Sunday, August 11, 2013

What gay marriage means for the Church

Elizabeth Scalia:
[Gay marriage] is the issue of the age, and for the church, one that will challenge her standing as both the taproot and centering pole of Christian teaching. The world wants a confrontation, even if the church does not, and it can only end in one of two ways: either it will move the church to change a most fundamental (and very mystical) teaching in order to suit the times — and thereby send the message that “truth” really is a relative and changeable, not eternal, thing — or it will create a chasm between the Roman and orthodox churches (both small-o and large) and the world that will bring about a time or serious persecution and suppression.

Gay marriage is neither about gays or marriage. It is a tactic-- Alinsky's Rule # 4:

RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”... You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity’s very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)
Collaboration with gay marriage will be forced on Christians-- in schools, in government, in businesses, eventually in churches-- with the intent of breaking Christian consciences and driving faithful Christians out of the public square and Christian business owners into bankruptcy. Prosecution of Christians for refusing to collaborate in gay marriages is already happening.

Jail time for preaching against gay marriage has already occurred in other countries. It will happen here, probably in the form of prosecution of business owners for "civil rights violations".

The gay movement is uncommonly thuggish and vengeful, and its target is Christianity and only Christianity. In collaboration with much of the left and even some of the atheist right, the gay movement will assault Christians relentlessly.

We are entering a time of serious persecution and suppression of Christianity in America. It will trim down and strengthen the Church, although many faithful Christians will suffer dearly for their obedience to the Lord.


48 comments:

  1. Dr. Egnor,

    I can recommend a country where Christianity is the state religion and homosexuality is totally frowned upon. One patriotic American recently got political asylum there. Maybe you should follow his lead.

    Hoo

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hoo,

      Strange to see Americans defect to Russia, isn't it?
      What an odd twist of events. Next thing you now, the US will be building walls along it's borders justified by some sort of security threat, only to use the same system of control (biometric ID cards maybe?) to monitor and even contain their own citizens with things like exit permits and heavy fees for leaving! Nah. That could NEVER happen.

      Delete
    2. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyAugust 12, 2013 at 8:20 AM

      I used to see that very same argument on bumper stickers during the Vietnam War: "America - Love It or Leave It".

      Strange bedfellows, just one thing in common: ignorance.

      Delete
    3. I, for one, having always been pro-Russian (as opposed to pro-Soviet) would WELCOME the return of Holy Mother Russia to the family of nations.

      Delete
  2. Mike,

    Want to see the future? Here's a glimpse:
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2383686/Millionaire-gay-fathers-sue-Church-England-allowing-married-church.html

    ReplyDelete
  3. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyAugust 12, 2013 at 8:28 AM

    I expect to die in bed, my successor will die in prison and his successor will die a martyr in the public square. His successor will pick up the shards of a ruined society and slowly help rebuild civilization, as the church has done so often in human history.
    --- Francis Cardinal George (Abp. Chicago)

    What the good Doctor describes is but one instantiation of a more general standard Leftist doctrine, easily discoverable in history.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Few things look more pathetic than cries of persecution coming from Christians, who constitute an overwhelming majority: three quarters of the US population.

    Hoo

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyAugust 12, 2013 at 8:51 AM

      Few things are as pathetic as a self-anointed "elitist" who knows nothing of history.

      You're on a roll, Hoots!

      Delete
    2. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyAugust 12, 2013 at 9:08 AM

      Speaking of pathetic:

      More remarkable is that a Democratic presidential candidate [Barack Obama] is sticking his chest out and proudly touting that he has tried to imprison more whistleblowers on espionage charges than all previous presidents in history combined: more than the secrecy-loving Bush/Cheney White House, more than the paranoid, leak-hating Nixon administration, more than anyone in American history.
      --- The Guardian

      Now his dog has an airplane. :-D

      It's "Erich Honecker Meets the Beverly Hillbillies".

      Delete
    3. I am not even talking about history, admiral. I am mentioning a plain and incontrovertible fact.

      76 percent of Americans identify themselves as Christians. A majority whining about some sort of persecution (by whom, exactly?) looks rather pathetic.

      Hoo

      Delete
    4. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyAugust 12, 2013 at 9:47 AM

      I know you're not talking about history, Hoots. That was, in fact, my point. Sorry you missed it.

      A "majority" status in no way precludes persecution by an out-of-control gaggle of deranged Leftists directing heavily-armed cadres of sadistic thugs. No one should know that better than an aspirational informer.

      Russia was a majority-Christian country until Leftists took over. Then the Christians were persecuted and forced to conceal their faith on pain of being exiled to the Gulag or death by gunshot to the back of the head in the Lubyanka.

      The state was committed to the destruction of religion, and destroyed churches, mosques and temples, ridiculed, harassed and executed religious leaders, flooded the schools and media with atheistic propaganda, and generally promoted 'scientific atheism' as the truth that society should accept. The total number of Christians killed, as a result of Soviet state atheist policies, has been estimated at over 20 million.
      --- Wiki

      You are the pathetic ignoramus, Hoots.

      Delete
    5. You're a pathetic whiner, admiral. Must be the dirty diaper.

      Hoo

      Delete
    6. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyAugust 12, 2013 at 10:08 AM

      You can't address the argument, so you attack the person.
      --- Hoots

      You never disappoint.

      Delete
    7. Tell us more, admiral, how the Communists are about to take over the US government. This is so entertaining!

      Hoo

      Delete
    8. That's not exactly an attack, admiral. Kicking an old delusional fart knocker is beneath my dignity.

      Hoo

      Delete
    9. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyAugust 12, 2013 at 10:15 AM

      Communists taking over the US government?

      Look! A squirrel!!!

      Hoots, you couldn't "kick" your way out of an intellectual paper bag.

      Delete
    10. Better a paper bag than a tinfoil hat.

      Hoo

      Delete
    11. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyAugust 12, 2013 at 10:35 AM

      You know, I couldn't agree more:

      [Y]ou've grown up hearing voices that incessantly warn of government as nothing more than some separate, sinister entity that's at the root of all of our problems. Some of these same voices do their best to gum up the works. They'll warn that tyranny is always lurking just around the corner. You should reject these voices.
      --- Barack Obama, OSU (2013)

      Maybe it's time to move from the tinfoil hat to the rubber room.

      Delete
    12. LOL. In almost the same breath, the admiral is talking about "persecution by an out-of-control gaggle of deranged Leftists directing heavily-armed cadres of sadistic thugs" and then insists that he is not really talking about Communists. Loss of short-term memory, I guess.

      Say hi from me to your nurse, admiral.

      Hoo

      Delete
    13. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyAugust 12, 2013 at 10:45 AM

      The Voices are coming from the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy on the Dogwhistle Band.

      Do you hear them, Hoots?

      Delete
    14. Anyone who can turn on the AM radio can hear those voices. Are you hard of hearing, admiral? That's too bad. But worry not, you can read some transcripts. Here is Mark Levin ramling on about the government as a sinister force:

      "Jeffrey: All right, now, let me ask you about that, Mark. In the book, you write, you argue that: There must be “an acknowledgement of the federal government’s unmooring from its constitutional foundation. Second, an acceptance that the condition is urgent and if untreated will ultimately be the death-knell of the American republic.” Those are pretty strong words. How close do you think we are to the point of no return in being able to restore a constitutionally limited government, where individuals are able to enjoy liberty the way the Founding Fathers envisioned it?

      Levin: I think we’re close enough. You know, a lot of people think it’s over. A lot of people think that our demise is inevitable. When you listen to members of Congress, and particularly Republicans, when they’re talking about Obamacare, it can’t be defunded, or, when you listen to how they talk, there are too many people who have surrendered to or been conquered by this federal Leviathan."

      Hoo

      Delete
    15. I hear voices, I do, admiral:

      "Levin: The problem is we do have these governing masterminds, so to speak, this ruling class, and really, these amendments are aimed at unraveling that establishment, because this is absolutely antithetical to what the framers had intended. You know, we rail against the ruling class, and it will be the ruling class that are dug in, and there will be ferocious, fanatic supporters who will be opposing this."

      That's exactly what Obama referred to.

      Hoo

      Delete
    16. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyAugust 12, 2013 at 11:00 AM

      Right. The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.

      They're dangerous people. They have opinions different from yours.

      Here's another one of The Voices:

      I've spent the last four years documenting the extreme, often unprecedented, commitment to secrecy that this president has exhibited, including his vindictive war on whistleblowers, his refusal to disclose even the legal principles underpinning his claimed war powers of assassination, and his unrelenting, Bush-copying invocation of secrecy privileges to prevent courts even from deciding the legality of his conduct...
      --- Glenn Greenwald, The Guardian

      My goodness! They're everywhere!

      It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong.
      --- Voltaire

      Delete
    17. LOL. The admiral went straight from denying the existence of these voices to saying that there are so many of them! Fucking hilarious to see the old fart changing his tune ten times a day.

      Hoo

      Delete
    18. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyAugust 12, 2013 at 11:59 AM

      They're everywhere!! It's so scary!

      Delete
    19. Never thought I'd find myself agreeing with Voltaire.

      Delete
  5. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyAugust 12, 2013 at 11:32 AM

    Hoots: "I hear voices, I do, admiral..."

    I know you do, Hoots. And I'm sure you don't listen on AM radio. You hear the sinister susurrations on the Dogwhistle Band. Lots of Proglodytes do. It's part of what makes you Special.

    It's a terrible state of affairs when independent, non-Special citizens are able to express views that differ from the Elite on politics, religion, economics, or government. Not only that, which would be bad enough, they do so on the Public Airwaves! They didn't build those Airwaves! The Government built those Airwaves! People who comment on The Airwaves or in The Press (which the Government also built) should be regulated:

    It’s long past time for Congress to create a federal law that defines and protects journalists.
    --- Sen. "Dick" Durbin (Chicago Sun-Times)

    Now some people might advise you to just reject The Voices. But that's never a long-term solution. Just a cursory examination of history - the Complete Idiot's Guide to History - shows that stronger medicine is necessary to silence The Voices. And regulation is a good first step. Who can speak? We'll talk about the penalties later. After The Voices have been weeded out.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hoo. Why would a homosexual couple INSIST on forcing some cakebaker to bake them a 'wedding' cake? After the cakebaker has expressed to them his desire that they take their business elsewhere? What is it with you ProgNazis anyway?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I guess the same reasoning can be applied to a black couple who insist on checking into a particular hotel and the owner expresses to them his desire that they take their business elsewhere.

      Hoo

      Delete
    2. Hoo, I am entirely in favor of a shop-keeper's right to NOT serve someone for any arbitrary reason. I would not impose, against his will, a gaggle of rosary-reciting nuns upon an atheist bed and breakfast keeper. Why are you such a fascist?

      Delete
    3. Dear David,

      Since you have already called me a Nazi and a fascist, perhaps I should reciprocate.

      Fuck you.

      Cordially,

      Hoo

      Delete
    4. And now that we're even, let me answer your question, David.

      A business owner is free to turn down anyone's request. That would be perfectly legal. However, turning away customers on the basis of race is illegal.

      Your turn.

      Hoo

      Delete
  7. Hoo, I support the owner's right to turn away whomever he chooses, for whatever reason he chooses. It's his business. If he wants to deprive himself of business I think we should let him do it. To me, that is freedom. You, on the other hand, want the heavy hand of the State to compell the owner to take customers according to the dictates of the state. That is Fascism. You support it. You are a fascist. That isn't 'calling names'. It is describing reality. And you didn't reciprocate. Your suggestion to me was neither 'calling names' nor describing reality. The job of 'University Professor' is garnering less and less respect from more and more people.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's not me, David. It's the law of the land. If you wish to call the United States a Fascist country, go ahead and do it.

      Hoo

      Delete
  8. Like I would be the first one to do that. Fascist is as fascist does. Any law which compells a person to transact business with another person (outside lawsuits for breach of contract, for instance) is unjust. Like compelling me to date the head cheerleader. Like THAT would have ever happened, and I expect she would have been the one complaining about the injustice of it all. If I don't want to serve you, Hoo, there is no reason as a matter of morals why I should even have to explain why. The law? The law is an ass.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a fascist law? Here is an excerpt from its Title II for you, my liberty-loving friend:

      (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

      (b) Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this title if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action:

      (1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence;

      (2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the premises of any retail establishment; or any gasoline station;

      (3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and

      (4) any establishment (A)(i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or (ii) within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment, and (b) which holds itself out as serving patrons of such covered establishment.

      Hoo

      Delete
    2. The federal government only has authority to regulate such things if they effect interstate commerce.

      The 1964 Act was morally right in the sense that no person should be denied any accommodation etc on account of race. There are real Constitutional questions about the federal government exceeding its Constitutionally designated powers.

      In addition, one may ask this question: is it right to force a bigot, however vile, to not be a bigot on his own property.

      It's a real question about the proper place of law.

      I think that the 1964 Civil Rights Act expressed correct moral viewpoints using unconstitutional federal power and that it exceeded the limits of what government should regulate.

      Non-discrimination must be mandated legally on public property and in government.

      People should be allowed legally to discriminate on their own property, although I abhor and condemn such discrimination.

      Delete
    3. That's a pretty lame argument. You might as well say that government can only proscribe murder and rape on public property and in government. People should be allowed legally to kill others on their own property, although Egnor abhors and condemns such killings.

      Hoo

      Delete
  9. That's a pretty lame analogy. Only a person devoid of any moral compass would propose that murder and rape are the equivalent of denying someone a carton of orange juice. But there we have it.

    Progressives and Fascists are joined at the hip, and have been for a very long time. Jonah Goldberg lays this out in detail in his excellent book, Liberal Fascists.

    Our government, Hoo, has been trending this way since Roosevelt. Teddy Roosevelt. Progs got a big boost with Wilson, including the imposition of racial segregation (popular at that time with Progressives) upon the armed services. Your birth control saint, Sanger, was an out and out racist who depised people with muddy complexions.

    Would you have felt compelled to comply with the Fugitive Slave Act? It was Federal Law. Your idol and false god. Would you have complied?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't feel compelled to comply with federal acts that are no longer on the books, David. You seem reluctant to comply with ones that are. Which one of us is a bad citizen?

      We report, you decide.

      Hoo

      Delete
  10. You are. Because you have no moral compass with which to guide your decision of obey/disobey. You will do anything your gods in the ProgNazi government tell you to do, won't you?

    And as for any business I am in serving all comers (unless they are a disruptive and a danger to the public), well, that has always been my policy. Not good business to chase your customers out the door. That being said, it really chaps my hide to have Mrs. Grundy the overbearing Government Nanny Witch lurking in the corners to be sure I don't look cross eyed at any member of a 'protected' group. I despise fascists.

    And you never did answer the question. In 1859 would Hoo have returned runaway slaves to the plantation? I wouldn't. I will do everything I can to evade, thwart and disobey unjust 'laws'.

    ReplyDelete
  11. David:

    You equation of progressivism with fascism is spot-on. Fascism is the intrusion of the state into the ordinary affairs of the people. "Everything in the State, nothing outside of the State". People generally should be free to discriminate, not discriminate, hate, love, whatever in their own lives with their own property.

    We should encourage colorblindness in all matters, and I would not patronize a business that did not all races equally. And of course the State should enforce colorblindness in the government and law.

    But the State has no business telling private citizens that they may not discriminate.

    And the Federal Government is not permitted to anything of the sort anyway, unless it involves interstate commerce.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Then you should try and overturn the Civil Rights Act. Which, incidentally, enforced colorblindness. Which was in short supply before its enactment.

      Hoo

      Delete
    2. Well, yes. Bad law should be repealed. And without another Civil War, we hope.

      And as for 'enforcing colorblindness'. The government today is instead in the business of enforcing color consciousness. You have a mega-fail on that issue.

      Delete
    3. Let the record indicate that David wants to repeal the Civil Rights Act. That should help Egnor's argument that it was the Democrats who opposed it.

      Hoo

      Delete
    4. The '64 CRA was a stalking horse for the expansion of the Federal Government Beast. Barry Goldwater had it right at the time. A much better bill could have been crafted which would have addressed the issue without setting up a regime where a pair of sexual deviants can sue a photographer for declining to film their 'wedding'.

      And apart from the '64 CRA and who voted for and against it, the Dems have ALWAYS been in favor of government dictated status. They like to clothe their poison in the robes of virtue. Some of us are not fooled.

      Delete
    5. And, just because you give something a nice label doesn't make it into that thing. The 'Affordable Care Act' for example, which is now making health care un-affordable.

      Delete
  12. And Democrats ALWAYS object when they think you are circumscribing their RIGHT to control their 'inferiors'. So the Dem Congress thought that would be the effect of the '64 CRA and for that reason they opposed it. Later they discovered it's uses for the purpose of controlling their 'inferiors'.

    The Republicans? Stupid as usual.

    ReplyDelete