What’s Wrong with the World

the move in my own town to pass a brand-new ordinance banning "discrimination" on the basis of sexual orientation or "gender identity"

In Comstock? Really??? I guess I've been away from the area longer than I thought. This kind of stuff must be leaching over from politically-correct Kalamazoo....

Want to decisively win the culture war in the space of a generation? I'll tell you how, but the implementation won't be cheap.
Set up a large number of very academically exclusive schools, going from kindergarten all the way up to college. Take only kindergarteners and transfers from your other networked schools. Target the Stuff White People Like (SWPL) crowd for your student base---i.e., the upper middle class. Offer them outrageously low tuition (e.g., like $1000 per year---if human nature were actually rational, free would be better, but people need to pay something in order to feel invested) but ZERO input otherwise. Basically, you pay $1k/year and we educate your children together with other SWPL kids of high academic potention. You don't do PTA or any other such parental involvement. The school of course has a high quality education from a Biblical worldview and HARDCORE religious indoctrination (think what the Jesuits used to do in the 'good old days'). All of this is of course above board and freely advertised.
Within your schools, you will attempt to build strong cameraderie amongst your students using similiar techniques as the US Marines and other historically successful military organizations. What you really want is for these students to be very hard for their parents to countenance removing from the schools, and you want them to be able to form the nuclei of social networks in colleges, politics, and businesses upon graduation. Focus on teaching the students that organization and unity are powerful (a lot of fun games like variants of paintball or Laser tag can be used as object lessons in the efficacy of organization and unity over sheer numbers), that your fellow graduates are your comrades, and that your comrades will always 'have your back'.

I suspect that the godless SWPL crowd would cheerfully sign over their children to you, especially if you indoctrinate them hard that they are NOT to disrespect their parents. Keep them in your clutches until graduation, teach them a Christian world view, and send them in invasion forces (not ones and twos--try to send squads or platoons to your targetted universities) into the colleges and businesses of the country. Implement that and I wager you'd own the culture inside a generation. Don't forget, of course to teach a coherent theology of the body, and if the gift of celibacy isn't there, remember that it is better to be married than to burn with passion.

The big obstacle here is resources and the strong reluctance to give massive charitable contributions to people who are materially rich. But I believe that the Catholic church has the resources to do something like this---the question is, does it have the will? Fair disclosure: I am not a Catholic, although I have a have a warm regard for the Pope.

I might add that this is another reason why the tea parties were so necessary and popular. The battle against the public education monopoly also must be fought on the tax front. Vote down those mill levies whenever they appear on the ballot; vote out the constitutionally mandated annual funding increases (say, inflation plus 1%) for K-12 education; live up to your reputation as "heartless conservatives" and starve the beast!

One of the most effective, innocuous, and uncontroversial weapons in this battle may be to push for Payroll Protection, stopping the automatic withdrawal of FICA taxes. Sure, it stands little chance of success, but its a good way to drum up popular support for a new round of tax cuts which will hurt the Left where they live. This sort of deficit spending can't go on forever, and a skilled political operator on our side should be able to get the massive public education outlays thrown onto the chopping block. We are not powerless. Fiscally speaking, we have the upper hand. We just need to translate that into effective political tactics, and tax-cut populism is a good way to do that.

I've lately had an intuition, utterly unfounded except in the very ambiguous sense that it was triggered by the political and cultural atmosphere, that homeschooling might well be considered, not merely a sort of counterculture, but outre and potentially dangerous, as a bulwark against rightthought. Don't really know why I've felt this way, other than to say that the winds whisper it as a potentiality.

How many Republicans were there out there deluding themselves that an Obama administration would prove to be "centrist?"

How many Catholics there were who worked themselves up into a lather castigating McCain, ------------- all the while working hand in hand, whether they have the honesty to acknowledge it or not, with Obama, with a hard left, with a Godless left, that is determined to wrench this society away from whatever connections still remain to fundamental Christian ethics.

Where are those who went off on McCain?

Where are they now?

They knew, but they were liberals/lefties first, Democrats first, secularists first, and only nominally Roman Catholic. And they're not too worked up about what's looming on our near horizon.

Dan:

They knew, but they were liberals/lefties first, Democrats first, secularists first, and only nominally Roman Catholic. And they're not too worked up about what's looming on our near horizon.

Speaking as someone who is 33 and who deals with 18-22-year old college students every day, I can say that in my experience torture is not a big deal to most of my students and the people I know. What really drives them from the Republican party is the anti-gay marriage position of the party; what drives them away from orthodox Christianity is the view held by many such Christians that there's something wrong homosexuality because there is something wrong with homosexual sex acts.

I think the position on the ascendant regarding homosexuality derives from the following set of principles regarding sex:

(1) There is something morally wrong with sex only if don't have someone's rational consent. That's why (a) rape is wrong; (b) sex with children is wrong; and (c) cheating on your spouse or partner is wrong. (Note, though, that if you have an agreement with your spouse or partner to have sex with someone else, then that's fine, and even admirable, because it shows how you don't have any hang-ups about sex.)
(2) Sex is good because it gives you pleasure; therefore, if you refrain from having sex (or masturbating), you aren't exactly doing something _wrong_, but you are depriving yourself of a good for no good reason, is probably irrational.
(3) Since things like homosexuality, masturbation, bondage sex, promiscuity, etc., don't harm anyone (i.e., they don't violate anyone's rational consent), they are morally ok.
(4) The reason to get married is that you love someone and want to spend the rest of your life with him. If you no longer love him and/or no longer want to spend the rest of your time with him, you should get divorced. This may be bad for the kids, but it will be worse for them if you stay together.
Finally, (5) To say that there is something wrong with (1)-(4) it itself morally wrong.

Bobcat:

Maybe part of the difference here is in who we are talking about. I am sure a lot of the disparate perceptions on what is important arise from the kind of everyday environment we each are in.

I don't deal with 18-22 year old college students every day, but I would expect them to be exactly as you describe. No surprises there. At issue I think is what will make up the dedicated core of resistance to the liberal shibboleth in coming decades, or if that dedicated core will even exist. There is a body of home schooled or privately schooled religiously serious people, for whom things like gay marriage are manifestly to be opposed, etc. There are still schools in which those who think "gay marriage" might be a good idea had better stay in the closet. Some of those schools occasionally get some of my money. I live not far from Christendom College; I've met the founder, I know the high school school his wife runs pretty well, and I have for various personal reasons some insight into what some of the kids there are really doing and thinking which is not necessarily the face they show to their parents, etc. The area is filled with large vans carrying large Catholic families, pro-life anti-gay-marriage bumper stickers, pro-life school projects -- the works.

And the way the GOP has handled the last eight years, one part of which is the torture regime, is in my view a stake in the heart of the future of any serious, religiously orthodox resistance to liberalism.

The kids you are talking about aren't in the game anyway. But if there is to be any hope of a socially conservative political movement even existing in a few decades, folks better start paying more introspective attention to the hills they are willing to die on.

The war against homeschooling has already begun in California. Predictably enough, by the courts.

I think you're right, Lydia. Though I think we'll likely see the full assault much sooner.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=57679

Maximos, I think your instinct (that home schooling will be attacked as promoting wrongthought) is completely right. I'm just waiting for them to get around to it.

RobertK, I'm glad to be able to report that that particular case in California ended up being a win for home schoolers. It's still possible that the individual family will be ordered to put their kids in school if the state can convince the court they aren't being educated well enough, but the court reheard the case and reversed all the aspects of it that had more sweeping implications for home schoolers in California generally.

Bobcat, your description sounds depressingly accurate, but I'm inclined to agree with Zippy that anyone who would "leave" conservatism because of homosexual "marriage" never was a conservative at all. One obvious reason to say this is that the push for homosexual "marriage" is all coming from the other direction--from the liberals--and is still relatively new. It's not like the conservatives _used_ to support it but are reversing themselves or something! Plenty of liberals themselves didn't used to support homosexual "marriage" not all that long ago. (I seem to recall that Bill Clinton didn't, though doubtless just because that wasn't where the left was pushing him yet.) So anybody who is strongly pro-homosexual "marriage" is on the vanguard of the left within the culture, not on the right at all. I realize you're talking about their being driven away from Christianity rather than conservatism per se, but again, what sort of Christians could they have been? Or perhaps they weren't, and are just saying they never would be, because Christianity is opposed to homosexual acts? Well, but Christianity _is_ opposed to homosexual acts! It's depressing but probably true that if a kid is that indoctrinated into liberalism by 18, it's too late. God will have to hunt him down in some unusual way later on.

David, you have a fascinating idea. It would take a huge amount of money, and I somehow think that the parents would be less willing to have their children indoctrinated that you think they would. Probably you'd have more luck with the plan among the poor than among the rich, because the poor are _desperate_ to get their kids a better education. But I entirely agree that having some really hard-core Christian private schools--maybe a lot of them--would be good. As it stands, I have a feeling some of the only ones left are the fundamentalist schools.

Gentlemen, all, as Evil Petty Dictator of the thread, I threaten dreadful punishments upon any attempt to argue about torture in this thread. (Give me some time and I'll think of some dreadful punishments.)

Just an interesting note regarding the SS question:

My wife is an inner-city school teacher, and deals daily with those stereotypical kids whose parents whelped them for a bigger welfare check, and who generally are forced to raise themselves. The product is, naturally and consistently, little barbarians who only want an Attila to begin their conquest of Rome.

BUT

Left to themselves, they're forced to answer certain questions for themselves. My wife says that what you'll normally find is kids paying lip-service to the SS lifestyle so far as they've been corrected by their PC teachers, but for all practical purposes, they're disgusted by it. That is, "I guess it's okay for you to do that in San Francisco; but stay the heck away from me."

Steve, I suspect that what your wife is seeing there is the fact that homosexuality has generally been disapproved of in black culture (and Latino culture, too). There's a black church in my town that is very much opposed to the proposed ordinance I was mentioning.

True, Lydia with regard to that case. I didn't mean that that was an example of a loss, only as an example of what we can expect.

Bobcat:

I think the position on the ascendant regarding homosexuality derives from the following set of principles regarding sex:

(1) There is something morally wrong with sex only if don't have someone's rational consent.

If history is any guide, the next liberal attack will be on consent. After all, we don't require kids' consent when we force them to do things that are "good" for them, like go to the public school meat grinder and learn the wonderfulness of gay marriage. So why should they be denied the good feelings of sexual stimulation, if an adult wishes to teach it to them? Besides, they'll consent once they get used to it. Besides, at what age is consent "rational"? Is anybody ever really rational, and isn't it in the eye of the beholder? In earlier cultures, after all, people got married as young as 13.

The genuflection to consent is itself a holdover that the left has borrowed from Christianity in vague stripped-down form, which they have no rational justification for, and which they will gladly give up once they've gotten rid of other Christian influences. Right now, the Left is dedicated to the notion that the human is not sacred (and hence may degrade itself in the ways you described), but that somehow the human will is sacred. That's a logically contradictory position that will correct itself in time.

"David, you have a fascinating idea"

Agreed. I heard a similar idea put forth by R.V. Young at a 'Future of Conservatism' conference I attended last year. Young argued that we've basically lost the schools, colleges, and universities, and that rather than waste time and effort trying to take them back, we're better off trying to start and maintain our own, in order to initiate a sort of Gramsci-in-reverse movement. "It's our turn to be the subversives now," he said.

In conjunction with this I'd like to see conservatives take a look at the various roughly 'populist' groups in the U.S. and try to identify those areas where populism, loosely speaking, and conservatism overlap, and then hit those concerns hard. This echoes Sam Francis's idea that conservativism's greatest appeal should be to the middle class, if only we learned how to communicate to it. Seems to me that both Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee managed to hit a nerve in that regard in the last election, and it might behoove us to examine precisely what in those two campaigns was so attractive to middle class voters.

I think Deuce is onto something, though I don't think it will take the form he is implying. For a long time, as my readers know, I've been fascinated (in a sickened sort of way) by what I call the "choice devours itself" phenomenon. When something--like death or sex--comes to be regarded as a good in itself, choice ends up going out the window.

Now, what I think will happen in the sex area w.r.t. kids is this: It's not that the liberals will openly or even self-consciously hold that kids should be forced to have sex because it's "good for them." What will happen instead is twofold: First, they will hold that kids should be forced to *know* about sex, in all sorts of prurient detail, because that is part of "life" and "realism" and "helping them avoid disease," and so forth. A couple of years ago there was a report in the news about an AP English high school class in Illinois in which homosexual p*rn was required reading. After an outcry it was changed to being optional. The second thing is that the adults will continue (what is already going on) to convey this idea that kids are expected to have sex, and they _just won't care_ that this means that many kids will feel pushed by peer pressure, young girls by their boyfriends, etc., to get sexually involved when they would really rather not. That anti-choice effect of amoral sex education is something liberals could care less about. Third, they will tell lies to themselves and to the world to the effect that a) any child involved in sex is doing so willingly and b) even if maybe they are not, it's better not to try to break up the relationship or arrest the older person for statutory rape (or outright rape), because this will just "drive it underground" and prevent the child from getting "protection," aka condoms and birth control pills. Sort of a non-consensual variant on "they're gonna do it anyway." So even dubiously consensual child sex or outright rape will be ignored or excused in the name of the Great Condom Religion. There are already signs of this. I put up a post some time ago about a Planned Parenthood employee who gave a young girl birth control and made no report to police despite her "instinct" that the girl was involved in a non-consensual relationship with a much older man. Something similar has happened in New Zealand, where minors who are in prostitution are sometimes not rescued from this by social workers but rather given advice on how to make their work somewhat less dangerous to themselves.

And in line with the main post, related to all of this will be the move to round up any families whose children are currently opting out of the sex education regime and make sure the children get indoctrinated.

Rob G, let me add that to the extent that starting hardcore Christian schools is part of all of this, such schools *must not* accept government tuition vouchers. That would undermine the entire point, in the long run if not in the short run (but probably pretty quickly).

Lydia,

You make a good point about health. Right now, that is, besides consent, something else moralized about in the new sexual consensus. As in, if you don't have sex with a condom or using birth control to someone who's not your spouse, you're doing something immoral (and this, of course, is true, partly for the reasons any good liberal would give--it runs the risk of damaging your health as well as the health of your sexual partner). Given that, I think it's clear why sex ed is seen as a moral imperative.

As for the choice devours itself phenomenon, it really depends: if people make the leap from "x is good" to "x is morally obligatory" then we might see what you predict. Indeed, IIRC, there was an article in an academic psychology journal not so many years ago (in the 2000s, I think) claiming that young boys having sex with adults does nothing to harm the boys, although the same is not true of young girls having sex with adults. The article was written by two psychologists who moved away from the US in order to live in The Netherlands, where age of consent is lower, so that they could have sexual relationships with young boys. I'm certain, of course, that their own desires had nothing to do with their findings.

I should say, I could be wrong about those psychologists. It might have been a (very) trumped up story from a not-so-verifiable source.

Lydia,
I think that the SWPL crowd would be very easy prey---particularly in especially unchurched places like Portland where I live. A lot of them already send their kids to schools that are nominally religious (my aunt, for instance, a 'devout atheist', sent her son to Jesuit). What the SWPL crowd really wants are schools where mostly only other SWPL kids are attending---although they will of course vehemently deny this. It's ok though, we don't need them to fess up as to their motivations, in fact we'd want to use their baser motivations against them. Affording a 'good' school in places like Portland, San Francisco, New York, etc is extremely expensive, either in the form of tuition or a crazy mortgage payment. If you offered a high quality private education for $1k/year(defined by the customer as one where a modest effort is made to educate and where the other kids are from similiar social groups) I think you could probably corral as many SWPL kids as you could afford to educate. The real key is counterintuitive though---you have to be picky about who you let in to get the SWPLs. Honestly, even if you cackled maniacally when you accepted their students and chanted 'Give us your child, and we'll give you a Catholic' I don't think you'd have any trouble at all filling your campuses. Particularly now when belts are tightening all across the land economically. Educating the poor is also a worthy mission from a Christian standpoint, but from a cultural warfare perspective, as another poster pointed out, this is Gramscian methodology applied to bringing about reactionary objectives.
In terms of actual educational practices, I have a few suggestions. Nobody emulates the US in grade school practices, but for some reason, people the world over covet American college educations. So why should such a school marry itself to an unsuccessful model instead of one that works?
Dump the entire notion of grade levels, decide what you believe needs to be taught and organize it into logical progressions. For instance, you can have English & Western Literature 1, 2, 3, and so on. Similarly, you could have a Theology progression. To provide some structure, provide a number of prepackaged plans (why not call them Majors). Do this in all of the areas you teach, especially including Physical education. Make an ironclad policy that any student can test out of any class if they can demonstrate mastery of the material, and don't get bent out of shape if a normally cronological 6th grader is taking say what a 9th grader would in Math and say what a 7th grader would in Language arts. Doing this, coupled with your strong restriction of intellectual aptitude to begin with will greatly reduce the boredom of your students. If you're feeling particularly radical, make all of your courses the equivalent of S/U grading and encourage your students to take the hardest course they can pass with a hard slog---foster a culture that admires the aggressive striver. Also, go out of your way to make things more fun than your competitors---this shouldn't be hard to achieve. Do lots of fun stuff, the sorts of things kids used to do a lot more with their parents. This hammers home the idea that the Christian life is actually more fun and infinitely more rewarding than being just another SWPL ridden with white guilt.

I think what we see more often, Bobcat, is a move from "x is good" to "I refuse to take seriously situations where people are forced into doing x." Sometimes that refusal amounts to a denial--in the face of all evidence--that there is an absence of consent. The two psychologists you mention would fall into this category. Sometimes it takes the form of deliberately running insane risks that consent will be absent and caring nothing about these risks. Sometimes it amounts to overtly endorsing forms of "soft coercion"--as in the "duty to die" school of thought, endless talk about how people shouldn't be burdens, and the like. Sometimes it takes the form of acknowledging that consent is absent but "enabling" (to use the jargon term) the nonconsensual situation in the name of some supposedly greater good--like making sure sex slaves and abused children have birth control.

In a few areas we are seeing the full move from "x is good" to "x is obligatory," most notably in the area of organ donation, where some are openly advocating "organ conscription" but also in the area of forcing welfare mothers to have birth-control implants or lose their welfare benefits. And of course, denial of end-of-life care.

1) There is something morally wrong with sex only if don't have someone's rational consent. That's why (a) rape is wrong; (b) sex with children is wrong; and (c) cheating on your spouse or partner is wrong. (Note, though, that if you have an agreement with your spouse or partner to have sex with someone else, then that's fine, and even admirable, because it shows how you don't have any hang-ups about sex.)

The reason why statutory rape laws apply to teenagers is that that is necessary to prop up the arguments that it is OK for adults to have sex outside of marriage. We have a gut level instinct that 13 year olds should not be doing this, but most people want the freedom to have sex with whoever they choose. The only way to justify that in their minds is to render the adolescent to the same status as a prepubescent child, and conflate the utilitarian argument that they cannot completely grasp the pitfalls of their actions and be held responsible for them with a genuine moral argument about why they shouldn't be doing it.

It's nothing more than a sinner trying to find a convoluted argument to justify his or her sin by controlling others. The moment that teenagers are forced to behave like young adults as they did in previous civilizations, society will have to confront the consent-based view of sexual morality for adults or give up all authority to tell any adolescent to not be sexually active. The fact is, the average adult doesn't like the notion that it is immoral for a 13 year old to be sexually active outside of marriage for the exact same reason it is for a 43 year old.

Interesting idea, David, but you'll have to deal with parents like this.

Someone mentioned Sam Francis' idea about Middle America, but it's a new, replacement elite we need. Middle America will follow.

Mike T, I hope you aren't advocating the repeal of statutory rape laws. Because let me tell you, it would serve no good purpose to repeal them.

Gintas,
Most SWPL folks aren't anywhere near that egregious. Like most people, most haven't really done any deep thinking about what they believe at all. But, given that they're only paying @$1k/year, the parents have basically no leverage. Sure, they can withdraw their kids, but they have no financial influence. Also, if the school follows the program, they'll keep parental interaction with the school to a bare minimum anyway. An institution can deal successfully with even pretty odious people if it can keep them at arm's length, so to speak.

If the chalice you're offering them includes a good outcome in terms of the almighty test scores, and lots of free babysitting allowing them to mitigate somewhat the burdens of parenthood, I don't think they'll look too closely in the cup. Plus, once they've done it for a while, their own cognitive dissonance will work in your favor---that is, they've accepted it for so long, there can't be anything wrong with it, because that would mean that they'd made a grave mistake and that they're "bad parents". With a little luck, some of them may even become religious fundamentalists themselves as a means of resolving their dissonance. For far too long the Left has had nearly exclusive use of the power of cognitive dissonance to bend minds. Look at the abortion issue---lots of people can't wrap their minds truly around the plain simple fact that it is the cold-blooded murder of the closest thing to an innocent that the Fallen world produces because it has been legal for so long...if the law changed, so would the minds over time, few people can sustain that kind of an internal war with the culture over a long timespan.

Mike T, I hope you aren't advocating the repeal of statutory rape laws. Because let me tell you, it would serve no good purpose to repeal them.

I'm advocating making them apply to actual children, since sex with children is a crime against nature. A 14 year old girl who has sex with a 30 year old is a radically different moral case than a 4 year old girl who has sex with a 30 year old. In the case of the former, the 14 year old girl is old enough to be obedient to basic sexual morality and to be held accountable when she disobeys. A 4 year old girl is automatically a victim, as it is not in a child's nature to desire a sexual relationship with anyone.

Lydia,

Ultimately it comes down to nature. A teenager is a sexual being, therefore sexual acts with them are not a crime against nature. Since a child is not a sexual being and is not even mature enough to make reasonably informed decisions on anything, those two work together to conclusively make their consent meaningless if it is "given" and any sexual act with them a serious criminal offense equal to or superior to "normal rape."

A 14 year old girl who has sex with a 30 year old is a radically different moral case than a 4 year old girl who has sex with a 30 year old. In the case of the former, the 14 year old girl is old enough to be obedient to basic sexual morality and to be held accountable when she disobeys.

Now, I've seen everything.

A "Christian" advocating the right for folks to have sex with 14 year olds!

I hope this is not the consensus of the Christians here -- especially those who have family members of that age (be they daughters, sisters, nieces, etc.)!

If so, seek counsel, for heaven's sakes, and stay away from our children!

Uhboy. Okay, Mike T, I think you're way off base. End of that sub-thread.

David, it's interesting the way you're advocating using the separation between parents and school thing in favor of a conservative agenda. One immediate problem I see with it is that the really conservative parents might hesitate to send their kids into it because they are just the ones who don't want to "outsource" their kids' education that completely. They want to keep an eye on it. Also, the fact that they would know the majority of the kids would be coming from non-Christian and even liberal homes would probably (understandably) worry them, because the other kids would be bringing peer influences into the conservative kids' lives that would be worrisome, despite the school's education. So you'd probably end up almost entirely with non-Christian kids from liberal homes. You might say, "All the better, we'll 'subvert' them." Maybe, maybe not. My guess is that for heaven knows what reasons that's a lot easier to do in the liberal direction than in the conservative direction. Another problem is all the government regulations that do and will apply to private schools. There are legal difficulties with kicking troublesome kids out; increasingly there will be laws that even a Christian, private school must hire active homosexuals. And so forth. It seems to me that a school system of the sort you have in mind would make a pretty visible target.

Not that anyone has that kind of money, either. Did you know btw that the Canadian government is doing its best to bankrupt the Catholic Church? 'Struth.

A "Christian" advocating the right for folks to have sex with 14 year olds!

Faithful aristocles, how you take a modest argument and manage to make it sound utterly Satanic through poor reading comprehension.

Of course, to come to the conclusion you made, you had to ignore the fact that I said that 14 year old is old enough to know the morality of their choice and abstain from it. In the eyes of God's law, a 14 year old is not a child, but a human being old enough to be executed under the Mosaic Law for sexuality immorality. Even until 100 years ago, it was not that uncommon for girls that age to be married off.

So your view that teenagers are children who cannot be expected to be obedient to sexual morality and responsible for their choices to give consent is both ahistorical and outside the Judao-Christian tradition.

And as I said. The longer that society pretends that the teenager doesn't know EXACTLY what they are doing when they give consent, the longer it can pretend that there is a special moral exemption for adults to f#$% with impunity so long as consent is given.

For the record, I think there is no right to have sex with anyone outside of marriage, at any age. However, I think the issue with freedom of speech that Zippy raised the other day applies here in many respects. Just because you shouldn't say something, doesn't mean it is right for the censor to immediately ban it. It is also true that just because you have no moral right to have sex with someone, doesn't mean the police should haul you away for doing it. There must be a better reason for bringing in the government, like it being a crime against nature or a violent act.

It won't be long before they paint crosses on your homes and business. By then your children will have been absorbed, indoctrinated and trained to inform on their parents and neighbors who disagree with government policies and soon you will find yourself the recipient of a free train ride to a camp somewhere. It happened once and it can happen again. You will feel like a stranger in your own land. Our freedoms are so fragile and when they are gone they will be gone forever. If you care not or are "too busy" to concern yourself with this threat, then consider your children. Is this what you had in mind for their future when thay were born? The culture war started here long ago, it's time to answer.

Uhboy. Okay, Mike T, I think you're way off base. End of that sub-thread.

Fair enough. At least you had the good sense to not step into by calling my salvation into question a la aristocles by virtue of the fact that I believe that the ancient Israelites held a more accurate view of teenagers than we do today.

It won't be long before they paint crosses on your homes and business. By then your children will have been absorbed, indoctrinated and trained to inform on their parents and neighbors who disagree with government policies and soon you will find yourself the recipient of a free train ride to a camp somewhere.

And when that day comes, many Christian parents will struggle, but allow their kids to be taken away. Some may put up a little resistance, but the moment the state bares its fangs, they'll roll over like lambs, thinking that they're emulating Jesus, when in reality what God expects at that point is the believer to flee and be willing to shed blood to see their children not taken into anti-Christ indoctrination.

Mike T.

Were not these your words?

I'm advocating making them apply to actual children, since sex with children is a crime against nature. A 14 year old girl who has sex with a 30 year old is a radically different moral case than a 4 year old girl who has sex with a 30 year old. In the case of the former, the 14 year old girl is old enough to be obedient to basic sexual morality and to be held accountable when she disobeys. A 4 year old girl is automatically a victim, as it is not in a child's nature to desire a sexual relationship with anyone.

How is that not advocating people's rights to have sex with 14 year olds when your response is the abolition of laws that would prevent just that?

Also, that you would seem so confident that a 14 year old girl has the faculty capable of appreciating the consequences of her own acts at such a young age coupled with the above statement which basically boils down to an endorsement of folks having the right to have sex with 14 year olds (who I personally deem still incapable of deciphering right action given how impressionable such youths are at that age) without criminal penalty, makes me very suspicious of your own purpose in all this and ever leery of your own character given the body of the statement and just what that entails.

Never mind all the sex talk. Why did everyone disregard my modest point about taxes? It all begins and ends with the money, folks. Take back your taxes, and you will take back your liberty. If your serious about winning this battle, you need to start there.

your=you're.

*Sigh* Typos occur.

Ari, bag it. You and I agree that Mike's suggestions for revision of the law are bad news, but that's not what this discussion is about.

Mike T., you raise an interesting question about how Christian parents should resist. Fleeing would be a good idea if there were somewhere to flee to. Lots of prudential considerations become involved there. For example, if God forbid the only choices offered me by a state armed with full powers were to lose all contact with my children or to send them to public school, and I couldn't flee, I'd keep what parenthood I had rather than see them taken away altogether to an undisclosed location. It's a terrifying thought that it should come to that.

This is one reason why I think we need to be watching the ways in which the state is gaining more control of kids through the public schools. Those advances--things like mandatory community service, mandatory mental health screenings, and the like--are all being turned into "normal" state control of the child and will eventually be held against parents who are escaping them through private and/or home schooling. It would be worth lobbying against such laws even for public schoolers, because that way we are fighting the precedent.

How is that not advocating people's rights to have sex with 14 year olds when your response is the abolition of laws that would prevent just that?

Because the government doesn't create rights. If the state didn't get in the way, there would be nothing stopping the girl's father from beating the cad half to death for messing around with his daughter which is the way that it was done for thousands of years (and most of America's history) prior. Bottom line is that there are means of resolving this moral issue outside the state, such as social ostracism and the parents being at least tacitly allowed to use violence against the man who has sex with their teenage daughter if they catch him in flagrante.

Also, that you would seem so confident that a 14 year old girl has the faculty capable of appreciating the consequences of her own acts at such a young age coupled with the above statement which basically boils down to an endorsement of folks having the right to have sex with 14 year olds (who I personally deem still incapable of deciphering right action given how impressionable such youths are at that age) without criminal penalty, makes me very suspicious of your own purpose in all this and ever leery of your own character given the body of the statement and just what that entails.

Nice. An ad hominem mixed with a lot of conjecture that isn't backed up by history or observation. By your logic, teenagers who were married off to men in their 20s in the 19th century were sex slaves.

Of course, the ability to fully appreciate the consequences of her actions is immaterial to the fact that she is old enough to know what is right and wrong and obey it. Just like a 14 year old boy is old enough to know damn well that he is a cold-blooded murder if he puts a glock to your head and shoots you. So what if he doesn't fully "get" what murder means. He's damn well old enough to understand death and to know that society has taught him that it is an unforgivable act to inflict that on an innocent.

You hold a romantic view of teenagers, especially teenage girls. I don't. In high school, I saw more than enough to convince me that they frequently game the system to their advantage. One minute, they'll toy with an older man in defiance of the law. The next, they'll pretend to be a victim.

The only way I could see continuing to extend statutory rape laws to teenagers is on the condition that it would be a felony of equal severity for a teenager covered by that law to encourage an adult to break the law or deceive them about their age. If you're willing to concede that, then we could compromise and have no quarrel.

So you'd probably end up almost entirely with non-Christian kids from liberal homes.

But, but, but Lydia, don't you want to use your children as tools for evangelism?

Matt Beck, if you're actually talking about repealing FICA taxes, then I'm afraid pigs will fly first. And even with them, of course the Social Security system will be going bankrupt. I don't actually see conservatives and/or libertarians as having the upper hand, fiscally. I think the populace senses that something is wrong, starting with the bailout, moving on to all the current money-printing and (as they were discussing on VFR today) the overt bullying of companies like Chrysler under Obama. Even if people don't know the details, they are worried. But the very fact that the precedent for large, sudden jumps in the national debt was set under a _Republican_ administration makes it hard to do anything about what has happened since. I tend to think that fiscal conservatism has been declining for longer than social conservatism. And remember that if taxes won't pay for the programs already in place, they will just go to more deficit spending. It seems to me our best bet in the education of our children is being willing to pay double--once in taxes and once for what we really want and need. And hope we continue to be allowed to do that much. I'm afraid very much that we are headed for a similar situation in healthcare as well.

Mike T., you raise an interesting question about how Christian parents should resist. Fleeing would be a good idea if there were somewhere to flee to. Lots of prudential considerations become involved there.

(First, I promise to drop that issue unless Ari comes in with more trolling against my position, as he has an obnoxious habit of taking my position and twisting it)

There are still a lot of options. For example, my wife and I would consider moving to a country like Belize or Costa Rica where the government largely couldn't care less what you're doing unless it's making trouble.

The problem with the "keeping some of my parenthood intact" line of thought is that you cannot counteract blatant evil. We're not even close to that point yet, as kids aren't being subjected to official alternative religious indoctrination or atheist indoctrination (or anything similarly satanic). However, at some point, you have to put your foot down and stop being a part of that. At that point, the government will come to take your kids away. That's when you'll have to decide if you're willing to go down fighting to keep your kids away from that at all costs, or not resist them and let yourself be martyred.

I think at that point, you won't find a good traditional Christian example of a martyr who died so that their kids could be taken away to become Christ-haters.

you cannot counteract blatant evil

And by that I mean 2-3 hours with you a night is not going to counteract 7-9 hours of indoctrination into blatant evil modes of thought for most families.

Lydia,

Don't know if you've seen this already, but it is a perfectly good example of why parents need to wise up and realize that from the schools, to the police, when it comes to their families, the government is usually their enemy. The mother, had she been more plugged into current events, would have quickly realized what the state was trying to do to her son.

"Faithful aristocles, how you take a modest argument and manage to make it sound utterly Satanic through poor reading comprehension."

That sounds like a sales pitch for a bad fundamentalist apologetics training program:

"Now you TOO can take a modest argument and make it sound utterly Satanic through poor reading comprehension! Confuse atheists with Catholics that have similar names! Completely miss irony, sarcasm, and rhetorical questions! Master the art of using fallacious arguments and seemingly willful misreadings -- misreadings that only YOU will know are completely unintentional!"

"Fleeing would be a good idea if there were somewhere to flee to. Lots of prudential considerations become involved there."

True, but a somewhat simple step would be to move out away, when possible, from the cities into small towns and more rural areas. In a lot of cases the rot hasn't permeated as deeply in some of these environs as it has in the city.

"I tend to think that fiscal conservatism has been declining for longer than social conservatism."

Unfortunately that's probably true, but I detected a glimmer of hope in the Ron Paul campaign, and the whole "Fair Tax" movement continues to call attention to our rotten tax system.

Mike T, I did know about that very disturbing Lundeby case. The thing is, I'm not sure what the mother could or should have done differently. It sounds like the police held all the cards--somehow--whether with the PATRIOT act or some other power. I certainly hope the young man has a better lawyer now, or can get one. It sounds like an absolute nightmare.

[Continued threadjack deleted by Thread Dictator. Commentators, take note and tremble: This could happen to _you_. LM]

Lydia,
It is precisely the intent that all of the kids come from liberal homes, preferably unchurched ones of the SWPL variety. The sorts of homes where the parent's grandparents went to church regularly, the parent's parents went to church on Easter & Christmas and for weddings and funerals, and the current generation hardly at all is what you're aiming at. That is why you take them at kindergarten---perhaps even preschool. What you're going for is a total institution. You want to construct their circles of friends and social networks and indoctrinate them from the ground up. You don't want to take any transfer students from outside your network of hardcore schools. In the course of their education, you want to innoculate them against all of the usual arguments that SWPL, pagan, and heathen crowds like to use. You also want to fully verse them in using all of the 'unfair advantages' of the art of persuasion (e.g., using social proof---ever wonder why Mormon missionaries always travel in at least twos, sometimes small packs?, using attractive 'front men' or women, etc).

Responding to the original post, I see one big threat missed: anti-discrimination laws will be applied to religious groups which cooperate with government social programs. These groups may choose between government grants and self-determination.

For every group that opts out, the government increases in power.

Within religious groups, there will be a division between the principled and the pragmatic.

Further, the funding changes will set up a society in which indifferentist groups are preferred to creedal groups. (Unitarian theocracy!)

All because the creedal groups decided to be good citizens decades ago, when only Communists would so obnoxiously repay public service with domination.

Oh, it gets worse: laws barring discrimination based on sexual orientation probably really will be used by pedophiles, just like feminists revolutionized society with the help of the ill-considered sex protections added in an attempt to sabotage the Civil Rights Act.

Every shattering of a "taboo" creates another anti-taboo. Either stigmatize a behavior, or stigmatize those who would stigmatize that behavior.

Lydia:

Curious, what do you think about this most recent matter currently highlited at MSNBC?

EXCERPT:

Christian school tells boy to skip prom: He faces suspension if he goes to public school event

FINDLAY, Ohio - A student at a fundamentalist Baptist school that forbids dancing, rock music, hand-holding and kissing will be suspended if he takes his girlfriend to her public high school prom, his principal said.

Despite the warning, 17-year-old Tyler Frost, who has never been to a dance before, said he plans to attend Findlay High School's prom Saturday.

Frost, a senior at Heritage Christian School in northwest Ohio, agreed to the school's rules when he signed a statement of cooperation at the beginning of the year, principal Tim England said.

The teen, who is scheduled to receive his diploma May 24, would be suspended from classes and receive an "incomplete" on remaining assignments, England said. Frost also would not be permitted to attend graduation but would get a diploma once he completes final exams. If Frost is involved with alcohol or sex at the prom, he will be expelled, England said.

Frost's stepfather Stephan Johnson said the school's rules should not apply outside the classroom.

"He deserves to wear that cap and gown," Johnson said.

Forgot the link: Christian school tells boy to skip prom: He faces suspension if he goes to public school event

On another note:

Oh, it gets worse: laws barring discrimination based on sexual orientation probably really will be used by pedophiles, just like feminists revolutionized society with the help of the ill-considered sex protections added in an attempt to sabotage the Civil Rights Act.

And to think when I brought up something like this during the Gay APPLE entry by Dr. Beckwith, I was at once accused of the slippery slope fallacy.

Is the "slippery slope fallacy" a fallacy in itself? Sure, in formal logic it's a fallacy, but in practice, it's the Truth.

These groups may choose between government grants and self-determination.

For every group that opts out, the government increases in power.

No. By rejecting the coin of Ceasar's realm, religious institutions will shake off the State's shackles and recover the reason for their works of mercy. Anything that liberates the Gospels from the gag rules of State funding diminishes the power of the State.

Within religious groups, there will be a division between the principled and the pragmatic.

Same as it always was. The transition will be painful and innocent people will be hurt, but we're being forced out of our comfy, shopping mall Christianity for a reason.

Further, the funding changes will set up a society in which indifferentist groups are preferred to creedal groups

Already the case. The State coerces indifferentism now through its funding practices and will rue the day Christian churches are not dependent on its largesse.

Bring it on!

Kevin,

By rejecting the coin of Ceasar's realm...

Did not Paul himself teach:

Pay to all their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, toll to whom toll is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due. (Romans 13:7)

And did not Christ Himself didst once say:

Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s. (Matt 22:21)

"Bring it on!" another Kevin writes.

I prefer "Lead us not into temptation." We're weaker than we think, especially if we haven't been tested by the worst that can be brought against us.

anti-discrimination laws will be applied to religious groups which cooperate with government social programs.

That's true, but in a sense, it's "so 80's." The new phase of the war is that anti-discrimination laws will be applied to _everybody_. In fact, I believe there are already questions that have been raised as to whether Christian institutions can "discriminate" and one answer is that they can be exempted from such regulations only if not only those who run them but also their _customers_ are all or primarily of a single religion. (If anyone else recognizes this reference and can confirm it, please do so.) Now, that pretty much cashiers the independence of Christian K-12 schools.

But I also certainly agree (and said so above) that Christian schools--or any schools that want to make a stab at retaining their identity--should refuse to accept govt. funds.

Kevin J Jones said:

We're weaker than we think, especially if we haven't been tested by the worst that can be brought against us.

A fact that unfortunately continues to elude the ever faithful, Ciceronian Catholic Kevin.

Case-in-point: A Time for Civil Disobedience

I prefer "Lead us not into temptation."

We have already succumbed to temptation. The one posed by yearning for the praise of men and cultural acceptance. We deluded ourselves into thinking we we could be both devout Christians and prosperous consumers.

We're being led out of the fleshpots of Egypt. Embrace it. And leave the 30 pieces of silver
on the nightstand.

Ari,
Gird your loins. Or, in modern parlance; grow a pair!

Kevin,

Growing a pair (if you would rather prefer the more terrestrial form of communication) is not co-extensive with living as a devout Christian; many times, it means doing exactly the opposite.

Heck, hear the story about the one they called Job?

If a man with that much Faith, one who had so personal a relationship with God, could be so moved to ultimately rail against him in the end; how much more concerning Christians as yourselves?

Growing a pair (if you would rather prefer the more terrestrial form of communication) is not co-extensive with living as a devout Christian

Actually Ari, courage is essential to Christian manhood and the foundational virtue for all the others.

Kevin,

I beg you give ear to other Kevin's wise counsel concerning thus:

We're weaker than we think, especially if we haven't been tested by the worst that can be brought against us.

Less you yourself end up enduring the Trial of Job and repudiate Christianity/God altogether.

Great-spiritedness prompted many people to consent to little radicalisms, thinking society and themselves resilient enough to withstand the ill effects.

Given the choice between continuing orthodontic coverage for one's gap-toothed child and taking a career-risking stand on a seemingly minor point of principle, how many of us could really go for principle?

Deliver us from evil.

Agreeing to shuffle Christ back to the tomb is already being delivered into evil.

@aristocles 7:46 PM...

I think it's pretty obvious what Kevin was saying. He was saying that the church needs to reject Caesar's offers of assistance in the form of establishment, subsidies and tax exemption in order to be able to operate freely... Why you saw fit to quote those verses when they are essentially non-sequitor to his argument is beyond me...

Kevin,

I agree. The only churches that will matter in the next few years are the ones that absolutely refuse to play by "the rules" that are expected of them by agencies like the IRS. The price for religious freedom will be filing an income tax on church corporate earnings.

Growing a pair (if you would rather prefer the more terrestrial form of communication) is not co-extensive with living as a devout Christian; many times, it means doing exactly the opposite.

It took a pair made from aircraft-grade Titanium to endure what Jesus went through for a species that deserved the diametric opposite of what it received through His death.

I believe that Bobcat's two posts above (WAY above) are about as "on target" as "on target" gets.

The only churches that will matter in the next few years are the ones that absolutely refuse to play by "the rules"

Mike T.,
Agreed. With each passing day it is becoming more and more obvious a stark choice will be upon us. There will be heavily compromised, state-sanctioned churches for those who prefer a security-blanket type of faith over the Person of Jesus Christ. For the rest of us, neither soul-crushing conformity, escapist quietism, or long disquisitions on the electoral fortunes of social conservatism will have much appeal.

Lydia: "... As it stands, I have a feeling some of the only ones left are the fundamentalist schools."

It seems to me that the attitude on display here is part of the problem that *we* face.

But, on the other hand, I am one of those.

Don't forget to teach your children to play music and make sure they play it better than anyone else. Teach them German so they can sing Bach.

And/or sing, KW. I'm with you.

Llion, I don't know what you are getting at. What problem are you referring to?

Ari, I never answered you about the Baptist school: I think they are well within their rights to kick the boy out for taking the girl to the prom. I disagree with the idea that a private high school has no legitimate say over what students do outside of school. In fact, I think that's a very dangerous idea. If a student engages in sexual orgies outside of school, which he advertises in the local paper, a Catholic high school has no right to kick him out? I realize that's an exaggerated example, but the point is, schools should be allowed to have their standards and these _definitely_ should be able to include out-of-school behavior. I don't happen to agree with the Baptists in question that all dancing and use of alcohol as a beverage are wrong. On the other hand, even someone with a less absolute position might have reservations about a secular high school prom, given what those have become today. We're not talking waltzing, here! I have heard descriptions of what goes on at (and after) public school proms that made my hair stand on end. And minors' abuse of alcohol will both probably occur in connection with the prom (even if unofficially) and is (of course) illegal as well as unwise. So even though I don't share all their specific rules, I am with them in not wanting one of their students to go to such a party.

Lydia: "Llion[sic], I don't know what you are getting at. What problem are you referring to?"

But I quoted exactly what I wanted to direct your attention to.

OK, how about this: And? There is a problem with fundamentalists? Are they not Christ's, too?

Or, how about this: How are we to successfully wage a "culture war" if our pillow is in the other camp?

Ah! I see. You thought I was making a negative comment about fundamentalists, is that it?

Actually, I think you misunderstood me. If there was any negative connotation intended (and I wasn't aware of one at the time) it would only have been an educational one. I know a good deal about fundamentalist K-12 education, having been brought up in it. I suppose my knowledge may be a bit out of date, though. But I also use fundamentalist curriculum for my children now--A Beka books, out of Pensacola College. The math education is quite good through 8th grade, not so good in high school. The history education has a number of correctable blind spots. Indeed, I'm known among my friends for saying I'd rather deal with correcting fundamentalist anti-Catholic bias in history texts than with correcting the complete mess that is left-wing PC bias. So there are pluses and minuses, but my impression is that it would be possible in principle to do _better_ educationally than the typical fundamentalist education. Also, of course, one could do much worse. If I for some reason had to send my children to school rather than home schooling them, I'd look for the most fundy school I could find in the area and send them there, for many reasons.

I could write a whole book about this. My general attitude to self-identified Baptist fundamentalists (including my parents, all of my near relatives, and most of my dearest in-person friends) is a complex one and certainly not a generally negative one.

(I am a low-church Anglican with strongly Baptistic leanings, theologically. I am not Catholic.)

Yes. I even pointed out that I am one of those dreadful things.

And, surely you know that to "the other side," *all* persons who take Christianity seriously are 'fundies."

The fuller context: "... But I entirely agree that having some really hard-core Christian private schools--maybe a lot of them--would be good. As it stands, I have a feeling some of the only ones left are the fundamentalist schools."

Can you not see why I took that to be ... hmmm, a statement of regret?

I use the term "fundamentalist" in a strictly descriptive sense and am quite careful to be exact about it. It may be that my usage is itself rather outdated, because I'm not "in" with the seminary crowd nowadays and because I was raised by people who _called_ themselves "fundamentalists" and contrasted this (we're talking 1970's here) with the ostensibly more "loose" evangelicals. I am speaking of schools that self-identify that way. There aren't, in fact, very many of them left anymore. Nearly all of the Christian private schools presently in existence would be--and would doubtless consider themselves--more mainstream evangelical than fundamentalist. Hence, not as "really hard-core."

A truly hard-core fundamentalist school has both advantages and drawbacks. If I must go on about the drawbacks, I would say that such a school--and again, I mean to be speaking of only a small minority of schools--will tend to be fairly insular and to have little impact upon the wider culture as well as artificially limiting the education it offers. Again, I'm not _hostile_ to them. You'll notice that I said I could imagine sending my children to one. But this is because I believe I could provide the additional breadth of knowledge and so forth that would otherwise be lacking.

Let me give you an example of the kind of thing I mean here as an educational limitation of a truly hard-core fundamentalist Christian school: I own a book, which my husband bought used, on the constellations, written by the children's author H.A. Rey (creator of Curious George). It's a charming book, but for years I couldn't figure out why our copy has several pages _glued together_ in the center. It suddenly dawned on me why, by looking at the preceding pages: The glued pages recount some of the Greek myths surrounding the constellations, apparently in particular the story of Cassiopeia being rescued from the rock by Perseus. The pages were glued together because just those stories (which are by no means the raciest Greek myths) were considered corrupting, given that they made reference to the Greek gods. Sure enough, I looked back at the front _after_ making this conjecture and discovered that the book used to belong to a school called Providence Christian School. Presumably the glueing together was done when the book was included in their school library. I remember similar acts of vandalism on similarly thin grounds to books in my own school libraries in my childhood.

I hope we can agree that a Christian education that is going to successfully turn the culture around will need to be a bit different than that.

*groan* Yes, that example is incredibly small-minded, and in the long run self-defeating if your goal is to rear up men and women who can live outside a spiritual hot-house.

Lydia,

Here's a followup to that link I posted above. If that story can be believed, then the FBI has the kid dead to rights as even his own mother is on record saying (stupidly) that she knew what he was up to.

Mike T, I appreciate that update. I've kept quiet on this one, though I've felt disturbed about it, waiting for more takes on the story than the mother's and for more information. This Wired story casts the mother's trustworthiness into doubt. I understand she still claims he has an alibi for the bomb threat for which they are charging him, but I'm not sure how reliable she is given that she was evidently complicit in various other (supposedly non-bomb) prank calls, which she regarded as "funny." Just goes to show that not every home schooling family is a nice, Christian, ordinary, law-abiding family with sweet kids who never swear.

[This comment _once more_ deleted because of thread-jacking to a topic I have expressly prohibited previously. Ari, I have told you that I do not want this thread to be a discussion of that topic. Mike T understands this; for some reason, you apparently don't. Stop it. LM]

[comment deleted. Thanks for understanding, Mike T. LM]

Lydia,

Apologies since I missed your deleting of Aristocles' post. Go ahead and delete my last post if you wish, since it was just intended to be a response to his usual trolling of my comments.

Just goes to show that not every home schooling family is a nice, Christian, ordinary, law-abiding family with sweet kids who never swear.

Families like the Lundebys pay for the freedom of those that are. They don't intend to, but the fact that they lower the rate of success means that homeschooling is perceived as less effective by the government :)

In the course of their education, you want to innoculate them against all of the usual arguments that SWPL, pagan, and heathen crowds like to use.

OK, but isn't this the parents' job? And frankly, on most issues the usual arguments that SWPL, pagan, and heathen crowds like to use are pretty weak and not that difficult to debunk.

David's idea, C Matt, is that the parents are themselves liberals but might be willing to allow their children to be turned into conservatives in exchange for a high-quality education.

Hmm...I would suggest that the resources would be better directed toward high quality entertainment that gets the message you want across without being preachy (quite a challenge). The good thing is that the liberal end of the spectrum no longer has a lock on media outlets thanks to Youtube (my kids watch entire series on it).

That would probably take less effort and fewer resources (although by no means would it be cheap) with nearly as high (maybe higher?) impact. More bang for the buck.

It's hard even to know where to begin, and perhaps I"m too much inclined to be in "defense" mode than in "offense" mode. I see too many parents who "lose" their kids when the kids go to college. Our Christian professors are a precious resource. And I would say this to anyone considering going into higher education: Be darned good at what you do, preferably in a sub-discipline that is not solely related to your Christianity or politics. If you are a philosopher, be an excellent epistemologist, historian, or logician. Gain legitimate, professional respect for something other than your work on political or religious issues. And be an excellent teacher in your field. It helps a lot to make you a difficult target to attack which in turn gives you a chance to be a light for Christ in a dark place.

Lydia, absolutely true and correct.

I would add this: expect to have your bona-fides examined and impugned when you don't toe the line on some liberal claptrap that tangentially impacts your professional expertise, and be prepared for abuse and slander. And be prepared with a defense in depth to deal with it. The first (private) level of which is a good, solid prayer life, because without His help you are a sitting duck.