The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Slate Scrapes the Bottom

Posted on | September 19, 2014 | 171 Comments

Or maybe “Slate Spanks the Bottom” would be a better way to describe the nadir of editorial judgment whereby the desperate quest for traffic — let’s face it, they’ll do anything to get hits — led them to publish Jillian Keenan’s perverted prose:

Once again, I’ve been accused of pedophilia. Well, to be technical, my sexual identity was called “somewhat pedophilic.” But we’re talking about one of the most loathsome things a person can be accused of, so why split hairs? I’m also regularly told that my sexuality is “repulsive,” “damaged,” and “abusive.” But all of those feel like Valentines compared with “pedophilic.”
People say this to me so often because I’m kinky, and I’ve written about it. I have a spanking fetish. In my case, that means I like to be spanked, usually with a hand, belt, hairbrush, wooden spoon, switch, or paddle. It sexually gratifies me. I’ve had submissive fantasies for as long as I can remember, and it’s part of my identity. I consider my kink to be my sexual orientation. . . .

Eventually, she gets to her point:

So I have a question: If it’s “somewhat pedophilic” when my adult husband consensually spanks me in a simulated “punishment,” what should we call it when parents do the same physical thing to actual children in an actual punishment?
I realize that many well-meaning parents will disagree with me, but spanking kids is gross. . . .

Stephen Green at PJ Tatler gives Keenan the spanking she deserves, but leaves unpunished the editors at Slate who thought it was “clever” to give Keenan a platform to parade her perversion. This is a perfect example of the 21st-century progressive sexual philosophy: Any Sex Is Good Sex, as Long as It’s Not Normal Sex.

Does anyone suppose the editors of Slate would be interested in an article headlined, “Making Babies With My Wife Is Awesome”?

Only if the author were a lesbian.

This is the logic of the post-Windsor age: Having secured recognition for same-sex marriage — so that everyone is now required to approve of homosexuality, or else — Our Moral Superiors in the cultural elite are hard at work undermining the legitimacy of normal sexuality.

It is not now, nor was it ever, “sexual equality” that the Left has sought during the Culture Wars. Rather, they seek for themselves uncontested power to define what is sexually acceptable, so that the cultural elite (a distinct class of people who include the editors of liberal publications, radical university professors, and Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, among others) displace the moral authority previously exercised in our society by Judeo-Christian belief.

What we are learning — what we should have anticipated, what we should have been warned against, had our leaders been astute enough to perceive the danger — is that no society can long sustain itself when two conceptions of moral idealism are in competition. One or another system of belief must ultimately prevail in government, in law, in social custom, and the subversive enemies of American civilization have always known this. Unfortunately, this cultural logic has seldom been made apparent by our most eminent conservative intellectuals who, wishing neither to appear intolerant nor to risk the accusation of inciting irrational fear, have tended generally to underestimate the danger and have failed to make clear the stark choices our nation faces.

Those who still cherish a traditional vision of the American Dream for themselves, their children and their grandchildren, must recognize that our society cannot forever continue this struggle between two competing moral ideals. We must contemplate the consequences of defeat in the Culture War. While traditionalists have long tolerated perverts like Jillian Keenan — what do we care how she gets her depraved private thrills? — we see that the perverts, once emboldened by the knowledge of their cultural authority in the post-Windsor age, are unwilling to extend to traditionalists a similar toleration. Nor can we afford to ignore the claims of radical feminists like Catherine Deveny, when every day brings further confirmation that their beliefs now enjoy hegemonic dominance within our institutions of higher education.

While producing the “Sex Trouble” series about radical feminism’s war on human nature, I have frequently deployed my habitual sarcasm to mock the absurdity of feminist beliefs. However, no one should assume from my cheerful good humor that I do not take this project seriously. As crazy as feminists may seem, as laughably wrong as their ideas may be, they are extremely serious in their purpose to destroy traditional morality in our society. They and their allies have seized power in the elite precincts of academia and have used that power to influence every institution of our society, from the Supreme Court to your local public school. If you don’t understand what is happening, and in what direction our society is heading, you have not been paying attention.

My advice to anyone who has been ignoring this menace is to wake the hell up. There may still be time to save our nation from destruction.




 

 

Comments

171 Responses to “Slate Scrapes the Bottom”

  1. Evi L. Bloggerlady
    September 19th, 2014 @ 11:58 am

    She is clearly asking to be spanked!

  2. NeoWayland
    September 19th, 2014 @ 12:20 pm

    Rather, they seek for themselves uncontested power to define what is sexually acceptable, so that the cultural elite … displace the moral authority previously exercised in our society by Judeo-Christian belief.

    I’d say this is the core of it. The argument is not over sexual practices but over who gets to call the shots. I disagree with you on this one.

    Let’s leave aside the fact that “Judeo-Christian” excludes every person who is not a Jew or a Christian. Let’s leave aside the face that many Jews are offended by the notion of being lumped in with the Christians. Let’s even leave aside the point that “Christians” includes faiths such as Baptists, Mormons, and Catholics who are barely even on speaking terms with each other.

    The real question is why should any group be in charge? Why should one morality have the force of law while others do not?

    Competition keeps us honest. If you can’t convince people that your morality works without being backed by law, then you’re doing it wrong. “Do it our way or we’ll force you.” “Do it our way or The Officially Sanctioned Authority Figures will point guns at you.” “Do it our way or you’ll be tossed in jail.”

    If you don’t like what they are doing, fine. They shouldn’t force you. But that means you shouldn’t force them either.

    I’m a big believer in the family. That’s one reason I support the age of consent. I’m from my mom’s first marriage, and I have stepsibs including one from my stepdad’s first wife’s first marriage. I think that the family is the strongest thing is a society.

    But people have to make the choice of their own free will and without coercion or it counts for nothing.

    Virtue under threat is not virtue, it’s slavery.

  3. JeffS
    September 19th, 2014 @ 12:51 pm

    “Slate Spanks the Bottom”

    More like, Slate is spanking the monkey.

  4. johncunningham
    September 19th, 2014 @ 1:06 pm

    Once again, GK Chesterton explained it a century ago, when he said something like, once men stop believing in God, they don’t believe in nothing; they will believe in anything.

  5. robertstacymccain
    September 19th, 2014 @ 1:13 pm

    NW, perhaps you perceive that our enemies are united, and that we must not be divided.

    Therefore I hope that you also perceive that, when I invoke religious authority and traditional morality in these arguments, my purpose is not to start a quarrel with those of my allies who are atheists, or whose morality is not “traditional” in some sense.

    Rather, it is my hope that my secularist allies in this fight — even including many gay men, lesbians and transsexuals for whom the personal is not necessarily the political — will understand that religious conservatives are not their enemies, and never really were their enemies.

    If you think Christian traditionalists are your enemies, you have been deceived. I think we know who is The Father of Lies, don’t we?

    Behold, we stand at Armageddon and fight in the army of the Lord! To anyone who does not now believe, but who will take up the sword to defend Truth, I say fight now and believe later! For I tell you that Truth must prevail, so when the miraculous victory is won, no man can doubt by whose power Evil has been vanquished. Do not quarrel with me today, but let us turn our swords together against the vaunting foe — there, before our eyes, breathing blasphemy, arrogant in his Evil power — for I intend to strike him today, and tomorrow, and the day after that. Every day I shall strike against this Evil, so long as I live and have strength to continue the fight.

    Tell me not what you believe, nor quarrel with me about what I believe. Instead, join me in this fight, and see with your own eyes how Truth shall be vindicated in miraculous triumph.

    To arms! To arms! To arms!

    There is now nothing but the fight.

  6. Finrod Felagund
    September 19th, 2014 @ 2:47 pm

    This is typical leftist specious logic. Because she fetishes something (in this case spanking), she concludes that what other people have concluded about her fetish also applies to the act itself in general.

    Considering that practically everything under the Sun has been turned into a fetish by someone, this would lead to hilariously erroneous conclusions if generalized. For an example, foot fetishism is common, but no one would conclude based on that that shoes and socks in and of themselves are sexual objects.

  7. NeoWayland
    September 19th, 2014 @ 2:51 pm

    I realize you and I are using atheist in different ways. I am no more an atheist because I don’t worship your god than you are an atheist because you don’t worship mine.

    If I am reading this right, you want me to rally to your banner and fight in the name of your faith to establish your morality over all in a glorious victory. And then we’ll haggle over my crumbs later.

    To which I reply KYFHO.

    I think it was yesterday I was reading Limbaugh’s site. He tried to make the point that just because the Republican leadership were a bunch of wimps, that wasn’t a reason to vote Democrat to spite them. He was wrong. Either/or is not a choice, it’s a trap.

    Freedom is what matters. If all we fight for is who gets to call the shots, then freedom has lost.

    I will not exchange one overlord for another.

  8. Isaac T
    September 19th, 2014 @ 3:33 pm

    “The real question is why should any group be in charge?”

    Because unless the group that thinks no group should be in charge is itself in charge, then a group that thinks some group (meaning itself) should be in charge will be in charge.

  9. maniakmedic
    September 19th, 2014 @ 3:36 pm

    You are the touchiest person I have ever encountered outside of atheists when it comes to religion. Nobody here gives a damn that you have your own belief system. Really, they don’t. You are the one constantly making it a big deal. This is a blog run by a Christian with a comment section populated mostly by Christians. A worldview informed by Christianity is going to come up. It’s the nature of the beast. If it was run by a Sikh with primarily Sikh commenters, a worldview informed by that would be the order of the day.

    I don’t have a beef with you at all. We disagree on many things, but I think it’s safe to say neither of us is looking to live under any sort of theocracy (even if run by our respective religious leaders). What you seem to be missing is that nobody else here is looking for that, either. Stop acting like a put-upon liberal whiner and stop with the anti-Christian theatrics. It’s not helping your case and it’s only making people dislike you. I’d like to think that is not your goal but at this point I’m starting to wonder.

  10. DeadMessenger
    September 19th, 2014 @ 3:40 pm

    Perhaps I’m confused about your point here.

    You say, “Why should one morality have the force of law while others do not?, but then you also say that people have to make the choice of their own free will and without coercion.

    Given that, for example, I like the morality embodied in Judeo-Christian law (and the Jews do, too, whether they like Christians or not), and that we also know that other people would gladly choose anarchy by their own free will, it seems to me as if a stable culture does need to have reasonable, enforceable codified laws. (I think we can both agree that what US jurisprudence has become is not that.)

    Which means that somebody’s standard of morality has to set the bar. And I think that if you put to the vote which system of law would people prefer, Sharia law, Judeo-Christian or anarchy, most Americans would say Judeo-Christian (given that a large component of that is “don’t screw with me and I won’t screw with you.”)

    Am I not understanding what you are saying here?

  11. DeadMessenger
    September 19th, 2014 @ 3:42 pm

    As an aside, Isaac, I say things like this all the time, and my husband calls them unintelligble woman-speak. heh But it makes perfect sense to me.

  12. Isaac T
    September 19th, 2014 @ 3:46 pm

    Sure, it’s recursive, but essentially a straightforward idea. Somebody has to be in charge because somebody is *going to be* in charge.

  13. DeadMessenger
    September 19th, 2014 @ 3:49 pm

    I should be in charge, and you know why? Because I’m willing to act on things and political correctness be damned. So in November 2016, please write me in.

  14. Isaac T
    September 19th, 2014 @ 3:49 pm

    I’m there!

  15. DeadMessenger
    September 19th, 2014 @ 3:53 pm

    Since you’re an early adopter, you get to be VP then.

    We’re going to need a squadron of SEALs and Krav Maga blackbelts to protect us from angry liberals and New World Order elites, though.

  16. ExiledOnMainStreet
    September 19th, 2014 @ 4:07 pm

    Yes, her argument is akin to saying that a baby suckling at the breast is sexual because the same act (albeit sans milk) occurs during lovemaking.

  17. InRussetShadows
    September 19th, 2014 @ 4:10 pm

    Freedom flows from a creator. You seem to have missed the Declaration of Independence somehow.

  18. NeoWayland
    September 19th, 2014 @ 4:19 pm

    Pardon, but that’s the point. If you put law a rung or two below your religion, you’ll expect others to defer to your religion. Even if they don’t share that religion.

  19. NeoWayland
    September 19th, 2014 @ 4:32 pm

    And if folks weren’t pushing a “Judeo-Christian” rule system for everybody, it wouldn’t matter.

    We can agree on a public morality without making personal religion the governing factor.

  20. NeoWayland
    September 19th, 2014 @ 4:35 pm

    I disagree. I think “free to choose” applies to more than economics. I think ideas work best in a “free market” too.

  21. robertstacymccain
    September 19th, 2014 @ 4:36 pm

    Or because men urinate through their penis, urination is sexual.

  22. NeoWayland
    September 19th, 2014 @ 4:47 pm

    “Given that, for example, I like the morality embodied in Judeo-Christian law…” But not everyone does.

    “…and that we also know that other people would gladly choose anarchy by their own free will…” Oh? All others, or did you have a specific group in mind?

    “it seems to me as if a stable culture does need to have reasonable, enforceable codified laws.” I agree with the conclusion but not your reasoning.

    “Which means that somebody’s standard of morality has to set the bar.” Yes.

    “And I think that if you put to the vote which system of law would people prefer, Sharia law, Judeo-Christian or anarchy…” Why are these the only choices on the menu?

    “…most Americans would say Judeo-Christian (given that a large component of that is “don’t screw with me and I won’t screw with you.”)” I wish more people accepted “live and let live,” I really do. I think Americans would accept it. But I don’t think that’s a substantial part of Christianity, especially as it is practiced today.

  23. DeadMessenger
    September 19th, 2014 @ 5:08 pm

    When I said others would choose anarchy, I meant that some people would choose anarchy.

    Also, I think you confuse the practice of true Christianity with the practices of lying liars who lyingly claim to be Christian because it suits their lying agenda.

    As to the menu of law choices, name any system of codified law that you find superior to the (Judeo-Christian based) Constitutional law as implemented originally for this Republic, which I support and would like to return to. I’d like to hear about anything better.

  24. Adobe_Walls
    September 19th, 2014 @ 5:17 pm

    Are you making the claim that if elected you would indeed be President Ruthless Hardass?

  25. guest
    September 19th, 2014 @ 5:32 pm

    by posting that “sex trouble” picture, aren’t you fat-shaming?

  26. K-Bob
    September 19th, 2014 @ 5:46 pm

    Whoah! I’ve been doin it rong?

  27. K-Bob
    September 19th, 2014 @ 5:48 pm

    Every nine-year old boy loves the monkey exhibit at the zoo. That’s because monkeys can get up to some really disgusting behavior.

    Slate is the Internet’s monkey exhibit.

  28. RS
    September 19th, 2014 @ 5:55 pm

    You hopelessly conflate multiple issues in a single argument and then shift among those issues at will to disguise how shallow your thinking is. Morality, or “ethics” if you prefer, is indeed personal. If you were the only person on an island, you could certainly live however you wished.

    You don’t, however. You live in a society of humans, and like it or not, that society must have a collective system of behaviors, i.e. a morality, in order to function. And, like it or not, 51% of the humans will impose its vision of society and its morality on the remainder. That morality will consist of encouraging and discouraging behaviors deemed beneficial or detrimental respectively to good social function. Again, that will happen, whether you wish it or not.

    Given that, the question becomes which set of ethics or which morality are we, as a society going to use to maintain ourselves. Like it or not, Judeo-Christian ethics and morality have stood Western Civilization and indeed the world in good stead for a long time. That is true whether you believe the morality results from revelation or social compact. Personal liberty is more than putting whatever you want into your mouth or finding some new way to excite your genitals. That’s an infantile.view of Freedom. Freedom is accepting responsibility to rear the next generation to take its place as productive members of society.

    You say, such choices should be made “individually” and without societal influence, because otherwise, the result is “slavery” and without value. Such an assertion demonstrates a complete lack of awareness of human nature first, and second, an unwillingness to acknowledge that Humans are social creatures. Given the truth about human nature and our tendency to form groups for self-preservation and self-interest, it would seem the best course of action to find a morality which best deals with the problems inherent in humans while at the same time encourages the best humans can offer each other. Again, I defy anyone to demonstrate a social system better at doing that while protecting the dignity of the individual better than those based upon a Judeo-Christian foundation.

  29. NeoWayland
    September 19th, 2014 @ 6:05 pm

    “Also, I think you confuse the practice of true Christianity with the practices of lying liars who lyingly claim to be Christian because it suits their lying agenda.” Some are liars, yes. Some are devout Christians with the best of intentions.

    “…the (Judeo-Christian based) Constitutional law as implemented originally for this Republic…” I’m sorry, but I have to stop you right there. It wasn’t Judeo-Christian based. Look at the Constitution. Other than the date, there is not a single mention of Christianity. This was very unusual for any government document at the time. This was deliberate.

    Christianity was only one of many influences. It’s amazing I even have to mention this when one house of the national legislature is called the Senate and the other has a ceremonial mace based on a Roman fasces.

    E pluribus unum. The original motto of the United States, roughly translated into “one from many.” Or as I prefer, “united we stand.” It’s not just the people, it’s the ideas.

    And it is not specifically or even mostly Christian.

  30. NeoWayland
    September 19th, 2014 @ 6:21 pm

    “And, like it or not, 51% of the humans will impose its vision of society and its morality on the remainder.” Actually I’d argue that most of the Bill of Rights specifically forbids the Federal government from doing exactly that. Not to mention the other checks and balances built into the system. Originally when Senators were chosen by the state legislatures, it was supposed to balance the populism of the House of Represenatives.

    “Like it or not, Judeo-Christian ethics and morality have stood Western Civilization and indeed the world in good stead for a long time.” Except Western Civilization was never just Judeo-Christian. Nor were it’s ideals and morality.

    “Personal liberty is more than putting whatever you want into your mouth or finding some new way to excite your genitals.” Except I was talking about freedom which implies responsibility. Especially in an American context.

    “Again, I defy anyone to demonstrate a social system better at doing that while protecting the dignity of the individual better than those based upon a Judeo-Christian foundation.” You mean other than the American one that I already showed was not based solely on that Judeo-Christian foundation?

  31. darleenclick
    September 19th, 2014 @ 6:23 pm

    Without God there is no objective morality (also the concept of inherent rights is also moot without God) …

    You last line is childish. You wish to have morality without any consequence. You have a choice to brush your teeth or not. If you don’t, when your teeth fall out or people avoid you because of bad breath, that’s not slavery it’s consequence.

    Western values have a Judeo-Christian foundation, regardless of the color of the curtains in each room or the shape of the bathroom faucets. Western success is not an accident, it is a consequence of the principles.

    The Left is the most dynamic religion of the last century and it is decidedly not Western. And it is dedicated to undermining the foundation of Western civ — which means attacking the institution of marriage and family first.

    The better to be a dependent on The State.

    Sex & sexuality is just another tool towards the Left’s end.

    Dismiss that at your own peril.

  32. DeadMessenger
    September 19th, 2014 @ 6:39 pm

    Yes, and I would greatly enjoy it!

  33. maniakmedic
    September 19th, 2014 @ 6:40 pm

    Though almost every damn document written by the Founding Fathers mentions God with a capital G. The US Constitution doesn’t have to mention Christianity or Judeo-Christian values specifically for one to look logically at where the ideas came from. Stop being obtuse. It’s annoying as hell and while you seem to be an intelligent person you have some huge beef with Christianity that you are constantly whipping and is not helping you at all. You really need to deal with whatever caused your butt-hurt.

  34. DeadMessenger
    September 19th, 2014 @ 6:42 pm

    Whatever you say, but I’d like to get back to your evident claim that there ought to be no codified laws, instead allowing everyone to choose their own system of morality.

  35. maniakmedic
    September 19th, 2014 @ 6:46 pm

    I’d highly suggest that if you want anything different than a Judeo-Christian “rule system” you find a country that doesn’t have one. Contrary to your and many atheists’ protestations, this country was founded on Judeo-Christian values. Just because you don’t like that doesn’t make it any less true.

    And for the love of God, stop being an obtuse asshole. You’d be a wonderful case study in my asshole study if I could get the government to fund it. I want to like you, I really do, but you’re making it incredibly difficult.

  36. NeoWayland
    September 19th, 2014 @ 7:03 pm

    ” You wish to have morality without any consequence.” I do not. If you’ll check some of my previous posts on other threads, I usually stress choice with consequences.

    “Western values have a Judeo-Christian foundation…” Among other things.

    You did see the bit above where I stressed how important family was, didn’t you?”

  37. NeoWayland
    September 19th, 2014 @ 7:14 pm

    “I’d highly suggest that if you want anything different than a Judeo-Christian “rule system” you find a country that doesn’t have one. …this country was founded on Judeo-Christian values. “ I already typed a pretty good explanation why this wasn’t so to DeadMessenger in a post below.

    This nation was founded by Christians, Deists, and others, but not on a Judeo-Christian basis. They borrowed from anything and everything they thought would work. And then they argued over it. For years and years they argued. They still goofed some things up. Slavery is the obvious example.

  38. NeoWayland
    September 19th, 2014 @ 7:21 pm

    And the first question is why didn’t the Founders see fit to put it in the Constitution?

    The second question is why are people offended when I point out that Christianity may not be the sole source of goodness in Western Civilization?

  39. NeoWayland
    September 19th, 2014 @ 7:32 pm

    I didn’t say no codified laws.

    I just said that I thought we could do public morality without enshrining a religious system as The Moral Authority.

    While I agree that religion can be an excellent source of personal morality, I don’t think it works on a cultural level if there are multiple faiths in that culture.

    So we have to start from another basis.

  40. maniakmedic
    September 19th, 2014 @ 7:40 pm

    Jesus Christ on a cracker, are you really going to play this stupid? The whole damn point of the government was not to hew to any one religious belief system, but that doesn’t mean one belief system didn’t contribute the lion’s share of morals and values to the formation of it BECAUSE THE VAST MAJORITY OF COLONISTS AT THE TIME WERE CHRISTIANS OR HAD BEEN RAISED CHRISTIAN. If there had been a surplus of Muslims in the area at the time there would be a far different governmental structure.

    And nobody is offended by the idea that good ideas can come from other belief systems. If that’s what you are getting out of what people are writing you need to brush up on your reading comprehension skills.

  41. maniakmedic
    September 19th, 2014 @ 7:43 pm

    Dear God, there is absolutely no talking to you. You are dead set against even the idea that Judeo-Christian values might be a good idea, facts and history be damned. Seriously, get help with your anti-Christian bias. You don’t have to be a Christian, just learn to stop being such a colossal asshole about it.

  42. Adobe_Walls
    September 19th, 2014 @ 7:47 pm

    So

  43. maniakmedic
    September 19th, 2014 @ 7:49 pm

    Oh, oh, oh, but Slate is popular, which means they have far more credibility and gravitas than any of us here. A troll told me so.

  44. NeoWayland
    September 19th, 2014 @ 7:51 pm

    And would that Christian belief system be the Protestants or the Catholics? Perhaps the Quakers?

    Since the idea of democracy predated the “Judeo-Christian” basis we might have to consider a few other things.

    Your problem is that I won’t acknowledge the “fact” that Christianity is primary source of Western Civilization and of the United States.

    Which pretty much brings us full circle to my first post on this thread.

  45. NeoWayland
    September 19th, 2014 @ 7:59 pm

    I didn’t say anything about the worth of Judeo-Christians values, I just said that they weren’t the paramount source of all that is good in our society.

    If you reread everything I have said on this thread, you will not find one place where I criticized Judeo-Christian values.

    I did say that people should choose for themselves whether to put Judeo-Christian values at the center of their lives. And I objected to anyone choosing those values for everyone else.

  46. NeoWayland
    September 19th, 2014 @ 8:02 pm

    Pardon?

  47. theBuckWheat
    September 19th, 2014 @ 8:14 pm

    When the left scolded the rest of us that what happens in the bedroom should be private (don’t you agree?), the liberty loving part of me said sure, live and let live. It turns out that as with many other things liberal, like free speech, what the left was really doing was preparing the battlespace, giving themselves elbow room in society, so that those of us who know why we must have sound personal morals would shrink back from using social pressure to help others to have morals.

    Well, now that liberals can do pretty much what they please in the enclaves of society they now command, we see that, like so many Muslim immigrants, they never really had any intention of allow the rest of society to live and let live. No, liberals demand that we must all give them approval. Indeed, now we are seeing that even our silence will be interpreted as disapproval. Liberals are anything but generous with what they allow others to believe. In the end, they are happy to seize the power of the state itself to impose their Utopia on the rest of us.

  48. darleenclick
    September 19th, 2014 @ 9:13 pm

    You can “stress” all you want about family, but when you posit, in essence, “all systems are equal, all choices are equal” you belie your claim to pro-family.

  49. darleenclick
    September 19th, 2014 @ 9:21 pm

    Except Western Civilization was never just Judeo-Christian. Nor were it’s ideals and morality.

    I notice the weasel word “just”. While much of Western civilization also incorporates elements of classical Greek & Roman influences in many arenas, Judaism’s values, especially in the areas of sexuality and the relationship of husband/wife were radically different. Indeed, Judaism’s demand that male sexual expression be channeled exclusively to one wife was a huge advance for women.

    Also, understand that Law deals with morality. It is the floor under which one is not allowed to sink without societal imposed consequences. Stealing, murder, assault — all moral choices and the prohibition of such behaviors is one that society will force you to obey.

  50. maniakmedic
    September 19th, 2014 @ 9:21 pm

    No, my problem is that you are willfully obtuse. You’re like a teenager who thinks he’s being super smart but is really just being an idiot teenager. Willful ignorance is neither cute nor funny. It’s just pathetic.