Agree With Us or Else

October 15, 2012

I have written previously about repressive tendencies of the secular left with regard to the gay rights agenda. Because the arguments of the secular left are generally basedon  emotion and desire for power rather than reason and logic, they fear pressing their agendas in the marketplace of ideas where they exposed for the shams that they often are. Given this inability to make and sustain an argument for their ideas, they instead attempt to attack and vilify those who disagree with them. Thus the ongoing attempts to persecute Chik-fil-a for its pro-family stance.

The great difficulty with the left-wing position is that it has no natural limits. As with Orwell’s Animal Farm, secular leftists insist on increasingly strident positions that end up destroying the very people whom they once claimed to be fighting for. In the end nothing is left but totalitarianism, with a few power hungry people controlling everything.

There is perhaps no greater recent example of this than the case of Dr. Angela McCaskill, a Deputy to the President and the Associate Provost of Diversity and Inclusion at Gallaudet University. Dr. McCaskill was put on administrative leave for the sin of signing a petition for a referendum on the same-sex marriage law in Maryland. This was despite the fact that Dr. McCaskill was the first African-American woman to graduate with a Ph.D. at Gallaudet University in Washington, D.C., a school for the deaf and hard of hearing. That she is a supporter of a gay rights resource center on her campus apparently didn’t factor in at all. There is no reason to believe she even opposed gay marriage. Her unforgivable error was to indicate she supported allowing a vote by the people of Maryland on the issue. In the extremism that typifies secular leftist thought, even this slight derivation from leftist dogma is punishable by the loss of one’s job.

The greatest freedom that exists is the right to conscience. It is the basis of all our primary freedoms – free speech, free press, free association and of course freedom of religion. It is also the essence of Christian belief – because there is no other means of salvation in the gospel than a choice made by faith; a belief that is compelled by men can never lead to salvation. This is why the truest danger of the gay rights agenda is not to families themselves (though such dangers exist) but to our essential liberties that are rooted in our conscience rights. It should give every person concerned with liberty pause that while gay marriage is not yet the law of the land the secular left is using the issue as a bludgeon to silence opponents, real and imagined.

Heaven help our liberties the day it does become the law of the land and the insatiable desire for power of the secular left has no limit.


Observations

May 2, 2012

I was thinking about two incidents I referred to in my last post, namely the Christian students walking out of a talk by gay activist Dan Savage at a high school ‘journalism’ conference when he was attacking them and their beliefs, and the incident at Indiana University where transgender students attempted to disrupt a talk by Pastor Doug Wilson on human sexuality and the Bible. In many ways these two incidents highlight the difference between the views of conservative Christians and the Secular Left with regard to free speech rights.

Christians generally believe people should be free to express a variety of opinions, but students shouldn’t be forced to listen to speakers attacking their beliefs whereas those on the Secular Left don’t believe those they disagree with should be allowed to speak at all.

The idea that the Left is more supportive of diversity and tolerance is perhaps the biggest lie foisted on modern observers.


Observations

October 27, 2011

There is no little irony in the fact that the Occupy folks are having their hardest time in Oakland, California, one of the most secular leftist cities in the US.


The Inevitable Moral Decay of the Secular Left

September 6, 2011

In his New York Times piece called The Failure of Liberal Bioethics, exemplary writer Ross Douhat chronicles how liberal bioethicists have failed to maintain a consistent standard for their ‘ethics’, and as a result invariably modified standards in response to the latest trends:

From embryo experimentation to selective reduction to the eugenic uses of abortion, liberals always promise to draw lines and then never actually manage to draw them. Like Dr. Evans, they find reasons to embrace each new technological leap while promising to resist the next one — and then time passes, science marches on, and they find reasons why the next moral compromise, too, must be accepted for the greater good, or at least tolerated in the name of privacy and choice. You can always count on them to worry, often perceptively, about hypothetical evils, potential slips down the bioethical slope. But they’re either ineffectual or accommodating once an evil actually arrives. Tomorrow, they always say — tomorrow, we’ll draw the line. But tomorrow never comes.

The particular practice Douhat is discussing here is that of ‘selective reduction’ – that is the aborting of fetuses when multiple are present in the womb. Because the IVF procedure is becoming an increasingly common, so too are multiple pregnancies which increases the demand for selective abortions. As he notes, where once the liberal bioethicists warned against this procedure, they now endorse it.

A similar creeping ethic is occurring amongst psychiatrists with regard to the official view of pedophilia. At a recent academic symposium, a group of psychiatrists, academics, and mental health workers gathered to discuss the need to remove pedophilia from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), which serves as the basis for determining mental disorders. As the Daily Caller reports:

The August 17 Baltimore conference is sponsored by B4U-ACT, a group of pro-pedophile mental health professionals and sympathetic activists. According to the conference brochure, the event will examine “ways in which minor-attracted persons [pedophiles] can be involved in the DSM 5 revision process” and how the popular perceptions of pedophiles can be reframed to encourage tolerance.

This move to make pedophilia normative is of course merely one point on an inevitable trajectory that derives from the expansion of sexual mores which gained momentum with the ‘Free Love’ movement of the ’60s to the weakening of divorce laws, the legalization of abortion, the disconnection of birth from marriage and of course the growing acceptance of homosexuality – which itself began with the removal homosexuality from the DSM in 1973.

Given that there is no objective grounding in the ethics of the secular left, these sorts of changes are certain. The boundaries of what is morally and ethically acceptable are by necessity ever expanding; indeed secular leftists become conservatives exactly at the point they ceased to expand. There is no end game with the secular left, only the destruction of the current moral standards.

For moral conservatives who ground their ethics and morality in certain eternal and external realities of God’s nature, the arbitrary nature of liberal ethics comes as no surprise. Absent belief in a transcendent reality to restrain them, humans are slaves to their desires and their appetites invariably grow.

Of course the hard reality is that while human appetites have no limit, God has designed nature to correct itself – eventually societies that can’t control themselves are self-consuming, or dissipate from lack of order and growth.

Sadly, in the process they take a lot of innocents with them.


Observations

August 23, 2011

If the secular left were as concerned about a politician’s basic math skills as they are his or her views on evolution and global warming, our government might not currently be facing this massive budget busting debt.


Juan Williams Gets Lynched by NPR

October 21, 2010

For committing the crime of being honest and reflecting an opinion held by the vast majority of Americans on (curses be upon them) FOX news, uppity Juan Williams has been duly dispatched by his journalistic masters over at NPR. Apparently they have been itching to have him removed for fraternizing with the enemy, but his exchange with (curses be upon him) Bill O’Reilly was a word too far. This was the horrendous exchange:

O’REILLY: Continuing now with our lead story, danger from the Muslim world.Joining us from Washington FOX analysts Mary Katharine Ham and Juan Williams.So, Juan, I got to tell everybody, own up to this, that talking points memo was really written by Alan Colmes.
So, where am I going wrong there, Juan.

 JUAN WILLIAMS, FOX NEWS POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, actually, I hate to say this to you because I don’t want to get your ego going. But I think you’re right. I think, look, political correctness can lead to some kind of paralysis where you don’t address reality.
 
I mean, look, Bill, I’m not a bigot. You know the kind of books I’ve written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous.
 
Now, I remember also that when the Times Square bomber was at court, I think this was just last week. He said the war with Muslims, America’s war is just beginning, first drop of blood. I don’t think there’s any way to get away from these facts.
But I think there are people who want to somehow remind us all as President Bush did after 9/11, it’s not a war against Islam. President Bush went to a mosque –
 
O’REILLY: Well, there isn’t any theology involved in this at all from my perspective, Juan. But you live in the liberal precincts. You actually work for NPR, OK?
 
WILLIAMS: Yes.
 
O’REILLY: And it’s not about — it’s about politics as I said. But — my analysis is that this Israel thing and that liberals feel that United states is somehow guilty in the world, of exploitation and backing the wrong side, and it makes it easier for them to come up with this kind of crazy stuff that, well, you can’t really say the Muslims attacked us on 9/11.
WILLIAMS: No, but what Barbara Walters said to you –
 
O’REILLY: Were they Norwegians? I mean, come on.
 
WILLIAMS: Wait a second though, wait, hold on, because if you said Timothy McVeigh, the Atlanta bomber, these people who are protesting against homosexuality at military funerals, very obnoxious, you don’t say first and foremost, we got a problem with Christians. That’s crazy.
 
O’REILLY: But it’s not at that level. It doesn’t rise near to that level.
 
WILLIAMS: Correct. That’s — and when you said in the talking points memo a moment ago that there are good Muslims, I think that’s a point, you know?
 
O’REILLY: But everybody knows that, Juan. I mean, what are, in 3rd grade here or what?

 *shudder*

Juan Williams, who wept tears of joy onscreen when Obama was elected, can hardly be called a right wing extremist. But in the world NPR and the secular Left inhabits, association with perceived conservatives is as bad as actually being one – and actually being one is the worst thing possible. And so Juan Williams was summarily lynched for leaving the liberal plantation and consorting with the enemy.

As I have pointed out previously, the Left’s agenda is fundamentally antithetical to free speech. Not content to argue their points and allow the most reasonable arguments to win hearts and minds (possibly because Left wing arguments are rarely ‘reasonable’), the Left seeks to silence all who do not follow lockstep with a particular rigid ideology. Any straying from the party line or association with undesirables can result in dismissal, being verbally pilloried or worst of all, being labeled a bigot.

And it is more than apparent that for the Secular Left, the word “bigot” is code for “someone we want to silence”.