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

"The People Have Spoken"

Those who have relied upon democratic/populist arguments in the same sex "marriage" wars are about to realize the gravity of their mistake.

ssmpolls.png

Comments (51)

Seems that 35+ years of American media efforts to mainstream sodomy have paid off.

Methinks we're screwed.

"Methinks we're screwed."

And we know where.

"They are one people and have one language, and nothing will be withholden from them which they purpose to do."

Without an anchor people's opinion will sway in the breeze and often toward the negative rather than the positive. I like the way Calvin puts it in the Institutes:

"Were the judgments of mankind correct, custom would be regulated by the good. But it is often far otherwise in point of fact; for, whatever the many are seen to do, forthwith obtains the force of custom. But human affairs have scarcely ever been so happily constituted as that the better course pleased the greater number. Hence the private vices of the multitude have generally resulted in public error, or rather that common consent in vice which these worthy men would have to be law."

Actually, that graph is kinda suggestive...

Yes, I've seen this coming for years. And for years I have been unable to argue that homosexual behavior is depraved, perverted, and unhealthy at mainstream conservative sites or at American Thinker where I am an occasional contributor.

Sometimes, if the matter comes up in a conversation, I'll ask "what's good, healthy, and natural about sodomy?"

The problem is that with porn having infiltrated every aspect of culture and entertainment, nearly everyone is persuaded that sodomy is a pleasure not to be missed, a normal and healthy aspect of the garden of earthly delights.

In fact, a credible argument is made that easily available access to porn has reduced the number of rapes in the country by providing an outlet for lonely losers and such. Therefore, porn provides a social benefit.

Folks, the time is soon coming when Christians must withdraw and start a new nation in some empty part of the country, a Puritan state anew. There's no other hope other than a radical, saving remnant.

We've got it a lot easier than my forebears. We already know the land and merely have to relocate with what we have and build new towns and communities.

Folks, the time is soon coming when Christians must withdraw and start a new nation in some empty part of the country, a Puritan state anew. There's no other hope other than a radical, saving remnant.

I'm highly sympathetic, Mark (sans the Puritan element). But just look around. We're so far outnumbered it's almost a joke. Others who might sympathize are, for the most part, scattered and isolated and tied down with responsibilities. Russia had its White Army, and Mexico had her Cristeros, but I doubt there will be any resistance in America with that kind of organization or muscle. We still have our bread and circuses. Religion in America is shallow and undemanding, infinitely conformable to modern circumstances. I hope I'm wrong, but it seems likely that Americans will just roll with the punches and move on to the next abomination. And there will be no "last straw" or saving remnant.

That said, there is strength in numbers, and the creation of regional strongholds throughout the land is a realistic strategy for survival. Recent attempts at this - the Free State Project and Christian Exodus - seem to have faltered. The former was too political, the latter too sectarian for much success. (The choice of South Carolina was also unfortunate. The South is a wonderful place, but if you're not a Southerner, you're not a Southerner.)

I too sympathize with Mark, but wholeheartedly agree with Jeff. The very alarming trend for me is the lack of resolve on the part of Evangelical Christians to tackle the issue of gay marriage. They all know that they are against it, but can rarely form an argument with which to make their case whether from the Biblical or practical worldview - as in Mark's question to people with whom he dialogues. They are scared and I believe have given up on this already although they would not admit it. Of course most of them have their kids in public schools, so that generation will definitely come out on the other end ready, willing, and able to at least tolerate gay marriage if not embrace it.

I, for one, am not entirely pessimistic about the long-term consequences. Consider the social consequences of sexual liberation. It might take another generation, but the time will come when people can no longer just assume that sexual liberation is an unqualified good. The broken homes, the increased risks of disease and social dysfunction, the psychological effects of porn-addiction- these kinds of things can't be ignored forever. Change will come, but it will come slowly. By and large, the media and the channels of public information have assiduously covered up the social reality of homosexuality. That is, they have done everything in their power to keep people from seeing the serial promiscuity, the early death rates, the rates of disease and drug abuse and social dysfunction etc. Most people simply don't know what homosexual culture is really like, and those who do have a vested interest in keeping it that way. The more that this form of life becomes "mainstream" the more difficult it will be for Americans to pretend that it is just heterosex with matching genetalia. They will be forced to confront it and all of its social consequences without embellishment and without all of the egalitarian illusions.

If it's in the newspapers it must be true. Equally so for TV sources. There's much to be saddened by but one that particularly rankles is the knowledge that an industry populated by lock step ignoramuses has, still has, such influence. This brings back a story about a world chess champion,[Capabanca?] who seeing defeat on the board, dashed all the pieces to the floor & shouted, "do I have to lose to such an idiot".

People without either memory or grounding are ripe for the depravities of a media that sees itself, ludicrously, as transformational, rejecting organic change in time and relying instead on the supposed curative blessings of government, the metaphorical farmer who herds the cattle.

From the beginning of Christianity, true Christians have frequently lived in societies with political leadership that is hostile to their beliefs. I like to step back and remember that Christianity has survived it all. God does not forget His people. My desk at work, my home in the neighborhood, my community at Church - these are our oasis spots where we can rest in God as Lord - Jesus is with us there, and all the goofiness and nonsense of the WORLD cannot take that from us. The less I give an audience to the Secular Media, the more at peace I am. The Media will slant and twist truth - even the graph above - what kind of questions were asked - who did they ask? Hold fast to the Truth. What someone says in a poll may not be how they vote behind a curtin.

Untenured, there's one necessary condition, it seems to me, for any sort of change of mind or heart on these things in America: they must not be imposed by a court decision purporting to interpret the Constitution.

Consider abortion: There are states who would be willing to turn back the tide to no small extent on abortion, but they believe that they are not permitted to because of Roe v. Wade.

When something is locked in in America by a SCOTUS ruling, people perceive national repentance and mind-changing as literally impossible.

I believe that it would take the proponents of same-sex "marriage" quite a long time, *even from here* to bring about their regime in all the states. My own state of Michigan has a constitutional provision protecting marriage and even making civil unions impossible, and be the national polls what they will, there is _no_ groundswell of public opinion in Michigan to change this back and won't be for a long time, if ever, provided we are left to ourselves in the state.

Let's remember that population is concentrated in centers in the U.S. and that state governance does not depend directly on the opinion of the entire population of the United States!

Mind you, "non-discrimination" laws including homosexuals can still do a lot of mischief, but even these _so far_ exist only at the local level in MI.

However, if same-sex "marriage" is imposed by SCOTUS, history will be in a hurry, and public opinions will be changed from above. Moreover, even if, as you predict, people see the evil effects and see what they have really gotten into (for example, when they learn that they were sold a bill of goods regarding homosexual "commitment" and "monogamy"), they will not believe that they can turn things back. Nobody is going to defy those court decisions.

This is why I believe that we should not defeat ourselves or discourage ourselves by saying, "It's all the same anyway. This is really what the people want." It isn't too late. It isn't all the same anyway. This isn't what the people want--not in many states, not now, not yet. If it isn't imposed from above, we can stem the tide yet a while, especially in specific states. If it is imposed from above, all may yet be lost, with no turning back, and the only avenue open will be the refusal of individuals to bow the knee.

Lydia wrote: When something is locked in in America by a SCOTUS ruling, people perceive national repentance and mind-changing as literally impossible." and "If it isn't imposed from above, we can stem the tide yet a while, especially in specific states. If it is imposed from above, all may yet be lost, with no turning back, and the only avenue open will be the refusal of individuals to bow the knee."

This is so very true. In the early 80s, my secular colleagues were not allowing students to write about abortion "because it's no longer a controversy." The Supreme Court said it was a right, so there was nothing more to be said. End of question. My colleagues in Christian colleges have not been so heavy-handed, but I note that they do not generally allow students to write on this topic as one of *public policy that could be changed* but primarily as one of how individuals can be won. Individuals must be won, of course, but I see a defeatist attitude about policy.

The same thing will happen with same-sex "marriage" if the SC rules that it must be allowed. This would be yet another disaster. I fear that we are losing the war because we refuse to fight the individual battles in any way that we can win them.

I fear that we are losing the war because we refuse to fight the individual battles in any way that we can win them.

Tell me how to fight this effectively, Beth. I vote. I put out the signs. I give to the campaigns. I write and talk and blog. It's all been for naught, for 35 years, for naught. How does one fight Hollywood and the media and the schools and the courts? I'm all ears.

I don't know that anything _can_ be won, but I will say this: We need to be telling our children, our colleagues, and our politicians that Mickey Mouse does not become President if the court says so, that the Constitution does not mean whatever the court says it means.

Yes, I know, it sounds like I have a bee in my bonnet, and perhaps it looks like thread-jacking. But here's the thing: Here, now, as things _in fact are_, this looks like it will be imposed by the courts, which would not be possible if even conservative and Republican people in office did not believe that they have a _duty_ to follow such rulings even when they are blatantly made up out of the back of someone's head. If Mitt Romney had been willing to precipitate a constitutional crisis in Massachusets, then literally the entire history of the United States would probably be different. We need to be starting now to say this: If SCOTUS rules that ss"m" is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, then governors, state prosecutors, and justices of the peace all over the United States should defy this. They should order that no marriage licenses be given to same-sex pairs. There should be _mass_ refusal to implement any such ruling, not merely at the individual level but at the level of state officials. (Interestingly, when I had the privilege to speak briefly with Roy Moore briefly some years ago, he said to me that when state officials and judges refuse to abide by lawless federal court rulings, this is technically not even civil disobedience.)

"From the beginning of Christianity, true Christians have frequently lived in societies with political leadership that is hostile to their beliefs. I like to step back and remember that Christianity has survived it all."

The difference is that Western civilization, which was born and raised on Judeo-Christian principles, is now rejecting that patrimony wholesale. The demon was cast out, but repentance has been forsworn, and it is returning with seven more powerful than itself. Post-Christianity will be worse than pre-Christianity; for local examples see the French Revolution and Soviet Russia.

This article by David Bentley Hart (originally published in First Things) is highly instructive and immensely important re: this issue:

"If we turn from Christ today, we turn only towards the god of absolute will, and embrace him under either his most monstrous or his most vapid aspect."

http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles2/HartChrist.shtml

Hi, Jeff Culbreath. I do not see much resistance either and it seems too late for our own Cristeros, if there was ever any possibility for such a fight in America. It seems what will happen is that isolated families and small communities will hold out like Lot and his family among the Sodomites, while the rest of society goes on in their ways. These are like the times of the prophets when all of the Israelites except for seven thousand had bent there knee to Baal. May God forbid them from making homeschooling illegal. I think it will be interesting to see what happens when the false "rights" of homosexuals are determined to be more important than the first amendment and religions will all be forced to recognize sodomy as legitimate and support it from the pulpit and marry homosexuals. We live in interesting times.

Your work has not been for naught. Many thousands have seen people like you and are inspired to become good men, though they may seem like few when compared to the millions who continue in their ways.

They should order that no marriage licenses be given to same-sex pairs. There should be _mass_ refusal to implement any such ruling, not merely at the individual level but at the level of state officials.

If California is any indication, this is more than a long shot. 52 of California's 58 counties voted for Proposition 22 in March 2000. When the CA supreme court overturned Prop 22, only two of those 52 counties offered more than token resistance. The rest - including some of the most conservative counties in the entire nation - crumbled immediately. The clerks were quoted in the papers as saying their jobs were to enforce the law even if they don't agree with it, etc.. - noble conservative sentiment employed against truth.

The home schooling movement has been a pro-active response by Christians to counter the secular and morally corrupt society around them, but there is some justified fear that the Ruling Elite will eventually outlaw it as having been "proven" to be detrimental to children; just as Walker's ruling in San Fran insists that Christian morality is harmful to homosexuals.

Yes, the Church will survive. That's not the point. The Church survives in Pakistan, for example, but it does not thrive, nor cannot.

If Christians are meant to suffer without relief apart from prayer, so be it; but I still believe that individual liberty (and personal responsibility) is essential to a Christian life; and that Christians have a right to form a society that upholds the values of life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness.

If the Amish and Mennonites can maintain communities with fidelity, I don't see why Evangelicals can't. Catholics (sorry Jeff), need not apply. Catholics have never shown any zeal for Liberal Democracy and liberty and always seem to go along to get along (en masse, that is - contrast Catholic countries with the Anglosphere).

I believe in eventual secession by some area or region and that most Americans will not kill other Americans to preserve the Union with the same zeal that motivated them in 1861.

Before WW2, the country was highly divided by ethnic, identity politics. Just ask my father about growing up near Fall River, MA. The Prots fought the Irish, fought the Jews, fought the Portagees, fought the Eye Ties, fought the blacks (if there were any), fought the latins (if there were any) and so on.

It was the unifying experience of 12 million men brought together by war that broke down a lot of prejudice and ethnic hostility.

I don't see any unifying cause on the horizon. Not even the renewed Islamic war on the West can do it. One, Islam is not strong enough to be a truly existential threat, and two, subversion of our values within and ethnic rivalries against the decreasing white and Christian majority are becoming indelible.

Here in California, whites are now a minority population, less than 50%. Have whites politically unified in response to this onslaught? No. They just move away while a leftist white and hispanic ruling class destroys the state.

It's going to take a hard nosed, militant, uncompromising group of Christian people forming some sort of anti-secular state to preserve the American Dream.

I think what we are experiencing now is the American Dream extended to its logical conclusion. Extreme liberalism is the most logical form of liberalism. Less extreme forms of liberalism are sanity mixed with insanity. They do not make sense like pure sanity makes sense or pure insanity makes sense and societies that accept less extreme forms of liberalism are inexorably drawn towards extreme, which is pure insanity (unless of course they met by powerful opposition). Once a society accepts the principles of liberalism at all, to be honest it has to go all the way . . .
It is fruitless to try to go back to a lesser form of liberalism. Society has to reject liberalism altogether.

What is most troubling to me is that most of my Evangelical friends do not know how to mount an argument against homosexual marriage. Again, they know they don't believe that it should be, but they don't know how to debate the issue. These same folks will handily debate the abortion issue because it is very cut and dry. Death or Life? But even with abortion it has taken over 30 yrs. to see the tide turn and that has been due to consciousness raising (sorry about the feminist jargon) aided by technology that makes the humanity of the unborn fetus so obvious.
So yes, maybe time and the consequences of the sin will change the opinion of the citizenry, but I'm not holding my breath because with each decade the generations are farther and farther removed from even the slightest concept of the God of the Bible and there isn't even a shakey foundation on which to build the argument against sexual immorality in general and sodomy in particular.
Even when I converse with my "conservative" (not Christian)friends, who are steadfast in their opposition to this administration's statist policies, if I mention my opposition to gay marriage, they begin to shrivel up like the Wicked Witch of the West after having water sprayed on her. They don't want to go near that subject. Their position is "live and let live." They lack understanding of the lifestyle and the consequences of redifining marriage to accomodate this subculture. One resource I have referred people to is this article from Touchstone magazine -
http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=23-01-028-f
Douglas Farrow's article is very comprehensive, but this paragraph struck me -
"Admittedly, even the state has not yet fully connected the dots, but that is happening with remarkable rapidity, as concurrent moves in education demonstrate. States and international agencies are increasingly prone to argue that children have the right to a state-directed education and that this right must be protected by the state against the interference of parents. The logic is not difficult to follow: If marriage is procreative, it is also educative; but if it is not procreative, it is not educative either—educative rights and responsibilities are up for grabs, and it is the state that will do the grabbing. The pillar that is the family appears to have cracked nearly through."
As a retired homeschool mom and future homeschool aid to my own children as they homeschool, this slapped me in the face. It was the connection of the dots that I knew existed buy could not put together myself.
As for my Christian brothers and sisters, while my church is very conservative and 100% biblically sound, I feel that they lack the deeper knowledge of the subject to connect the dots as Farrow has. On one hand they want to make it clear that all sex outside of the institution of marriage is sin. Whether it is man/woman or same sex hanky panky. My pastor is careful not to single out only homosexuals as sinners and our leadership has bluntly stated that they will defy the state if ever the church is forced to be silent on the homosexual marriage issue. However, I am almost desperate to have some specific instruction along the lines of Farrow's piece and also the current piece in this issue of Touchstone by Anthony Esolen. We need to always be ready to make an account of the hope that lies within us (IPeter 3:15)and to shine a light in the dark places where even angels fear to tread so that those around us who are cowering in confusion will wake us to the ultimate consequences for the generations to come.

the creation of regional strongholds throughout the land is a realistic strategy for survival. Recent attempts at this - the Free State Project and Christian Exodus - seem to have faltered.

Suggestion: advertise among your reliable friends and acquaintances anytime housing becomes available within walking distance of a traditional church or your own home. There's no need to establish some commune when existing neighborhoods are there for the taking.

One possible route for political action is to end the ban on places of worship in advertisements and to pass legislation affirming that simple advertisement of employment or housing in a religious newspaper shall not be considered an unlawful effort at covert discrimination.

This will help assist the formation of viable, geographically contiguous subcultures. (Of course, this could mean opposition to my proposals will be intense by those who want to stop that.)

I suspect the laws I mention killed off many small religious newspapers, which relied on such ads to remain solvent. Undoing these laws would sap some strength from MSM outlets and boost the budget of local religious newspapers. (Are Catholic diocesan newspapers the only local religious newspapers left?)

Gina, one of the points to make to your Christian friends is that if homosexuals are declared to be able to be "married," they--and especially if they are business owners--will almost certainly be drawn into being required to treat such relationships as real marriages. They will be required to give marriage benefits to the partners. They will be required (on pain of a suit for a "hostile work environment," especially where non-discrimination laws concerning homosexuals are in place) to speak of the partners as spouses and to invite them to any gathering to which spouses are invited. If any of your Christian acquaintances have any business that touches upon personal celebrations--photography, scrap-booking or memory-making, flower arranging, catering--they will be required to do this for homosexual "weddings."

Moreover, they, and their children, will be surrounded by people telling them that it is now _just a fact_ that Joe and John are "married" and that they should simply acknowledge this "fact." Their children will thus be constantly confronted with a message that normalizes homosexuality. If any of them send their children to public schools, of course, there is much, much more that can be said. Just for starters, the teachers will teach the children that homosexuals are "married." In Massachusetts they now read fairy tales to the children in which two princes get "married," and the principal justifies this based on homosexual "marriage."

Your evangelical friends are lacking in imagination if they don't understand how this will affect them, but I'm sure you can supply them with ideas!

Kevin Jones, here's the worry I see: What good do such communities do on this particular issue if all the people who inhabit them run their businesses and act in their jobs along the lines dictated by the secular state? For example, suppose some great Christian business owner lives in one of these neighborhoods. I'm sure I'd be happy to have him for a neighbor, but it isn't going to take back the culture on homosexuality if he employs homosexuals and calls their sexual partners "spouses," gives them spousal benefits, and normalizes their relationships throughout all his business dealings. And so on. I don't know what to do about this. I'm sorry to keep bringing up this one experience of mine, but last year when my side lost on a pro-homosexual rights ordinance in the city, the one thing that never happened (that I know of) was that Christian businessmen got together to talk about ways to evade and not obey the ordinance. Not that they would advertise it, and as I'm not a business owner, maybe I would not have heard. I _hope_ such conversations took place in private, but I fear they did not.

It seems to me that the huge taboo against civil disobedience is something we need to work on. To that end I'm actually heartened to hear that Gina's church leaders are _anticipating_ the possibility of laws that would constrain their Christian witness and vowing in advance to defy them. We need more of that and across a broader spectrum of possibilities in this area.

What good do such communities do on this particular issue if all the people who inhabit them run their businesses and act in their jobs along the lines dictated by the secular state?

The idea is for such communities to be sufficiently large to make things like non-discrimination laws largely irrelevant. If open, practicing homosexuals don't apply to work at Joe's Pizza because they just don't live in the neighborhood, the subject never comes up and there is peace on earth.

Mark, you wrote:

Catholics have never shown any zeal for Liberal Democracy and liberty and always seem to go along to get along (en masse, that is - contrast Catholic countries with the Anglosphere).

and:

It's going to take a hard nosed, militant, uncompromising group of Christian people forming some sort of anti-secular state to preserve the American Dream.

Liberal Democracy and the "American Dream" are precisely what got us into this mess in the first place. The "American Dream", when it refers to more than dreams of wild material prosperity, has just enough ambiguity to be dangerous. I want a home, not a dream.

Catholic and Protestant populations alike have been "going along to get along" for the past 200 years. Sociologically, there are minor differences. Protestantism as a religious movement is much more easily co-opted for the ends of secularism, while Catholics (as opposed to their doctrines) are more easily seduced in nations where secularism has historically protected them.

But if we take instead the most committed believers of each tradition, I think we'll find a similar willingness to resist. Count the confessional Lutherans out, because their doctrine of the "two kingdoms" and obedience to the state is virtually absolute.

Your work has not been for naught. Many thousands have seen people like you and are inspired to become good men, though they may seem like few when compared to the millions who continue in their ways.

Matthew, thank you for the encouraging words. I agree with what you wrote prior to the above as well. If I have inspired anyone, well, I tremble.

"First Rush, then Coulter, now Glenn Beck ... What's Happening?"

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/aug/10081315.html

"Conservatives and the Suicide of the West"

http://angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=33116

Jeff, I didn't know that about Beck or about Limbaugh. I'm disgusted. Faugh.

I don't think Michelle Malkin will go this way.

But are you truly surprised?

I for one have never trusted any of the above enough to jump on their respective bandwagons. I occasionally listen to Rush. I don't have cable and therefore don't know much about Glenn Beck or anyone on Fox news. And Ann Coulter is not my style. They all strike me as being more show than substance. It's not that I don't think that they have made substantial contributions to the conservative cause, but as much as they might denounce liberal/leftist government intrusions into the market, etc., they tend to circulate in a small subculture of the media and I'm not so sure that they really understand the implications of liberal moral policies on the culture. Honestly, I don't think for one moment that any of the above really know what it is like to be Gina Danaher or Lydia McGrew or ....fill in the blank. They're media personalities and to be in that business usually requires a bit of an ego. Rush can blather on all he wants about morality, but he is spiritually dead as a doornail and quite frankly, lately, he sets off quite a few red flags with me. Not a one of them could read the articles I referenced above and get "it.

Jeff,

By American Dream, I look to the Pilgrims and Puritans. By Liberal Democracy, I mean the Declaration and Constitution.

Does that lead to folly? Well, everything or any thing leads to folly for every nation or civilization in time.

I am looking at a polity in which the most people can thrive for the longest period. Liberty always leads to license at some point.

Well, it's time to fight the licentious for the sake of civic liberty and the moral order.

The American Dream is to have a home in a place where your voice, your skills, your arms matter for you and your kith and kin.

I can't say I've ever enjoyed such a home, and I doubt my daughter will either, but I'd presume that you have one at this time, so good on you.

Well, the wages of sin is death and we are seeing it unfold before us. It's hard to take, but it is the way of humanity and mediocrity and faithlessness.

Prosperity is a blessing that always grows into a curse.

Jeff, I'm at least a _little_ surprised about all of them, but a lot surprised about Beck. But I should be clear that I don't have TV channels and don't take the time to listen to Rush Limbaugh (I listened to him a lot about seventeen years ago), so I mostly hear about what all of them are doing or saying when someone else calls my attention to it and sends me a link to a clip. Maybe if I heard them more regularly I wouldn't be surprised, I don't know.

So it sounds like Glenn, Rush and Ann are at stage 5 (or maybe late stage 4?) of Feser's conservative reaction to liberal advance.

Morality is not democratic. Do the people have the "right" to be immoral?

It would seem no surprise that none of the nations that have maintained their moral standards over the last century are either autocratic or, in the case or Iran, et al., theocracies.

Despite a sentimental attachment to democracy, perhaps maintaining a moral society requires the removal of the people's right to freely choose their government.

"Morality is not democratic. Do the people have the "right" to be immoral?"

Absolutely!

I will take whatever help I see, from whatever source available, decency allowing, if in fact that source calls out the false idols, the artificial dreams of a doctrine of centralized Administration coupled with the negation of all other principle.
It's an alliance, not a marriage.

In the meantime;
What we have is our own private selves, our own clinging to the memories & practices of a better past, and the steps required to regain a pittance of what was lost, and willfully destroyed. to seek the openings, the crevices where an effort, a gesture on our part may further the beliefs requisite to the moral good. And we may recall the story of Isaiah's Remnant, as well the injunction of Antisthenes, to "build a fortress within our own impregnable thoughts".
That, and a wary eye on those who always know best and from whose lips the words "reform & progress" are ever present.

Tom's statement is one of the foolish statements I feared would come out of this thread: Tom, please look at what has _in fact_ happened. Homosexual "marriage" has been imposed by liberals in a hurry using _undemocratic_ means. It's all very well to talk about theory and democracy and whether democracy is a good idea and so forth. But in the _actual world_ in America as her history has _actually gone_ on this issue (as on abortion), democracy has not been our problem; the evasion of democracy and the use of autocratic power by judges has been, and indeed, it is exactly that sort of non-democratic behavior that we're all sitting around worrying about in the next move on Prop. 8. Let's get a clue. The liberals have turned to the courts again and again and again for a reason.

No, the fact that "the people" think this or that doesn't make what they think right. But the fact is, in this case, that "the people" are not going to impose homosexual "marriage" across all the fruited plains yet awhile if left to themselves.

Sometimes conservatives who rage against democracy make me think of warriors who think the enemy is attacking from one direction when in fact he is attacking from another. Point this out and I sometimes feel like I get (in the midst of battle) a theoretical discussion about the fact that the enemy _could_ attack from that direction, and then it _would_ be a problem.

Whatever this graph shows, one thing it doesn't show is that homosexual "marriage" is being enacted throughout the country by democratic means. Because, you know, it isn't. Just read the news.

"Morality is not democratic. Do the people have the "right" to be immoral?"

And al says, "Absolutely," which apparently means he sees nothing wrong in banning pornography (which serves no public good, and thus is immoral), allowing prior restraints (which is a good thing when lives are in danger; hence, publishing the Pentagon Papers, like the Wikileaks stuff, should result in prison for treason), lifting habeaus corpus when necessary (as with 9/11-sort terrorists), and prohibiting the building of a mosque next to Ground Zero (which is immoral because it is forseeable that the victims' families will undergo emotional anguish and embolden Islamofacists. Imagine Westboro Baptist building a church at the scene of Matthew Shepherd's murder.).

I don't think Michelle Malkin will go this way.

I'm not sure Malkin has any good conservative influences in her own life. I am unsure whether she is still a practicing Catholic, and the Denver bloggers in her circle tend towards the naive libertarianism which thinks social issues are a distraction and SSM is a great leap towards more individual freedom (except when they dodge by saying the govt should just abolish state-recognized marriage).

Kevin, didn't Michelle get upset with Catholicism for conservative reasons? (I can't remember how it all went.) I'm not saying that that makes her right if she has left the Catholic Church (though being a Protestant, it's not as big a deal to me, obviously, as it would be if I were Catholic). But if some sort of feeling that the Catholic Church has "gone liberal" was her reason, one might hope that that would be a hint as to what she is going to do and think in other areas.

The graph indicates that, given more time, judges won't need to impose homosexual marriage on the people because they will already support it. Whether that will be a result of incidents like prop. 8 is up for debate, but I'm sympathetic to those suspicious of liberal democracy. There won't be any democracy "check" against homosexual marriage if the 'oppose (trend)' line continues on its current course.

And al says, "Absolutely," which apparently means he sees nothing wrong in banning pornography

I stand confused. Wouldn't someone who believes that people have the right to be immoral *accept* that people might decide to allow immoral activities? You post seems to imply the opposite.

Mulder, you can say that about a lot of things--For example, assisted suicide is legal in only two states of the union, but I bet you could find trendlines showing support for it growing, especially if you compared present attitudes with those as far back as 1988. Does this mean that attacking democracy is the most profitable or even _a_ profitable way to oppose assisted suicide? On the contrary, and by no means. Things would be _much worse_ if SCOTUS were to declare suicide to be a constitutional right! Then it would automatically, instantaneously be legal in _all fifty_ states, with no hope of turning back, whereas now it is legal in only _two_, with a slow battle for proponents of assisted suicide (trendlines or no trendlines) in the others, and in many states, no likelihood that it will be legalized within our lifetimes. Same mutatis mutandis for homosexual "marriage." See?

Tom, you're right. I was drunk. But since that was immoral, I have a right to do it, according to al.

You're right Lydia, and I can agree that the debate over the pros and cons of democracy can be pushed to a different time.

Al's finally found himself an absolute morality.

If open, practicing homosexuals don't apply to work at Joe's Pizza because they just don't live in the neighborhood, the subject never comes up and there is peace on earth.

And what are the chenaces that they would leave us alone once they found out about it? How long before they send a test case to Joe's Pizza?

Seriously, who displays graphical information like this?

The Chicken

Never underestimate the stupidity and cowardice of Americans...truly an exceptional country.

"And what are the chenaces that they would leave us alone once they found out about it? How long before they send a test case to Joe's Pizza?"

First, there won't be any obvious reasons attention will be attracted. A small "trad" business just happens to hire people of similar background. It's not like it will be hanging signs reading "no Xs need apply." The community will be defining itself mainly by its commonalities, not by whom it excludes.

Second, many PC laws don't apply to small establishments. (Side note: This also means people who run small establishments often don't see the wider threat of PC laws)

So legal mechanisms might not even be a factor. But media methods might be: create some Youtube activist frenzy, for instance, and then get the local news to perform its shaming ritual.

However, if the neighborhood itself has already gone "trad," this shaming won't work that well and could even backfire by encouraging more customers.

I think there is a danger of being too paranoid. Even today I hear there are wealthy Manhattan stores or neighborhood Italian restaurants which run off black people without retaliation (Note to blackmailers: I cite this as an example only, *not* endorsing racism).

I even know of a Catholic public school teacher who freely discusses religion with her entirely Hispanic elementary classes.

So there are many ways to fly under the radar. The problems come when one aspires to join or overtly challenge the establishment. To join, you must emulate. To challenge, you must make enemies.

Trad community strength is obviously weakening. Shore up those communities by removing disincentives to their formation, and the larger political problems might lessen.

Our local ordinance deliberately removed a suggested exemption for small businesses. (It was only suggested by the city attorney, and not for any reason of legal challenge but only to make it look less extreme.) I'd be interested to know if non-discrimination ordinances (e.g., at the municipal level) that include homosexuals as a protected class typically exclude small businesses.

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.