News Flash: Liberals Hate Christianity

Posted on Comments

“And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God. For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.”
— I Corinthians 2:1-2 (KJV)

Jesse Lee Peterson’s WorldNetDaily column:

LGBT groups have been effective in linking their immoral cause to the noble civil rights movement. In reality, gays never wanted equality. They wanted society to accept their sinful lifestyle, or else. LGBT groups — to be blunt — act like fascists. Just like militant Islam demands Shariah law, homosexual pressure groups demand “sodomy law.”
So what’s so bad about discrimination anyway? Discrimination has always been a hallmark of freedom. The ability to discriminate is given to us by God so that we can make right choices.

Brian Tashman of Right Wing Watch expects his liberal readers to be outraged by this. But all Jesse Lee Peterson is saying is that he, as a Christian, views homosexuality as a “sinful lifestyle” and considers the gay-rights movement an “immoral cause.”

What is Brian Tashman trying to say? He doesn’t make an argument, he just gives it the shock headline (“Right-Wing Pundit: America Under ‘Sodomy Law’”) with the evident expectation that Jesse Lee Peterson’s use of the word “sodomy” to describe homosexuality is sufficient to cause liberal outrage: “How dare he?”

Whence this certainty? Why is Brian Tashman so confident in the force of liberal indignation? Christians aren’t allowed to write opinion columns anymore? Nobody is allowed to criticize or oppose the gay-rights movement? Dissent is impermissible? Because if this is what Tashman is trying to say, isn’t he just proving Peterson right?

The recent controversy over Memories Pizza — “Try our new Supreme Homophobia Special!” — and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in Indiana has helped bring into focus the inherent problems with mandatory “equality.” If you read Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissent in the 2003 Lawrence v. Texas decision, it was apparent at the time that the majority’s “Emerging Awareness” Doctrine would have far-reaching effects in law, society and culture. These effects were not entirely predictable, because Lawrence amounted to a repudiation of many centuries of Anglo-American common law precedent. With this decision, America was setting sail into uncharted waters, voyaging toward that part of the ancient map marked “Here Be Dragons.”

What we are finding here is something like the “Sexual Anarchy” described by Matt Barber, a world without any moral truth beyond a fanatical certainty in the wrongness of “hate.” Yet if mere disapproval is “hate,” and thus subject to legal sanction, haven’t we instituted a regime of Compulsory Approval? Ideas Have Consequences, as we were warned long ago by Richard Weaver and, by making the idea of “equality” the first premise of our syllogism, we find ourselves unable to refute an argument leading us to the conclusion that the owners of Memories Pizza have no right to run their own business as they see fit, and Jesse Lee Peterson’s criticism of sodomy must be silenced.

What is at stake is liberty. Ace of Spades understands this:

I do not exist to appease your OCD need for Hierarchy, Structure, Order, Regularity, and Standard Procedures in all facets of life.
Some people continue to be wigged out at the idea that I can buy alcohol in one county but the next county over — get this! — it’s illegal to sell booze.
They just seem to have this baseline devotion to the ideal that we should all be the same. That each county should follow the same rules. That a traveler, moving from one county to the next, should not be surprised or bothered to discover there are Different Rules in effect, or a Different Culture.
That we should, in short, all have the Same Rules, and the Same Culture, with all Proud Nails pounded flat to the wood, so that there is no danger of snagging anyone’s clothing or giving anyone a cut.
Some find that comforting.
I find it creepy. . . .
It bothers Bill Quick that one bakery could have one set of policies, and yet a bakery down the street could, get this, have an entirely different set of policies.
That’s just wrong, he apparently thinks. . . .

You can read the whole thing, which is both powerful and hilarious (obligatory Strong Language Warning). Understand that Ace and his antagonist Bill Quick are both atheists and libertarian-leaning conservatives. Their argument is therefore instructive of how, once we step off the Solid Rock of biblical truth, we step into the shifting sands of doubt and confusion. The Christian knows what he believes and why he believes it — do I need to cite chapter and verse here? — and need not justify himself or prove his own case, because he does not offer his mere personal opinion. Rather the Christian relies on an eternal and transcendent Truth that exists beyond himself.

‘Tis so sweet to trust in Jesus,
Just to take Him at His Word;
Just to rest upon His promise,
And to know, “Thus saith the Lord!”

Our elite intelligentsia are offended by the Christian’s child-like faith, because a simple Truth that can be known by all — “Jesus Christ, and him crucified” — puts the Ph.D. and the high-school dropout on the same moral plain. The university professor is no better in God’s eyes than the janitor mopping the hallway outside the professor’s classroom. Both of them will be judged by the same standard of righteousness and both are equally condemned by that standard. We are but “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God,” as Jonathan Edwards long ago warned, and it is only by God’s mercy and by the atonement of Christ that we have hope of anything other than the fiery destruction we deserve.

To which the liberal’s only answer is: “SHUT UP!”

How dare we question their right as Our Moral Superiors™ to tell us what to think? The Christian’s simple faith is tantamount to insulting liberals. To reject their Gospel of Secular Salvation is to call into question the Heaven-on-Earth promises that liberals have been making for at least the past hundred years. The Left is determined to immanentize the eschaton, and when Jesse Lee Peterson speaks disapprovingly of “sodomy,” he must be denounced and ridiculed, lest anyone else get the idea that dissent is permissible or socially acceptable. Why, if people are allowed to disagree with liberals, next thing you know, they might start questioning whether “Haven Monahan” and his frat buddies gang-raped a girl in Charlottesville. They may begin doubting the Gospel of Climate Change, or even lose faith in Keynesian economics!

If these Christians are allowed to call sin by its right name, you see, the entire fabric of liberal belief may begin to unravel, and the system of prestige by which Our Moral Superiors™ claim the right to tell us what to think could crumble into the ash-heap of history as suddenly as the Soviet Union collapsed after the fall of the Berlin Wall. And so liberals keep shrieking: “SHUT UP!”

Are we obligated to obey their totalitarian command? I think not.

“Truth is great and will prevail if left to herself . . . she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them.”
— Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, 1786



 

120 comments

  2. Truth is not decided by a vote no matter what you think

    And the US and the West in general is currently an extremely sick and totalitarian society that enshrines evil and demonizes the good.

  4. Truth is highly subjective.

    You could say “that apple is red.” Except I might be colorblind. Or looking at a Golden Delicious.

    Actually, warts and all, we’re better off than we were.

    That doesn’t mean there aren’t some things I would like to see stopped.

  9. It may be, but it’s certainly not anti-religion; it is a religion.

    I think this is an uncomfortable fact that many of us do not wish to face.

  10. I presume you are simply being disingenuous here. The answers are yes jawhol, and yes jawhol.

    (Tuned that up a bit for you)

  12. The homosexual left knows exactly how it made all the advances it has in the last 50 years: free speech.

    That’s why they want it shut down now. They know how powerful a thing it is.

    So now that they’re in the tree house, they’re going to pull the rope ladder up after them.

  13. I haven’t put Neo in the troll class. Of course it’s always hard to be certain. I’ve met a few griefers who enjoy playing the concern troll gambit very subtly to just keep an argument going.

    What they get out of it I cannot fathom.

    (I could come up with a nice story where they are fronting for a data collection service. But that’s just too clumsy and slow for any serious data collector.)

  15. “Lots?” Seriously? Are you using a logarithmic scale?

    What issues with interracial marriage? I know the left is always obsessed with solving problems that were solved decades ago, but I had hoped you’d be a little more in tune with current events.

    Nice mind reading on the “objecting” claim. Of course it’s completely unsupported by anything I wrote. Let’s go with projection.

    Based on your first four sentences, I’d say your last sentence is rather ironic.

  16. Those are good. Tracisnski reminds us that the reason for supposed legalization of “gay marriage” is that courts have forced States to recognize it. Not the people.

  17. Actually, DeadMessenger and I have briefly discussed its resemblance to a cult, but I need to do some more reading (such as this and this) in order to make intelligent progress.

  19. Neo is pushing the troll envelope. I’d be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt if he’d admit his stupid at least once in awhile.

    I can’t get an answer on how old he is. If he’s 14, which it sounds like, that would be one thing, but if he’s 40 then he’s too far gone.

  20. Cult. Definitely. 100% BITE model. It’s the willing stupidity that pushes it over the edge.

  21. You’re being inconsistent and you also show that you really don’t understand what I’m pointing out.

  22. AND, as I have already pointed out, someone’s morality will become law, like it or not. You will be forced into it whether you like it or not. What we are seeing now, however, is that a hard leftist regime is very difficult to live under and freedom dies.

    OTOH, where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.

  23. We are going in the opposite direction from what is a free society. This country has been fairly close, but not within my lifetime. Rule of law had already been destroyed before I was born.

  24. DeadMessenger is correct. I would also add that you are simply engaging in your normal foolishness.

  26. Mr. R. S. McCain:

    Y*et A*nother M*ost E*xcellent P*iece (YAMEP™) written by your hand!

    Thank you so very much!

    And almost certainly the best observations I’ve read since New Year’s Day:

    Liberals always demand “tolerance” until they get enough power to silence their opposition. Then dissent is banned as “hate speech.”
    —Robert Stacy McCain
    (tweeted) 19:31; 04 Apr 2015

    Thank you for that, too!

  28. I am to the point of thinking Neo simply needs to be banned. I hope he is a kid, because if he is an adult, he’s a completely lost cause.

  29. No doubt. I was just thinking of “My Little Pony” in the context of this blog. I do have to wonder, however, what on earth inpisred to watch that? I couldn’t bring myself to watch that stuff with my granddaughter.

  31. Reminds me of the old adage:

    Muslims in Minority, demure.
    Muslims at Parity, defiant.
    Muslims in Majority, deadly.

  32. “Could we have a public policy that neither helps nor hinders any belief system, so long as no one’s person or property is threatened?”

    From my first post on this thread.

    I may be many things, but inconsistent isn’t one of them.

  33. Today’s issues on interracial marriage. Or do you think that #BlackLivesMatter exists in a vacuum? That’s only one group, there are others.

    Would you raise your voice if non-Christians were being attacked and bullied?

    Why do we rely on labels to define who is the biggest victim?

  34. History isn’t a direct progression, it’s ebbs and flows. Law has taken a downturn, but we can feed and shelter more people than ever before.

    Speaking in a purely political sense, both major parties have conspired to keep you down.

    The question shouldn’t be who controls the rule. The questions should start with how many rules systems we need.

    Ban something today and you give government the power to both require and regulate it tomorrow.

  35. “AND, as I have already pointed out, someone’s morality will become law, like it or not. You will be forced into it whether you like it or not.”

    No, I won’t. KYFHO.

    When it comes to “hard” regimes, there’s not much difference between left and right.

  38. A Red Delicious apple does not cease to be red just because a color- blind person can’t see that it is red.

  39. You don’t listen to anything but the voices in your head. The answer to your question is “no.” Some belief system will dominate government, and that is beyond question for anyone who has two brain cells to run together. Government is a result of collective action and that is simply inescapable.All you’re engaging in is wishful thinking.

  40. When it comes to government, only one system can be used at a time. Anything else is called anarchy.

    If what you want is limited government, The Christian consensus of 1787 gave us that. What you want, however, is not workable.

  41. You can scream KYFHO all you like. As the founders pointed out, government is pure force. It is a necessary evil because men are not angels. You can think all you like in the terms of left and right as you do, but the left and right you think is the result of modern ignorance pushed by the leftist that dominate academia. On the right lies anarchy – no government. On the left, it is all government, or pure statism.

    What you think maters not a whit. What you will endure is what is and if you don’t like it, you can join the others and Flossenbuerg. You will be given no other choices.

    A Christian consensus, OTOH, produced the constitution of 1787. The Papal regime of the middle ages was anything but Christian.

  42. Put that way, I understand where you are coming from. Mormonism and Jehovah’s Witnesses functioned that way for years. When they had to back off some, they started losing left and right. Mormon membership numbers, for example, have been suffering a lot of late, and the JWs are people I haven’t seen around neighborhoods in years.

  43. Bingo. To me it’s uncontroversial and not much use to say that it’s a religion or a cult, since the one isn’t (or shouldn’t be) a pejorative, and the other is ill-defined.

    Ah, but if we can pin the well-defined label of a mind-control cult on it — and make it stick — then that would force them to choose between forgoing effective techniques and being shunned.

  44. I prefer the variant “what’s gravy for the goose is gravy for the gander,” since it hammers home the point that either way you got cooked.

  48. In the Breitbart article, Donnelly writes “After all, does a woman who wants an abortion have the right to demand that a “pro-life” gynecologist perform it?”

    Not yet, but we’re getting there. Obamacare will force it, then we’ll see an exodus of really good Christian doctors and nurses from the healthcare profession. At which point, the left will be singing “Happy Days Are Here Again”. Until they get sick and wonder why there’s a year-long wait to see a doctor. Why, it’ll be almost as if they’re veterans!

  49. The only issues people have today on interracial marriage comes from black race hustlers. Since they’re the same race hustlers peddling the race card all the time, it’s really only more of that background noise.

    You are huffing and puffing to inflate that barely registering “problem” in a pathetic attempt to make it seem like the same thing as the coercion applied to small businesses over homosexual “marriage”. All it does is make you look silly.

    Here’s a moral equivalence that is almost as pathetic as yours: “Hey, you slapped that mosquito! You must think murder is ok!”

    Your tu quoque continues. By your fallacious logic, I can claim that since you’re not here advocating with utmost concern over the girls abducted by Boko Haram, I can only conclude you don’t care about black children.

    I can’t help you with you labels problem. Most of us here use language precisely. You get that way when you follow and hang out with writers.

  50. “The only issues people have today on interracial marriage comes from black race hustlers.”

    I’m sorry but that is not true. There are issues among some Chinese-Americans. There are issues among Hispanic-Americans. And please don’t get me started with the Hopi.

    You misunderstand. My problem is not with the scale. My problem is with a system that perpetuates the behavior.

    Look, the best way to beat back a “liberal agenda” is to make sure we don’t depend on any agenda.

Comments are closed.