fbpx
Politics Foreign Affairs Culture We're Hiring

Barbarians At The Library Gates

Inside the Library of Congress, civilization is safe and secure. Outside, its enemies mass
thumbnail

Today in Washington, there's a showdown at the Supreme Court between religious liberty and gay rights. A friend in Washington writes:

So I walked down to the Library of Congress to get some rare art history books by the leading scholars of the past hundred years explicating the Tres Riches Heures — one of the greatest artistic products of late-medieval Christianity. 

The first photo is the reading room I’m sitting in right now, with the benefit of the worlds largest collection of books, extremely  helpful librarians, and advanced IT that delivers them to my desk in this room without charge. It is like a synecdoche for the glories of Western Civilization. 

Advertisement

That photo is at the top. Here is the second photo:

My friend continues:

The second photo is what I randomly walked by one block from here in which Satanists were signing the national anthem through loudspeakers in front of the Supreme Court. 

I don’t know what to make of it, really. It just doesn’t seem like a stable foundation. 

No, it's not. Something's got to give -- and will, sooner than we think.

Advertisement

By the way, from the NYT's liveblogging of the oral arguments:

Justice Alito asks the Colorado lawyer a question that seems to have divided the liberal and conservative justices on this issue: Is it fair to equate opposition to same-sex marriage with opposition to interracial marriage? The lawyer says it is fair to equate them.

And:

Justice Jackson says she’s “perplexed” by the questions that attempt to draw a distinction between discrimination that’s based on sexual orientation and discrimination based on race.

Why is this hard? Race has no moral dimension. Sex -- heterosex, homosex, whatever -- inescapably does, at least for Christians (and Orthodox Jews, and Muslims). It is very, very easy to demonstrate from authoritative Scripture and longstanding tradition that homosexuality is proscribed in these religions. You have to work very hard to find warrant in either Scripture or Tradition for a divine mandate to discriminate racially. The fact that some Christians in past eras did it (e.g., the Jim Crow South) does not mean there is clear teaching in Scripture justifying that practice. A prohibition on homosexuality appears on many occasions in the Bible, and consistently throughout the 2,000 year history of Christianity. Besides, a man and woman of different races marrying are still joining together a male and a female; the differences between them are literally only skin deep. A marriage between two men, or two women, is not even the same kind of thing.

Justice Jackson may not appreciate the distinction, but she is being asked to judge whether or not it is reasonable for a person of faith to decline to serve a gay person, given how deep and how widespread that belief is, and has long been, within that person's religious tradition.

Plus, Justice Jackson may accept that one's sex is not a significant factor in terms of drawing a moral distinction, but this is a radical opinion that nobody would have held until recent times. That doesn't make Justice Jackson wrong (though I believe she is), but it does call into question her good faith in saying that she doesn't understand why people would say same-sex marriage is unlike interracial marriage. Was she born in 1990?

Comments

Want to join the conversation?

Subscribe for as little as $5/mo to start commenting on Rod’s blog.

Join Now
Fred Burr
Fred Burr
I don't understand the writer's confusion. Justice Jackson-Brown is not a biologist and can not define the word 'woman.'
schedule 2 months ago
    Michael Cullinan
    Michael Cullinan
    If I get your drift right, you are saying that Supreme Court Justice Jackson-Brown is not a biologist and therfore should not be expected to define the word 'woman?'

    If so, let me adddress that. It's universal knowledge that a woman is an adult human female, just as a man is an adult human male. Knowledge of biology is not necessary to understand that. Girls grow up to be women, boys grow up to be men. It's as simple and natural as that, and it's been going on since time out of mind. However, if you want the technical words of biology explaining the same thing, here they are (note: comments in parentheses are my own added notations):

    "Biologically, the female sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces the larger gametes in anisogamous systems. (otherwise known as a 'woman' mgc)

    Biologically, the male sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces the smaller gametes in anisogamous systems." (otherwise known as a 'man' mgc)

    What Are Sexes?
    by Zach Eliot, writing on
    Evolutionary Biologist Collin Wright's Substack blog entitled Reality's Last Stand
    schedule 2 months ago
Jonesy
Jonesy
She appears to be a mental midget compared to her colleagues…
schedule 2 months ago
Peter Kurilecz
Peter Kurilecz
Does Justice Jackson still have a problem with defining what a woman is?
schedule 2 months ago
ncube7
ncube7
The Honorable Ketanji Brown Jackson is a Harvard educated, fascist ideologue. As such, she sees the world through the narrow lens of grievance ideology. This pinhole worldview provides regressive thinking, to a brainwashed individual. The geniuses at Harvard have taken BF Skinner's operant conditioning model and applied to human beings, with the worst possible results. Now we have an authoritarians with a myopic worldview. They are all ego, with little moral maturity. The ideologues dismiss the complexity of human nature and instead apply harsh arbitrary rules of their own making. In this make-believe world, boys can be girls, but blacks can't be whites. So, according to their own rules, sexism is distinct from racism. One allows a mixture of the group (by sex), while the other demands rigid categorization of the group (by race). Justice Jackson is attempting to fool the court with her verbal slight of hand.

The legacy of slavery gives Blacks a certain moral imperative, that is not shared by the white boys of Provincetown. Their moral issues are distinct and the culture has reacted to them differently over time. The grievance studies programs may have "allied" these groups for convenience sake, but that was a political decision, not one based on reality. Learn to say no to this dangerous, all-encompassing ideology, before it takes over the country. Fascism is a terrible thing.
schedule 2 months ago