Wish I'd said that!

In recent decades, the ACLU has used its so-called "wall" to fight tooth and nail to prevent government sponsorship of the Pledge of Allegiance, memorial crosses, Ten Commandments displays, nativity scenes, Bible displays, and virtually every other acknowdgement of America's religious heritage.

At the same time, it is worthwhile to note that there have been some instances in which the ACLU has endorsed public displays of religion. For example, When New York City Mayor Rudi Giuliani threatened to cut taxpayer funding from the Brooklyn Museum of Art for displaying a painting of the Virgin Mary with cow dung and pictures of female sexual organs pasted all over her body, the ACLU was first in line to defend the display. U.S. District Court Judge Nina Gershon ruled that New York City's elected officials were not allowed to place conditions on the museum's funding.

In another instance, the ACLU offered its support to the taxpayer-funded National Endowment for the Arts, after the agency sponsored an art show featuring "Piss Christ" - an exhibit consisting of a crucifix submerged in a jar of urine.

In the ACLU's myopic world, it appears that the only permissible publicly-funded displays of religion are those which blatantly mock or disparage the Christian faith.

-- Indefensible: 10 Ways the ACLU is Destroying America, Sam Kastensmidt, 2006

Friday, January 14, 2011

It's a Mad, Mad World

"Never let a good crisis go to waste." The prophetic(?) words of Rahm Emanuel come back to haunt us in the wake of the senseless and indiscriminate mass shooting that occurred in Tucson last Saturday, which resulted in a bullet wound through the brainpan of US Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ), the deaths of 6 people - including a 9-year-old girl and a federal judge - and the wounding of several other people.
The villain - Jared Loughner
Despite a lack of facts at the time, almost as soon as the smoke cleared Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik (who seems to have particular difficulty separating his political views from the facts) was playing the blame game. Dupnik's tirade against all things conservative opened the floodgates for a tsunami of high-crass Left-brainers, who staged an all-out assault (no sanity or clarity necessary) to blame every voice on the Right for instigating the actions of nutcase killer (I don't think the PC term "alleged" applies in this instance) Jared Loughner, despite a personal history practically devoid of political interest and statements. The madness included postings from the Left which were much more blatantly provocative, including picking out a Sarah Palin campaign chart targeting Demoncrats for their critical locations in the midterm election, despite the fact that Demoncrats commonly do the exact same thing in their campaigning. In fact, Michelle Malkin has put together a compendium of evidence that it isn't the Right side of the political spectrum that is the most egregious, insulting, and threatening hotbead of unabashed hatred.

The undisguised propaganda blasts coming from New York Times writer Paul Krugman, MSNBC's sweet, loveable (obviously, I'm joking) Keith Olbermann, and others could hardly be unexpected in today's volatile political atmosphere. Devoid of integrity and only slightly grazing (if even that) the truth, their demagogic dialogue is thoughlessly but emotionally by the lamestream media, and from there percolates throughout the culture. And of course, Demoncrat politicians didn't miss such a grand opportunity to begin a renewed push for one of their favorite goals; the disarming of American citizens. This time, though, they're 'nudging' for even more draconian legislation, to include controls on what they deem to be "threatening" speech.

Toward that end, rhode Island Governor Lincoln Chafee banned state employees speaking on talk radio programs, while in a surprising move NY Rep Peter King (a generally conservative legislator) announced an ill-thought new bill which would make it illegal to carry a firearm within 1,000 feet of a federal official. I wonder; does that include the local mailman; and how will gun owners know if an "official" is passing by a few blocks from them?  Not to be upstaged by a mere Republican, Rep. Robert Brady (D-PA) went the extra step to introduce a bill to make it a federal offense to use language or symbols that could be merely perceived by a politician or federal agency wonk to be threatening or violent toward a federal official.

All this animosity and muddle-headedness is feeding off an unfortunate and tragic criminal act by a lone gunman who by all indications is a mentally-disturbed young man who, if he had any political perceptions at all, actually had radical leftward leanings, which makes many of the rants and accusations both superfluous and hypocritical. The irony is that Rep. Giffords probably has more in common with conservatives than with liberals, even declaring herself to be a "Bluedog Democrat". She is one of the brave few who seems to have maintained a level of dignity, patriotism and common sense at a time when most of her fellow party members headed on a direct course away from all those attributes.

I count myself with those who hold that the right of center is the sanest, most honest, most productive place to be. Too far toward either end of the spectrum is bad news, and at their worst, both ends lead to the same point, and it wouldn't be pretty. But of course, that's just my opinion.

Pride should have a reason.  A double-header (no pun intended) was slammed against conservative Americans recently.  One hit was the repeal of the military's "Don't ask, don't tell" policy.  Despite the protests of actual warfighters, weasels in the Senate, accompanied by some hiding behind military brass, ignored centuries of common sense and thrust another dagger into the body of the nation's guardians. This was quickly followed by the caving of a vaunted conservative institution.

The Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) has been a nexus for conservative political thought since 1980, but with the recent inclusion of the homosexual conservative group GOProud by CPAC's primary sponsor, the American Conservative Union (ACU), it is on the fast track to becoming a hollow shell of its former self. The exodus of social conservative affiliates began with the departure of the American Family Association, which isn't so hard to believe since AFA has been in the forefront of the battle to keep homosexuality from dominating the cultural debate.  AFA's departure was joined by other high-profile conservative groups such as the Heritage Foundation, the Center for Military Readiness, the Liberty Counsel and others. One surprise supporter of GOProud is Andrew Breitbart, who recently welcomed the group, tweeting, "Deal with it."

I am in one respect grateful that some homosexuals are willing to identify themselves as conservatives (generally in the military or economic sense); I applaud them in those principles we have in common.  Conservative or not, however, homosexuals have no valid reason to be proud, other than the pride borne of sheer arrogance.  Why should any group that wants to be taken seriously base itself primarily on sexual identity?

Frankly, if you've been reading my rants for any length of time, you'll realize I'm not a supporter of the inclusion of homosexuals into popular culture, whether conservative politics or otherwise. But my own resistance - and I hope, the majority of other social conservatives - isn't based on individual hatred or animosity. My resistance is in virtual parity to the level of aggressive promotion of homosexual activism, and the mountain of evidence that it is impractical for a thriving species or culture.

I based my feelings on this issue in part because I am a Christian, and the Bible clearly tells us that God doesn't approve of homosexuality. But because I'm not perfect, and because I believe in the American concept of individual liberty, I also believe that adults who mutually wish to engage in such acts have the freedom to do so - in private. However, they also have the obligation to bear responsibility for any negative effects of that behavioral choice.  And they shouldn't brag about it, nor force it upon the rest of us, any more than heterosexuals should brag about their own "sexploits" or promote it throughout the culture, especially and specifically aiming at the young.

For decades, homosexual activists have been making inroads into the youth culture, through indoctrination in the schoolspropaganda in the media, institutionalization in the work environment and subliminal and sympathetic characters in the entertainment industry.

I also disagree with their push to legitimize same-sex marriage despite the mountain of evidence indicating its disastrous consequences. There are currently few restriction on what consenting adults do with one another in private (no thanks to squishy liberal lawmakers), including sharing financial arrangements and visiting a partner in the hospital (two of the typical reasons given for same-sex marriage). Other financial matters such as survivor's benefits can be discussed. But to transgress thousands of years of accepted social order - i.e., holy matrimony - basically for the sake of poking a finger in the collective eye of Christians is tantamount to blasphemy, and is an action designed to provoke.

Another disturbing trend - and one of the most egregious to a thinking and conscientious person - is the campaign for homosexual adoption of children. How does one justify homosexuals who engage in behavior that leads to the destruction of the family unit (not to mention endangering the health of their spouse), and then force their children to cope not only with separation from the emotional security of an intact family but to have to adapt to an aberrant behavior by the parent who caused that breakdown, along with one or more of that parent's "partners"? The situation becomes even more sinister when adoption is awarded to homosexual couples in which neither partner is a natural parent of the child. What are the odds those children grow up with a normal biolgical bias?

Throughout history there have been people whose inclination is to idealize and popularize sexuality of one sort or another. The chronically immoral, the impetuous, the sexually aggressive and the rebellious often want to spread their version of "happiness" so that their own particular pursuit becomes socially acceptable (and therefore they may engage in them without cultural repercussions); they highlight homoerotic works of art, literature, or theater, which tend to entice multitudes of others, who in turn spread the word - or the physical acts - throughout their circles of influence, which then spreads through the culture. I do not believe that one's sexual preference - especially one that runs counter to the biological imperative - should be promoted throughout the culture.

Hedonists, narcissists, sado-masochists, pedophiles and others who attempt to change the culture, not to improve the culture but to make their own depravity acceptable in it, are a gross insult to any civilization, and usually the belwether of its decline and fall. These are people quite willing to destroy the fabric of an entire society merely so their own deficiencies will be not only tolerated, but exalted. Because homosexuality is a self-extincting deathstyle (in that the behavior does not reproduce itself biologically, but must do so by conversion of heterosexuals), its activists are pushing acceptance in the schools, in the entertainment industry, and through legalized coercion; they are waging psychological warfare against an entire group of vulnerable, immature minds for the purpose of expanding their pool of potential sexual partners, while attempting to minimize their personal liability for the inevitable fallout of their licentiousness.

After all this, let me state clearly that I do not advocate the persecution of homosexuals (of either gender). I don't think they should be harassed, bullied, fired (nor should an employer be forced to hire them because of their preference), beaten, lynched, or any other infringement of the normal rights of a citizen. But neither should they be considered a special class with superior rights or privileges, nor should that behavior be 'normalized' in the society. It is slow cultural suicide to do so. And besides, God will hold the entire society accountable, and His viewpoint always wins out.

No comments:

Post a Comment