it is for last time I checked.

That being said, maybe I was unaware of how you expect to run this site. I assumed that the comment box was for discussing what was written and figuring out possible causes and finding potential solutions, I was completely unaware that what I should have really been doing was parrot back your opinions.

Man, has this site really changed since Beckwith and Zippy left.

I think I like Matt Walsh for about the same reason I like Milo Yiannopoulos (what Walsh might have been if he were gay and non-Christian). Milo's recent column on transgenderism just goes to show that the potential coalition against this insanity is much larger than many social conservatives believe. In fact, he and Walsh would make a hilarious good cop, bad cop team.

@ Mike T. : I believe Milo is a Christian. I did see him wear a crucifix during an interview and, if my ears weren't filled with wax, he said that he was a Christian during and interview with Steven Crowder.

He's too openly homosexual and pro-gay rights to really be one, but he deserves the sympathy of Christians because of the work he does. I posted a link to one of his editorials here about why maybe gays should be forced back into the closet and be made to act like heterosexuals as they used to in public. Didn't last long, IIRC; Lydia called it bizarre and squashed it. The irony is that he was probably being pretty serious about his views on the matter and his proposal was a heck of a lot better than any other I've seen for helping homosexual men live ordinary lives.

It be interesting to see if homosexuals entered relationships with the opposite sex. I'm rather insensitive about the whole "being authentic" and "be true" or whatever is being used in form of liberation. My roommate's dad is a homosexual who got married, had two kids and later divorced the wife to runaway with his new boyfriend to Mexico. The kids didn't know his sexuality until he left. I'm not sure if the mother knew (see: the movie Beginners). There are many stories of homosexuals, and even bisexuals, marrying the opposite sex, having kids and later divorcing because they didn't want to "live a lie."

[Edited LM]

Take a hint re. appropriate content, gents.

Quit shilling for Milo. The man's a deviant and while he has his use, he's not on our side.

What are you guys doing, looking for an Ernst Rohm?

Post a comment


Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.