I disagree emphatically with both. A Church that does not confess- especially when truth is under attack- is salt that has lost its savor. And a Republican party that does not stand for Federalism, the rule of law, and the integrity of the Constitution has no reason to exist.
We are where we are at least in part because social conservatives both inside and outside the Church and the Republican party have allowed ourselves to be intimidated into silence by the liberal media and the popular culture. Slavery was not defeated by making nice-nice with the slaveholders, and the Church did not triumph over paganism by meekly burning incense to the Emperor.
Some time ago, Associate Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg mused that perhaps the Court erred in handing down its decision in Roe v. Wade. Perhaps, she thought, it would have been better to have waited until public sentiment caught up with the Court instead of ensuring that the issue of abortion would remain controversial by ruling prematurely.
Well, guess what, Madam Justice? You guys have done it again. Your ruling on same-sex "marriage" does not- despite the wishful suggestions of many on the Left- "settle the issue," except at least for the moment in a legal sense. Marriage re-definition has now joined abortion as an issue in which the public remains deeply divided, people's deepest moral and religious beliefs are unavoidably engaged- and recourse to the democratic process is illegitimately closed.
It's happened before, of course, In Dred Scott v. Sanford, the Supreme Court ruled that black people were "so far inferior" to white folks …
Remember the early days of the movement to redefine marriage, when we were assured that those advocating a change would "never" move to limit the right of churches to follow their own teachings with regard to the nature of marriage and sexual ethics?
Thanks to Gene Veith for pointing out this article by Rod Dreher pointing out what I've been saying for some time now: that orthodox Christians are living in a pagan, post-Christian society- and that if we're going to be any use to God or to that society, we'd better wake up, recognize that fact, and start acting accordingly.
Dr. Veith also reports that at least one newspaper- the Harrisburg, Pa. Patriot-News- has made explicit what has in fact been the unofficial editorial policy of countless newspapers all over the country (including Cityview here in Des Moines: it will not print letters to the editor critical of gay "marriage," or which claim that homosexual behavior is abnormal, unnatural, or immoral.
Perhaps the Patriot-News- and Cityview for that matter, and all those other successers of Pravda and the Völkischer Beobachter- should reconsider their claim journalistic objectivity- a claim even more laughable in their case than in most others in this country.
The legendary National Lampoon magazine once featured a hilarious article by Henry Beard (available in book form) called "The Law of the Jungle." In essence, it presented itself as a scholarly article on the common law and legal precidents of the Animal Kingdom, using the same style, format and language that American and British legal textbooks and law journal articles use.
It was wonderful satire. If you know a lawyer, get it for him or for her. It will be appreciated.
Anyway, the article pointed out that there was, in fact, no separate legal code for marine animals. Rather, the Law of the Air applied to the oceans and the creatures therein, who were said by a legal fiction to "fly in the salten sky."
It occurred to me last night as I was thinking about yesterday's Supreme Court abomination redefining marriage and setting aside two thousand years of precedent and established legal reasoning that it, too, is a legal fiction. Marriage, after all, is a pre-politi…
There is a saying among those on the Left to the effect that we have a "living Constitution." By that they mean that it evolves with time. But the term has another, and more poignant meaning, made clear by today's arrogant and lawless ruling forbidding states to restrict marriage to the only people Anglo-Saxon law has ever considered capable of it: couples consisting of one man and one woman.
But today's absurd and outrageous ruling on same-sex "marriage" by the Supreme Court not only completely ignores two millennia of precedent, tradition and legal reasoning in order to impose a requirement on the states in no way justified by the Constitution (the purpose of marriage has always been for the begetting and raising of children, while allowed as a matter of courtesy and convenience also to heterosexual couples incapable of reproducing), there is also a second sense in which it can no longer be doubted that we do, indeed, have a "living Constitution.&quo…
Hello! The reason why we have never had a national dialog on the issue is because the Left uses its favorite tactic and 1)resorts to ad hominems rather than engage the arguments of their opponents, and 2)has succeeded through its hegemony over the media and popular culture in gaining acceptance for the lie that to oppose marriage redefinition or have moral qualms about sodomy is somehow to be- of all things- a bigot.
As if the issue were sexual orientation, rather than behavior. Which, of course, it's not.
Despite all the historical revisionism from south of the Mason-Dixon Line, the South attempted to secede from the Union in order to preserve slavery. The various Declarations of Causes issued by states of the Confederacy make that clear beyond all doubt. South Carolina's initial declaration specifies "... increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the Institution of Slavery ...". Mississippi's declaration is quoted here in its totality:
In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging …
SSRI (Selective Seratonin Reuptake Inhibitor) antidepressants have been shown to be present in the bloodstreams of depressed suicides in a disproportate number of cases. The reason is not difficult to figure out: these drugs- which do nothing more or less than restore a normal level of serotonin to the brains of those taking them- relieve the inertia which characterizes depression before they removes the emotional pain which motivates suicide. There is therefore a window in which it becomes possible for depressed patients to act on suicidal ideation which was there all along.
But there is no evidence at all that SSRI's cause such ideation- and there is certainly no evidence that they cause violence toward others. The only possible way in which SSRI's could be involved in the Charleston case would be if a murderously disturbed individual had only been inhibited from committing murder before…
Throughout the month of June, downtown Des Moines corners have been occupied by college-age folk wearing blue shirts adorned with the ACLU logo. These idealistic, well-meaning, and ill-informed youngsters have been buttonholing passers-by and asking them to sign a petition "supporting equality."
It's a petition against the various state laws protecting individual religious freedom as regards homosexuality. The abortive laws in Indiana and a while back in Arizona are cases in point. Contrary to the disinformation these kids (like Jimmy Fallon, various other talk show hosts, and the media generally) have been spreading for years, the laws do not in any way, shape or form, condone or enable discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
To begin with, sexual orientation isn't the issue where the religious issues Christians and others have with the situations these laws deal with are concerned. No rational person regards sexual orientation as a moral issue. The issue…
It seems that the president of the Spokane, Washington chapter of the NAACP may be white.
Hey. If gays and women can be pastors, and people with a Y chromosome can be women, and the ELCA can be Lutheran, and Jon Huntsman can be a Republican, and Barack Obama can be president, why shouldn't? a Caucasian be black?
Hollywood is undergoing criticism because not enough actors in movies these days are the proper race. Why not just decide that, say, Brad Pitt and Harrison Ford and Sandra Bullock are actually black or Native American or Korean or something?
The Iowa Republican Straw Poll- a silly and essentially meaningless fund-raising device which has historically served only to provide party activists with T-shirts and needlessly eliminate quality presidential candidates like Tim Pawlenty- is no more.
It seems that nobody is interested in participating.
Good. Now if caucus participants in both parties can only be persuaded to take their medication, the Iowa Caucuses themselves might give my adopted state some greater reason for the rest of the country to pay attention to what it thinks about our potential presidents every four years.
Promiscuity is a besetting problem for male homosexuals, as (until recently) they themselves were commendably willing to admit. The average straight man has nine sexual partners in his lifetime; the average gay man has over a hundred. And I continue to be bemused by the fact that the AIDS epidemic coincided with the drive to mainstream homosexuality.
The world's first body transplant (NOT 'head transplant,' as the article reports) is being contemplated. Post-modern linguistic ineptitude strikes again.
The world's first baby has been born from a child's ovary. Many good things can happen from the technology involved here. But I seriously doubt that our ethically corroded Western culture can handle this right now.
I don't think this is good tactics, but it's certainly good to see a conservative cultural leader without the "deer-in-the-headlights' paralysis in his eyes which has essentially rendered cultural traditionalists passive in the face of the struggle to make sodomy the culturally-accepted equivalent of the act through wich the species is propagated- and which, by the way, is the reason why the institution of marriage exists in the first place, as recognized by two thousand years of legal precedent.
Pope Nancy I (formerly known as Nancy Pelosi) has spoken ex cathedra once again.
Her Holiness- who contrary to the entire history and every source of authority acknowledged by the Roman Catholic faith (or the Great Tradition in general) has long argued that abortion is hunky dory with the Almighty, now has announced that gay "marriage" is, too.
And guess what? She's wrong again.
Words mean things. We don't get to invest them with the meanings we would like them to have, however fond the Supreme Court and liberal Protestant and Catholic "theology" may be of doing so.
Both abortion and homosexual behavior are abominations before God, and nobody- not Nancy Pelosi, public opinion, cultural mores,the Courts, or even the Pope, Billy Graham and the Dalai Lama- can change that.
Revealed truth remains revealed truth no matter how much such nonsense suggests otherwise.
God isn't Bill or Hillary Clinton, or Barack Obama, or the Democratic party, that He should c…
Sir Patrick Stewart- whose politics are, by American standards, very, very far Left- is supporting a Belfast baker who declined to sell a cake reading, "SUPPORT GAY MARRIAGE."
Sir Patrick points out that the cake in question would not, in fact, have been a wedding cake, and that the baker wasn't discriminating against anybody. But a Belfast judge has nevertheless fined the baker just shy of $800 for declining to serve as an enabler for a position he disagrees with. He is appealing. The judge's decision, on the other hand, is appalling.
I've said before that I personally don't see the problem with baking a "wedding" cake for a gay couple, even though I don't believe that same-sex "marriage" is either good public policy or even in the last analysis possible, no matter what the government might say. But I am reassured that there are some on the Left in the English-speaking world who retain some loyalty to the heritage of personal freedom-…
He points out that "the age of the martyrs is not over," that people are suffering and dying for the Faith all over the world- and that faithful Christians in America are anything but immune to the "soft despotism" of the new paganism.
In the very bad movie Myra Breckinridge, Rex Reed is transformed into Raquel Welsh with a meat cleaver.
Admittedly, so-called "gender reassignment" surgery is a bit more complicated than that. But a "Y" chromosome is a "Y" chromosome, and Bruce Jenner (or whatever he's calling himself these days) still has one.
I choose the adjective intentionally. Gay "marriage" preserves the institution of marriage? By redefining its entire purpose, extending it to a subculture in which monogamy is almost unknown, and applying it to folks with a divorce rate that makes that of heterosexuals look puritanical by comparison?