- The American Conservative - https://www.theamericanconservative.com -

Bartleby The Bigot

To the surprise of exactly no one who pays attention to the totalitarianism of the LGBT movement, and of diversity culture in general, it is no longer enough to dissent from public orthodoxy. You must affirm it — or be destroyed.

Ask Isabella Chow. She’s a student senator at UC Berkeley. Recently a bill came before the Senate that would put the body on record supporting transgender rights. The resolution was entirely symbolic. Here’s what happened next: [1]

Senator Isabella Chow, 20, abstained.

Reading a five-paragraph statement explaining her decision, Chow told her 18 fellow senators, who all voted for the bill (another was absent), that discrimination “is never, ever OK.” She condemned bullies and bigots. She said she abhorred stereotypes. And she called the LGBTQ+ community valid and loved.

“That said,” Chow continued, voting for the bill would compromise her values and force her to promote groups and identities she disagreed with.

“As a Christian, I personally do believe that certain acts and lifestyles conflict with what is good, right and true,” she said. “I believe that God created male and female at the beginning of time, and designed sex for marriage between one man and one woman. For me, to love another person does not mean that I silently concur when, at the bottom of my heart, I do not believe that your choices are right or the best for you as an individual.”

Well. She’s now an Enemy Of The People. Over 1,000 people have signed a petition calling for her removal. The campus newspaper condemned her editorially, and refused to publish her self-defense:

Within hours, Chow’s political party, Student Action, cut ties with her. So did CalTV and her publications constituents. A Daily Cal editorial called her statements offensive and declared: “UC Berkeley students cannot allow and accept leaders like Chow to make decisions on their behalf.”

change_me

The paper also rebuffed Chow’s attempt to further explain her views in its pages. In her rejection letter, opinion editor Shayann Hendricks said the paper wouldn’t run Chow’s comments because her submission reflected her earlier statements, “which utilized rhetoric that is homophobic and transphobic by the Daily Cal’s standards.”

Chow, a junior majoring in business administration and music, said she feels “frustrated and sad that Berkeley students are forced to live in a bubble, and we have to protect ourselves from anything that a vocal population deems to be offensive.”

Read the whole thing. [1] There’s more, and it’s all ugly.That’s one brave woman, Isabella Chow.

Mind you, this is on a campus where the so-called Free Speech Movement began in the 1960s. Now, it’s clear that orthodox Christians are unwelcome there. Polish philosopher Ryszard Legutko, in his great book The Demon In Democracy: Totalitarian Temptations In Free Societies [2], discusses how the Sexual Revolution combined with liberal democratic ideology is creating a totalitarian ethos. Political correctness, he writes, illustrates

what is absolutely crucial for the entire logic of liberal democracy. Because the logic of this system turns on “dialogue,” “respect,” “equal rights,” “openness,” and “tolerance,” everything is by definition political, and nothing that relates, however remotely, to these notions is trivial, minor, or irrelevant. A slight offensive remark must always be regarded as a manifestation of mortal sin. What seems a barely visible mark on the surface conceals underneath swirling currents of hatred, intolerance, racism, and hegemony. The body responsible for ensuring that these terrible things do not surface is the state, with all the instruments at its disposal. It is the state that should incessantly work to impose and improve cooperation policies by removing all real and potential barriers, creating a favorable legal environment, and reshaping public space and education in such a way that the people’s minds internalize the rules of politically correct thinking.

Such undertaking carries a high price. When the state takes over responsibility for the rules of cooperation and their enforcement on all layers of society, there will be no limits to its interference in people’s lives. The laws it enacts must of necessity be increasingly more detailed and intrusive because what threatens those rules and has to be curtailed is believed to be hidden deeply in social practices and human consciousness. The slippery-slope argument, so often used by liberals, is particularly pertinent here. The logic of liberalism is that whatever seems to be the most obviously nonpolitical, sooner or later will become political.

This young Christian, Isabella Chow, is now thought to be so dangerous that students (and others?) at Berkeley believe she should be driven from public life, and cannot be allowed to say what she believes on the pages of the campus newspaper. Here is the statement Sen. Chow made at the public meeting:

Yeah, she’s Triple Hitler, for sure.

The title character of Herman Melville’s short story “Bartleby The Scrivener” famously says, “I would prefer not to.” He’s an enigmatic icon of passive resistance. Sen. Chow cannot be allowed simply to withhold her approval, not in the eyes of these UC Berkeley fanatics. She must approve, or stand condemned. If you would prefer not to affirm LGBT ideology, then you are Bartleby the Bigot.

UC Berkeley is a major public university, in the most populous state in America. This is not a minor thing. This is what I mean when I tell you that American life under late liberalism is becoming more and more totalitarian. If you are a Christian, or any kind of religious conservative, and you are not preparing yourself and your children to hold on to your, and their, faith, and indeed their sanity, in this new world, you are failing to read the signs of the times.

Advertisement
137 Comments (Open | Close)

137 Comments To "Bartleby The Bigot"

#1 Comment By Clyde Schechter On November 11, 2018 @ 2:38 am

“B) “SSM” isn’t marriage, forcing people to act like it is imposes on those people.”

Let’s dissect out what the issue really is here.

The battle over the meaning of “marriage” was lost, indeed conceded, long before Obergefell. My wife and I were married in a civil ceremony at the county clerk’s office. We are both atheists. It was in no sense a sacramental marriage. Not even a mention of God. Civil marriages have been going on for a very long time.

Now if you want to argue that civil marriages are not really marriage, well, OK. I could agree that the solution to the inequality implied by distinguishing marriage, a religious institution, from domestic partnerships, a civil institution, could be equally resolved by abolishing civil marriage and reserving the M-word for the religious form only; all civil arrangements would then be called domestic partnerships. But as far as I know nobody but me ever proposed that, and as far as I know, nobody ever questioned whether it was OK to call civil marriages marriage back when they were only available to heterosexual couples.

So the concession that marriage could be a purely governmental arrangement involving no sacrament was made long before gays came out of the closet and demanded marriage on an equal basis. Even before Obergefell, it was already a long dead issue.

I have never heard of Christian bakers refusing to make a wedding cake for a civil marriage. I suspect that had I asked one to make a cake for me and my wife, we would have encountered no resistance. Am I right or wrong here?

Now, as I have posted before, I think the baker has the right to refuse and that the Masterpiece Bakery case was correctly decided by the Supreme Court. But that, to me, is not because forcing people to act like it is marriage imposes on these people. They have for a long time been acting like civil marriage is marriage.

So let’s stop pretending that the issue is what is or is not a marriage. It is about the extent to which one wishes to express, in word or deed, acceptance and support of gay relationships. Forcing people to voice approval of *anything* is an impermissible imposition in a liberal society, and compelling corresponding actions is also impermissible in nearly all circumstances.

#2 Comment By Rick Steven D. On November 11, 2018 @ 7:06 am

Fran Macadam wrote:

“…it is entirely correct for Christians to reject homosexual relations as immoral and outside God’s provenance. It is dysfunctional spiritually and physically, as I learned the hard way”.

Totally agree with the first sentence. As a reader of this blog, I am as outraged as the rest of you by the way Christianity is being hounded out of the culture. And I say that as an openly gay man who left the Catholic church years ago.

As for the second sentence, well, and I say this with all due respect, Fran, but you’re gonna have to hit the brakes here. And I mean HARD.

From what I’ve read in your other posts, I take it you are a man who has rejected the gay lifestyle and found God. Good for you. And I am SURE God blesses you for it, since I believe His grace manifests in ways that we can only dimly grasp on this so-called mortal plain. The hysteria on the part of my own GLBT community over the whole gay conversion thing is another thing I f—ing can’t stand. Why shouldn’t people find their own path to ultimate truth? Whatever that looks like for them?

But blithely dismissing all gay experience as dysfunctional, spiritually and physically, is COMPLETELY and comprehensively and TOTALLY belied by my own experience. As well as by the testimony of countless others. Why, just three days ago on this very blog, at least a half-dozen gay men provided that very testimony. Men in loving relationships with other men…

YOU were silent, Fran, as far as I remember. And I noticed a silence from some of the loudest Christian commentators on this blog…

Yesterday, I was at the bedside of a good friend who is recovering from thyroid cancer. He and his partner have raised a beautiful daughter. The girl’s mother, the ex-wife of one of them, was in the throes of drug addiction for most of the girl’s life, so they stepped in. The girl is in college now, and almost transcendentally lovely. If their life is rejected by God, I’ll be happy to burn in hell.

My own partner and I have built a life together for the past ten years. It’s nothing special but it’s also about as good as life gets. For ANYONE. And it is extraordinary, even soul shattering, at times. I, for one, have been completely transformed by his great, great love. If our life is rejected by God, I’ll be happy to burn in hell.

I once received a small white card with an image of Christ bursting into laughter. It was given to me by a six-foot-two larger-than-life trans-woman in the parking lot of a church, right after an AA meeting where I had shared my usual woe in ever overcoming my Doppelganger, the punishing God of a Catholic childhood.

“LOOK! LOOK!” Jenn shouted at me in her usual endearingly, overbearing way, “When do you EVER see a picture of God laughing? Don’t you see that’s the gift we get here? The gift we get in AA? Don’t take yourself so seriously! For GOD-sake, Rich!”

And lest any of you think that’s a recipe for Moralistic Therapeutic Deism, or complete moral abandon, I will point you to the twelve steps of AA, which are about a hundred times as rigorous and soul enhancing as any religion. Or just walk into any AA meeting ANYWHERE, the entire world over, and look at the light in all of their eyes…

The first twenty years of my life were haunted by a single event, when Mrs. Vizza, my 2nd grade parochial school teacher, told us something when we were about the make our First Holy Communion:

“Hell is a place that is SO bad, that if you go there, and your mother goes there too, your mother will HATE you in hell. And you will hate her back. That’s how bad hell is.”

When I told the first man I fell in love with about this memory, he was APPALLED. Almost thought it constituted child abuse…

But I told him that I was ABSOLUTELY sure Mrs. Vizza was doing the right thing. Bravely, I might add. After all, if we are to take Catholic doctrine to it’s logical extreme, we have to believe that there are at least SOME seven-year-olds who are burning in hell right now. Wasn’t there some Catholic theologian who was called the torturer of babies, in the eleventh century or so?

In my experience, no one EVER talks about this, about children in hell, though human beings are an easily frightened lot. But as Camille Paglia once said, “In Catholicism, seven is the dawn of moral consciousness. After one’s first Holy Communion, it’s hell or high water”.

As the great Glenda Jackson said, playing the great poet Stevie Smith in Stevie, 1978: “Is this not pretty?”

So, after this life defining event, and until I was about 21 or so, I was a guilt-ridden-God-fearing-Catholic, church-every-Sunday, confession-every-Friday…

But then, when I realized who I was at puberty, it just, well… It just completely f–ing rocked my world.

So I just buried it. And I mean REALLY buried it. And then all it did was make me suicidal by the time I was in my early twenties.

The great Stan Lee once wrote in his book Origins of Marvel Comics, “My daughter is into numerology, and she once told me that everything goes in threes”. True enough in my own life. In the interest of time, I will speed this up:

First twenty years of my life: closeted gay man, devout Catholic. Analysis: didn’t work. Suicidal and depressed by age 20.

Next twenty years of my life: out gay man, complete atheist. Didn’t work. Out of control alcoholic police officer fired for drug use by age 40.

Age 40 to present day: out gay man, in AA, GAY AA, we might add. Analysis: tremendous success. God/Christ/she/he performs actual miracle at age 50, healing individual of ulcerative colitis, after first leading subject to daily meditation in the interest of overcoming online porn addiction. Subject now works as a psych RN in a busy Emergency Room, and has somehow been able to carry God’s message to hundreds of lost and broken souls over the years…

As the title of one of Truman Capote’s lousier short stories goes, Among the Many Paths to Eden…

#3 Comment By furbo On November 11, 2018 @ 7:59 am

Philly guy says:
November 10, 2018 at 9:04 am
Christian go home.

They’re starting to….look at Rod’s ‘Benedict Option’ for instance.

But the Right isn’t, and If you didn’t like the Christian right, you’ll really hate the post-Christian right.
[3]

#4 Comment By Raskolnik On November 11, 2018 @ 8:33 am

The ancient Greeks, the Romans, Japan during the imperial period, India before the Muslim invasion, the Ottomans, all either accepted homosexual behavior or ignored it as it was a private matter.

This is a laughable falsehood, the historiographical equivalent of “there is no biological basis for race.” It’s just Leftist propaganda spun as (nonexistent) academic consensus, and diametrically opposed to reality. Take, for example, Aristotle (Ethics VII.5):

But since some things are pleasant by nature, and of these some simply and others going along with kinds of animals and human beings, while others are not, but become pleasant in some cases because of defects, in others by habits, and in yet others by corrupted natures, it is possible to observe active conditions connected with each of these pleasures and closely resembling them. I am speaking of animal-like conditions, such as that of the human female who people say rips open pregnant women to eat the babies, or the sorts of things people say some of the savages around the Black Sea enjoy, raw meat with some of them, human flesh with others, and others giving their children to one another to feast on, or what is reported about Phalaris. These are animal-like conditions, but others come from diseases (and in some people from insanity, as with the person who sacrificed and ate his mother, or the one who ate the liver of his fellow slave), and still others resemble diseases or come from habits, such as plucking out one’s hair or gnawing on one’s nails, or even on charcoal or dirt, or sex acts between males, for these result in some cases from nature, but in others from habit, as with people who have been abused since childhood.

So not only does Aristotle compare homosexuals to cannibals and refer to their habitual practice of seeking pleasure in homosexual acts as “animal-like,” he notes that their homosexual desire is derived from either a “corrupted nature” or having been “abused since childhood,” establishing that even in Athens ca. 350 BC they were well aware that many if not most homosexuals are inducted into the practice through being preyed-upon as a child by an older man.

#5 Comment By Raskolnik On November 11, 2018 @ 8:47 am

Islam isn’t going to take over “Europe”, so everything that follows from that premise is bogus as well.

First of all, I realize that given the (Herculean) effort involved in moderating these comments, there’s often a delay, but I just want to emphasize that the Islamization of Europe is not one of my premises. That being said, while I hope and pray that you are correct, I am not at all convinced that many people won’t make a judgment more or less like JEinCA’s, prefigured in Soumission:

I would rather my children convert to Islam than be inducted into the LGBTQ Zeitgeist. At least Islamic Civilization believes in God, right and wrong and in a right to vigilant defense of their religion and civilization.

No doubt many people feel the same way. Either way, though, my overarching point here is that, whether you like it or not, you cannot have both a functioning civilization and LGBTP-friendly social norms. We are already seeing the system break down under its internal contradictions, the biggest one of course being the lie that sterile homosexual relations are or ought to be the full legal, social, and biological equivalent of normal fecundity. So when you say this:

Liberalism is already tottering in Europe right now

I mean… yeah? Hello? This is exactly what I’m saying! Why is it, do you think, that liberalism is tottering, and what exactly is it that you expect to happen to societal attitudes about LGBTP once people start putting two and two together about the relationship between LGBTP and liberalism? To be clear I am not blaming LGBTP for the decline in birthrates or the secularization of society, it is (like Trump) a symptom rather than a cause. But if there is a waking-up qua de-liberalization of Europe and the United States, it cannot but be comprised of (inter alia) rejection of LGBTP.

Possibly. But that logic [of homosexual “liberation”] is not a dominant paradigm, merely a loud fad du jour.

Siarlys, you’re a smart and plugged-in guy, but sometimes I wonder what color the sky is where you live.

#6 Comment By Fran Macadam On November 11, 2018 @ 10:16 am

“Given that you insist that I, as a Democrat must accept being lumped in with antifa, then you have to be lumped in with the bigots.”

You don’t get to really make of others bigots, that’s just your own desire to demonize. Kind of ironical, for most of the demons I knew were already on your side.

#7 Comment By MikeS On November 11, 2018 @ 10:22 am

“Am I the only one who wonders how this would have played out if Isabella Chow had been black or Hispanic?”

In the intricacies of the progressive virtue totem pole, a traditionalist Black or Hispanic probably wins out over Trans’s. An Asian female now apparently narrowly loses; but still, I thought that her Asian-ness and female-ness softened the reaction. If a white guy had said what she did, probably he would be expelled from the university, and perhaps severely beaten.

#8 Comment By Kurt Gayle On November 11, 2018 @ 11:15 am

Raskolnik said (Nov 10, 2:28 pm):

“I am trying to prevent disaster.

“I have homosexual friends, the godfather to my first child is a homosexual, and I am not at all confident that the backlash won’t start during their lifetimes. But the backlash is coming, whether I like it or you like…

“I’m Cassandra, trying patiently to explain to you that you are inviting the destruction of the people you claim to care about.”

Raskolnik is truly the Cassandra here, while so many of you posting on this thread are like the blind, deaf citizens of ancient Troy who turned away from the very prophecies that could have saved them.

Are there no historians in the house – are there no Cassandras – other than Raskolnik?

Or is it just that the rest of you are too frightened to speak up?

#9 Comment By Brian in Brooklyn On November 11, 2018 @ 11:36 am

Ken Zaretzke writes: “There is no way today’s liberalism can survive a concerted onslaught of value-pluralism, which by the way, is not relativistic–or if it is, that needs to be proven.”

Helping to pave the way for Buddhist ethics and the catuskoti–Western Abrahamic culture hoisted with the petard of Aristotle.

#10 Comment By Hector_St_Clare On November 11, 2018 @ 1:01 pm

I mean… yeah? Hello? This is exactly what I’m saying! Why is it, do you think, that liberalism is tottering, and what exactly is it that you expect to happen to societal attitudes about LGBTP once people start putting two and two together about the relationship between LGBTP and liberalism?

Liberalism is tottering for a bunch of reasons, partly because it doesn’t even attempt to answer some basic questions about meaning and purpose, partly because liberal societies are failing people economically (specifically, failing provide people with meaningful work), and most importantly because a great many Europeans reject the liberal consensus with respect to ethnicity and immigration. (Parts 2 and 3 are of course not unrelated to part 1: it’s precisely because liberalism tries to steer away from comprehensive visions of ‘the good’, meaning, etc., that they’re unable to really deal both with people’s need to find meaning both through work and through tribal solidarity).

That doesn’t mean, though, that when Europe eventually moves past liberalism it’s going to reject homosexuality as well. There’s no shortage of historical societies that were extremely antiliberal and also quite accepting of homosexuality. Sparta, for one. Orthodox Christian thought isn’t the only possible alternative to the pluralist, liberal-capitalist social order.

I think European societies are going to become more “closed” and less “open” in future decades, as well as more distrustful towards the economic and political prescriptions of (small-L) liberal thought, but that doesn’t mean they will necessarily become more religious, and if they do, it doesn’t mean that that religion will be orthodox Christianity. (It might be some revivified neo-paganism instead).

I’m neutral to slightly positive with respect to homosexuality, so I wouldn’t support society becoming more ‘homophobic’, but the one scenario where I could see Europe becoming more conservative at least w/r/t male homosexuality would be if we witness the rise of some new and (at least temporarily) incurable sexually transmitted disease, worse than HIV. Or maybe if the population crashes to where it’s like a tenth of what it is today, but that won’t happen for several centuries anyway and my guess is when that does happen, fertility will rise to compensate. As antibiotic resistance becomes a bigger problem, I wouldn’t consider that scenario out of the question. But if homophobia does come back into fashion it won’t be because of Islam, if anything it will be because of epidemiology.

#11 Comment By craig On November 11, 2018 @ 1:20 pm

Lisa says: “I agree that both sides are fighting for power, but the difference is the LGBQT’s are fighting to live their lives as they see fit. The right wing Christians, however, are fighting to control the personal lives of other adults. No one on the left is trying to force conservative Christians to marry someone of the same gender or disallow them to marry someone of the opposite gender….”

Keep telling yourself that pleasant fiction. The Left is already trying to declare it intolerable bigotry for men attracted to women not to be similarly attracted to “trans women” (i.e. men). Remember all that leftist LGBpre-T talk about how one can’t just choose one’s sexual attraction, how it’s innate and attempts to force it to change are monstrous? That was just a tactical lie. As long as it’s away from “heteronormative” to something else, changing one’s sexual attraction is now expected of the New Berkeley Person.

So we’re back to Dalrymple’s observation about the totalitarian demand, that one acquiesce in obvious lies and repeat them oneself to avoid being caught in the purges. Only a hardy few are able and motivated to resist. But just as gays, Jews, and Moslems are united by nothing save opposition to Christian doctrine and ethics, the refuseniks against the Sexual Reign of Terror (we’re long past the Revolution) will also find themselves strange bedfellows. When people say, “if you’re afraid of the religious Right, wait’ll you see the post-religious Right”, this is what they are alluding to. When the hardy few among the upcoming generation finds that the only viable alternative, the only non-neutered opposition to the totalitarian lie, resides in Islam or Putinist nationalism or explicit racialism (could be neo-Nazi, more likely Hindus or Han Chinese feeling their oats), look out.

What #Metoo is doing to relations between the sexes, LGBT is doing to relations within the sexes, and between families and “non-breeders”. Paglia has identified the rise of transgenderism as a reliable marker of impending social collapses throughout history. There is a reason every long-lived civilization has exerted tight social control over sexuality; left uncontrolled, it is a profoundly destabilizing force. Raskolnik is correct.

#12 Comment By REJ On November 11, 2018 @ 3:03 pm

“Personally, I can easily tolerate other people believing differently than I do. What I won’t do is tolerate other people who want to control my personal life based on religious beliefs that I don’t share.”

You are kidding yourself and you have no such tolerance. Replace “religious beliefs” with the words personal morality and you turn the table on yourself. When my personal morality comes into play in the public square it is not imposing my religion on you even if my personal morality comes from my Catholic beliefs. If your morality has to be pulled out of your arse because you have no other moral code that you follow, and then you try to impose it on me, you are doing exactly the same thing to me that you condemn, even if you deny your arse is a religion. You seriously need to examine your own double standards.

#13 Comment By Ken Zaretzke On November 11, 2018 @ 4:03 pm

The reason liberalism is in philosophical trouble has nothing to do with reasonable disagreement, which is all too easily regarded by liberal academics as unproblematic because who, after all, thinks Christian beliefs about same-sex marriage are “reasonable”? Not us good liberals at Berkeley!

Reasonable disagreement, or what John Rawls called the fact of reasonable pluralism, must not be confused with value-pluralism. As advanced by Isaiah Berlin and unpacked by John Gray, value pluralism is deeper and more radical in its implications than is reasonable disagreement. Whereas reasonable disagreement entails that Roe v. Wade was mistaken (as an exercise of judicial review at the very least), value-pluralism entails that Roe is incoherent. Reasonable disagreement makes so-called hard cases common enough, and in principle resolvable at least pragmatically. In contrast, value-pluralism makes them pervasive **and irresolvable**.

Roe v. Wade famously professed agnosticism about the moral status of unborn human beings, and proceeded to a pragmatist conclusion in which the liberty of the woman is the default position. That’s arguably consistent with acknowledging reasonable disagreement about abortion (but still hubristic in being so sweeping and so extreme in the range of allowable abortions). Value-pluralism goes far beyond this in making any pro-abortion judicial decision (professedly based on constitutional values) to be incoherent.

Given value-pluralism, a pro-choice outlook can’t be the right answer to a constitutional question about abortion. The conflicting and incommensurable values (incommensurability is at the heart of value-pluralism) are the right to life versus the right of a woman to control her own body. There is no rational way to resolve this conflict. Thus there can be no moral justification of a constitutional decision requiring that abortion be allowed. Neither can there be a justified constitutional decision banning all abortions.

Pro-lifers want the legislature to limit or ban abortion. That’s consistent with value-pluralism. In a conflict between incommensurable values, the legislature is free to take sides. The judiciary can’t do that coherently because its resort to constitutional values, on which its decision must be based, is radically underdetermined by those values. A constitutional decision in favor of abortion is bound to be arbitrary. The incoherence of the decision is that it implies that constitutional decision-making by judges is wholly groundless.

The case for overruling Roe is stronger than we’ve believed. We found fault with Roe on the basis of reasonable disagreement, and concluded that Roe is too hubristic to be proper constitutional law–that was precisely the claim of John Hart Ely in his famous law review article “The Wages of Crying Wolf.” Value-pluralism is a different kettle of fish. It has profound anti- judicial-activist implications for constitutional law.

#14 Comment By Siarlys Jenkins On November 11, 2018 @ 5:00 pm

Remember all that leftist LGBpre-T talk about how one can’t just choose one’s sexual attraction, how it’s innate and attempts to force it to change are monstrous? That was just a tactical lie.

No. These are different assertions coming from different persons in a kaleidoscope of shifting agendas within a rather diverse cast of characters. Everyone wants what they want, and takes turns at center stage. Its still a mess, but not necessarily a lie.

Siarlys, you’re a smart and plugged-in guy, but sometimes I wonder what color the sky is where you live.

Right now its baby blue… the grey cloudy overcast seems to have moved off for a while. Why do you ask?

From what I’ve read in your other posts, I take it you are a man who has rejected the gay lifestyle and found God.

We’ve all made errors about this on line, but I’m pretty sure Fran is a woman.

#15 Comment By Fran Macadam On November 11, 2018 @ 5:05 pm

Perfectly fulfilled, but goes to Gay AA. Sure.

One can certainly agree that people who practice sin, of which this is just one, are thereby alienating themselves, but remain as those made in God’s image, even as they tarnish it.

As for my silence about some posts and comments, I don’t read them all and therefore have no idea of their content. If I were to read them all and respond, I would have to become an unpaid Rod Dreher. It’s not all about you, nor this blog, either. There are times that I just believe dialog with some is unproductive, because there is no end to it except the submission sought. Do what you will, I’m not controlling anyone nor do I have any interest in doing so. I state what I’ve discovered that I’ve become convinced by evidence is true, regardless of the assertions of propaganda, and you can test it for yourself, or decide not to.

What I object to the most, is non-platforming.

#16 Comment By Fran Macadam On November 11, 2018 @ 6:20 pm

Rick Steven D. – let this be the answer I concur with:

[4]

#17 Comment By Lisa On November 11, 2018 @ 6:44 pm

Craig:”Keep telling yourself that pleasant fiction. The Left is already trying to declare it intolerable bigotry for men attracted to women not to be similarly attracted to “trans women” (i.e. men).”

Craig,please tell my where this is an issue for normal, everyday people.Where are men being forced to date or have sex with people they aren’t attracted to?

I live in Sacramento CA, my oldest is 31 and lives in the Bay Area, my middle child, aged 29 lives in San Diego, CA, and my son,aged 27 lives in Santa Cruz – none of us are having any issues like this – or even know any transgender people. If it’s not a problem for me or for young adults living in the most liberal areas of California, I don’t think it’s worth worrying about. Among my husband’s contractor friends and colleagues and my friends and colleagues in education and healthcare the topic NEVER comes up.

Aside from some universities and politics, this is not an issue.

#18 Comment By Lisa On November 11, 2018 @ 7:01 pm

REJ: “You are kidding yourself and you have no such tolerance. Replace “religious beliefs” with the words personal morality and you turn the table on yourself.”

Except my personal morality doesn’t think I should have any say in how you manage your fertility, who you marry, or how you handle a terminal illness. I honestly can’t think of any mainstream Democratic candidate or even policies that seek to control other people’s actual bodies and most personal relationships.

#19 Comment By Jim On November 11, 2018 @ 7:32 pm

Miss Chow could have abstained without preaching a sermon disapproving the life choices of transgendered people. Did anybody need to hear her opinions? No. But she decided to virtue signal and picked a fight. She knew exactly what the consequences would be. Now those leftist campus meanies are picking on poor her, and she gets to play the misunderstood martyr with a heart of gold. Give me a break.

#20 Comment By Rick Steven D. On November 11, 2018 @ 8:20 pm

Fran,

Thank you for the feedback, and the reading. God bless…

#21 Comment By Siarlys Jenkins On November 11, 2018 @ 9:54 pm

The case for overruling Roe is stronger than we’ve believed.

That’s a delusion. Roe v. Wade is a sound, conservative application of well developed constitutional jurisprudence to a specific set of facts never before presented for judicial review. Its going to last because it was soundly reasoned, well based in fundamental constitutional principles, and most Americans know it.

I might add that the ruling says NOTHING about whether abortion is a wise choice, a prudent, moral, medically sound, ethical, or good choice, merely that it is not the business of the police powers of the state to enforce a policy. It says you won’t go to prison — it says nothing about whether you will go to hell, literally or figuratively.

#22 Comment By johnhenry On November 11, 2018 @ 11:26 pm

Rod Dreher says: “UC Berkeley is a major public university, in the most populous state in America. This is not a minor thing.”

I say: “UC Berkeley is a major public university, in the most ___________ state in America. This is not a minor thing.”

Whoever fills the blank with the best descriptor of California will win a Jerry Brown bobblehead doll.

#23 Comment By TOS On November 12, 2018 @ 12:32 am

So, just to get this straight:

When Trump uses the term “Enemy of the People,” he’s being inflammatory and irresponsible.

But when Dreher put that phrase into the mouths of his enemies, he is simply alerting us to how bad they are.

Did I get that right? Because this is the fourth post, after he denounced Trump for using the phrase, where Dreher has put that phrase into his enemies’ mouths.

It’s like Dreher realized that it’s a terrible thing to say, and so decided for that reason that liberals must use that phrase all the time.

The ironic part is that the only two people I see who regularly use the phrase “enemy of the people” are Rod Dreher and Donald Trump.

[NFR: I think you must have no capacity at all to understand irony. — RD]

#24 Comment By Rob G On November 12, 2018 @ 9:06 am

“I honestly can’t think of any mainstream Democratic candidate or even policies that seek to control other people’s actual bodies and most personal relationships.”

In privileging sexual “freedom” liberalism/progressivism necessarily transfers its need for control into other areas. You can’t just screw who you want. You have to believe that it’s okay to screw who you want, and all that goes along with that belief, or else you’re a bigot.

You don’t want to control our bodies and our relationships, just our minds, our opinions and our speech.

#25 Comment By Anne (the other one) On November 12, 2018 @ 11:19 am

I will not be surprised when SNL does a skit on Isabella Chow.

Evidentially, Saturday’s SNL skit made fun of the WH intern with Acosta. A Facebook friend thought it was hysterical. I can only think how hard it must be for this young intern to see herself mocked on national television.

The left is vicious.

#26 Comment By Siarlys Jenkins On November 12, 2018 @ 12:13 pm

I can only think how hard it must be for this young intern to see herself mocked on national television.

If she is being mocked, it is for an act in a public setting with public policy implications. Her best defense is probably “I was just following orders.” Her actions were unsuited to anyone acting in a government capacity, however lowly or limited, in a constitutional republic.

Miss Chow could have abstained without preaching a sermon disapproving the life choices of transgendered people. Did anybody need to hear her opinions?

You could say that about anyone expressing any opinion or value judgment on any subject. Should everyone just shut up about anything that means anything to them? Why don’t we shut down all legislative bodies, to make sure nobody is offended by anyone’s opinion?

#27 Comment By DEC01 On November 12, 2018 @ 1:40 pm

Clyde-

“The battle over the meaning of “marriage” was lost, indeed conceded, long before Obergefell. My wife and I were married in a civil ceremony at the county clerk’s office. We are both atheists. It was in no sense a sacramental marriage. Not even a mention of God. Civil marriages have been going on for a very long time.”

Where the ceremony happens and who does it is not relevant. Are that man and woman committing to a lifelong, faithful union or not? That’s what matters. That can happen in front of judge, among friends, or in a church.

“So the concession that marriage could be a purely governmental arrangement involving no sacrament was made long before gays came out of the closet and demanded marriage on an equal basis. Even before Obergefell, it was already a long dead issue.”

People involved in homosexuality have never demanded marriage on an equal basis. They have instead demanded marriage be re-made to suit their desires. Their vision of marriage is exactly the opposite of the vision of a man and woman committing to a lifelong, faithful union together. Their vision requires no commitment of any kind.

#28 Comment By Ken Zaretzke On November 12, 2018 @ 1:58 pm

@Siarlys Jenkins

Value-pluralism ups the ante in the abortion debate and makes your defense of Roe v. Wade hopeless. Now, I’m going to assume that Christians who claim universality for their beliefs can use value-pluralism strategically and dialectically–“be wise as a serpent …” So, if value-pluralism’s view of liberalism is the best account of liberalism, as John Gray claims (p. 145 of *Isaiah Berlin*), and if value-pluralism nevertheless competes with liberalism, such that “liberal institutions can claim no universal authority” (p. 155), then Christians can compellingly argue that it’s illegitimate to employ the extraordinary power of judicial review on behalf of hegemonic liberal values such as equality and dignity.

#29 Comment By Kurt Gayle On November 12, 2018 @ 2:48 pm

Siarlys Jenkins: “Roe v. Wade is a sound, conservative application of well developed constitutional jurisprudence to a specific set of facts never before presented for judicial review. Its going to last because it was soundly reasoned, well based in fundamental constitutional principles, and most Americans know it.”

(1) “A sound, conservative application of well developed constitutional jurisprudence”

(2) “It’s going to last”

(3) “Soundly reasoned”

(4) “Well based in fundamental constitutional principles”

(5) “Most Americans know it”

You’re O-for-5, Siarlys Jenkins, but keep swinging.

Your main problem that you no longer have a majority of constitutional dunces sitting on the US Supreme Court.

#30 Comment By craig On November 12, 2018 @ 3:29 pm

Lisa: “Where are men being forced to date or have sex with people they aren’t attracted to?”

Way to move the goalposts: I didn’t say they were currently being forced to, only that the leftist propaganda mill is now working overtime to erase this last artifact of the natural preference for fertile opposite-sex relations, and the natural revulsion against sterile sodomy. Within five years, Hollywood will be churning out movies and TV depicting tranny relationships as superior in virtue, wit, and elan to those dreary traditional marriages favored by Deplorables. (Cf. “Will and Grace”, whose creators eventually admitted had propaganda as one of its goals.) School curricula will start to push “anti-discrimination” messages with respect to sexual attraction and “consent”.

Obama in 2008 was publicly against same-sex marriage, and was voted into office by millions. Ten years later, taking that stance in public is now disqualifying bigotry according to the same people. Consider yourself fortunate that your children grew to adulthood before the transgender craze hit, so it couldn’t affect them; the young people ten years behind them will have a far different experience.

#31 Comment By LFC On November 12, 2018 @ 6:32 pm

Bob said: “The left routinely, and daily, demonizes, name-calls, and threatens, in language without even the pretense of reason…”

I think other than the word “left” all you’ve done is quote Fox News’s business plan.

Rob G said: “How old are you, 90? I grew up in fundamentalist Pentecostalism in the 1970’s and there was very little moral objection to interracial marriage at that time — 40+ years ago — and I don’t recall any among my non-Pentecostal evangelical friends either.”

Before you generalize the mood of the nation using your own tiny personal sample I suggest you perform a Google image search on “gallup poll interracial marriage.” I am white and married my wife, a black woman, in 1990. I was married for over 5 years before more than 50% of white Americans approved of interracial marriage. I’m sure many (most?) of them self-identified as Christian.

#32 Comment By Siarlys Jenkins On November 13, 2018 @ 11:22 am

You’re O-for-5, Siarlys Jenkins, but keep swinging.

When the facts and reason are against you, Kurt Gayle, you resort to pontification and declare yourself the winner.

If the only way you can win is to pack the court, what you are arguing is not constitutional jurisprudence.

You’re often better than this.

Ken Zaretske… to hell with value pluralism. Next argument.

(Kurt may claim I’m doing to you what I claim he did to me. So, to be tediously clear, you introduced a subjective value judgment and inferred that it is universally accepted. There is no objective reason I must accept it. In fact, I find it ludicrous, and inconsistent with stable constitutional jurisprudence).

The extraordinary power of judicial review is laid out quite succinctly in The Federalist Papers. It IS limited — to circumstances when congress or the executive have EXCEEDED the authority delegated to them BY the constitution. It is indeed not to be invoked merely because justices think congress would have been wiser to exercise their discretion differently, or the states for that matter.

#33 Comment By Rob G On November 14, 2018 @ 9:28 am

~~~Before you generalize the mood of the nation using your own tiny personal sample I suggest you perform a Google image search on “gallup poll interracial marriage.” I am white and married my wife, a black woman, in 1990. I was married for over 5 years before more than 50% of white Americans approved of interracial marriage. I’m sure many (most?) of them self-identified as Christian.~~~

In many cases these objections were not moral but pragmatic. It was felt among many, both blacks and whites, rightly or wrongly, that mixed race children would have a tougher time of things because they wouldn’t “fit in” with either the blacks or the whites. That this is not really an issue any more is a very good thing, but that doesn’t mean it was not a sincere concern back then.

#34 Comment By Ken Zaretzke On November 14, 2018 @ 2:23 pm

@Siarlys Jenkins,

So here’s the “next argument” that shows why you can’t say “to hell with value pluralism” (as distinct from reasonable disagreement).

Reasonableness is scalar–it comes in degrees. A judge might acknowledge that the pro-life view is reasonable but decide that it’s less reasonable, given X, Y, and Z, than the pro-choice view. And vice-versa. Like the balance of interests, a balance of reasons determines the way a judge interprets and applies the 14th Amendment and other constitutional provisions. On the scale of reasonableness, Roe v. Wade struck a balance that rather uncompromisingly but not irrationally favored the pro-choice side in the reasonable disagreement over abortion.

In contrast to reasonable disagreement, value-pluralist conflicts have no inbuilt scalar properties. In a conflict of values in a value-pluralist world, one value isn’t slightly better than the other. The values are too different to be comparable.
Thus a judge’s decision for one side in a conflict of values can have nothing to do with constitutional law. It’s just a bare value choice. Such a judicial decision is empty of constitutional valuation, and therefore of constitutional validation. It’s incapable of being legally or politically impartial.

Legislators don’t have to be impartial in the same way or to the same extent as judges. The legislature can rightly settle a value-pluralist conflict by simply taking sides–or by punting and declining to take any side, if that’s socially and politically feasible (it’s especially feasible for Congress, which can often defer to the state legislatures.)

Unlike interpreting the law, making law is not inherently confounded by value-pluralism. That’s why the thesis of value-pluralism is an enormous threat to Roe v. Wade, as well as to judicially- mandated same-sex marriage.

#35 Comment By eddie too On November 14, 2018 @ 3:50 pm

that a person’s confusion about their sexuality makes them angry and unhappy is not a surprise.

it is however quite pathetic for these unhappy and angry people to blame others and say others are making them angry and unhappy.

all who are secure in their hearts and minds do not get angry or unhappy when others disagree with them.

#36 Comment By eddie too On November 14, 2018 @ 3:53 pm

the government should protect, favor and even subsidize the only human relationship that results in the continuation of society and the survival of mankind.

there is nothing wrong with governments recognizing that relationship and encouraging it.

there is nothing wrong with governments favoring that relationship over other human relationships.

#37 Comment By CK On November 17, 2018 @ 1:32 pm

Had she voted no, what then? For Isabella it was a lose-lose situation. Voting yes was the only way to not receive this hate. And even then they would have found out how she voted and tried to exhile her. No one should be forced to vote for something they do not believe or support. She felt not voting was the only way to be fair and she received just as much vile hate had she voted no. Fight for what you want but don’t throw down like your life is threatened that much over a college student not agreeing with you. 18 people said yes! This is the millennial mentality that is ruining our youth.