Category: Religion

‘U.S. Hate Preacher’?

Posted on Comments

When I saw that phrase in a headline, I at first thought they were talking about Phil Robertson, but no, it refers to Harlem-born Islamic extremist Khalid Yasin, whose hateful doctrine inspired Michael Adebowale, one of the perpetrators of the Woolwich Massacre.

The article points out that Khalid Yasin preaches hatred toward homosexuals, in addition to the rest of his general all-purpose hatred (e.g., anti-Christian, anti-America and anti-Israel), which would be cheerfully endorsed by most of MSNBC’s audience.

(Via Memeorandum; more at Jihad Watch and Weasel Zippers.)

 

The Atheist Creep Lawrence Krauss

Posted on Comments

Professor Lawrence Krauss on Australian TV, February 2013.

“Science is based on telling the truth, which is a really important ethical boundary. It’s one that I don’t think religion shares, in fact. . . . I think that science can offer a better world.”
— Lawrence Krauss

“Jen McCreight, who describes herself as ‘a liberal, geeky, nerdy, scientific, perverted feminist atheist,’ wrote a blog post in which she recounted several tales of alleged harassment. She then deleted some of those tales, which involved a prominent author and academic who threatened to sue her. McCreight said she had two sources who ‘are too terrified to openly speak out against him in’ public.”
— Robert Stacy McCain, “No Love for the Godless,” The American Spectator, Aug. 9

Chris Packham is an atheist who was offended by Dr. Lawrence Krauss in the new documentary The Unbelievers:

Krauss is an accomplished cosmologist and theoretical physicist who is capable of speaking eloquently on the areas of his expertise, such as quantum mechanics and, presumably, dad-khakis. But this isn’t a film about science; it’s a meta-conversation about unwelcome religious intrusions into science. The film documents a joint tour with Krauss and zoologist Richard Dawkins, who give a series of talks about the importance of rationality, skepticism, and atheism.
The difference between Dawkins and Krauss is that Dawkins can be funny. Krauss doesn’t use humor; he openly mocks people who disagree with him in front of audiences who do. Dawkins effortlessly demonstrates his expertise to his philosophical opponents; Krauss shouts his expertise at people he could be trying to persuade. Where Dawkins is cranky about the intrusion of superstitious religious belief into the public sphere, Krauss emanates wavy, cartoon stink-lines of smugness with his own superiority.
“While you mentioned quantum mechanics,” he sneers at a polite young Muslim scholar during a debate, “I actually understand it.” . . .
Krauss has the extremely uncharismatic tendency to view himself as a victim, referring to his “fight against evil” and describing his work as “under attack.” Let’s be clear: Krauss is a wealthy member of a highly educated and privileged class. . . .
So yes, he’s got the Boomer-defining lack of self-awareness; that’s obvious from his “cool” wardrobe and his open confusion about why people call him “strident.” But at one point — after stridently bitching about polls that show atheists are as unpopular as rapists — he draws a rhetorical parallel between believing in religion and believing it’s OK to have sex with animals.
I’m not saying he’s a villain, but he has a villain’s smugness. They’re always sure that their righteousness overcomes their unpleasantness. They lash out at straw men instead of regarding the human beings right in front of them. And they do things like invoke “science” to publicly defend their billionaire friends who confess to child rape.

Ah, yes, there is that, isn’t there? Vouching for the pervert:

“Jeffrey [Epstein] has surrounded himself with beautiful women and young women but they’re not as young as the ones that were claimed. As a scientist I always judge things on empirical evidence and he always has women ages 19 to 23 around him, but I’ve never seen anything else, so as a scientist, my presumption is that whatever the problems were I would believe him over other people. . . . I don’t feel tarnished in any way by my relationship with Jeffrey; I feel raised by it.”

Jeffrey Epstein, who molested girls as young as 12, is just a swell guy, says Professor Lawrence Krauss of Arizona State University. And what do atheist women say about Professor Krauss?

“When women come to me to warn me about what speakers to avoid at conferences or confide in me sexual harassment they’ve experienced, Lawrence Krauss is by far the most common name I hear.”
— Jen McCreight

Oh, we wouldn’t want to forget that episode, would we?

[W]hen atheist blogger Jen McCreight had the temerity to repeat what she said women told her about Krauss’s behavior, she had to delete those stories because Krauss tried to intimidate her:

Well, Famous Skeptic is vaguely threatening to sue me. Since Famous Skeptic is rich and I am poor, and since my two sources are too terrified to openly speak out again him (I wonder why), I have removed the part of my previous post that refers to him so I don’t go bankrupt with legal fees.

Creep. Not saying I want bad things to happen to Dr. Krauss. Just saying it would be terrible if anything good happened to him.

 

 

Shocking Video: ‘Coven’ of Pro-Abortion Women Attack Church in Argentina

Posted on Comments

You may have seen this video earlier — Ed Morrissey featured it at Hot Air — but I didn’t see it until it was tweeted to me by Covenant College student Keifer Wynn and, because it was in Spanish, at first I wasn’t quite sure what I was looking at.

“Abortistas atacan a católicos que defendían la Catedral de San Juan,” is the headline, and the description: “Estas son las hordas de lesbianas y abortistas del Encuentro Nacional de Mujeres.”

So, translation via Google: “Abortionists attack  Catholics defending the Cathedral of San Juan. These are the hordes of lesbians and abortionists of the National Conference of Women.” Keep in mind that when I watched this, I hadn’t even translated the titles yet:

OK, so what the heck is going on there?

Every year in Argentina, the National Conference of Women — sponsored by various non-profit NGOs — gathers in some city and, in recent years, the event has featured a protest against the Catholic Church. So when the radical feminists marched on the cathedral in San Juan de Cuyo on November 24, they were met by 1,500 Catholics who locked arms to form a human shield around the cathedral:

The women, many of them topless, spray-painted the men’s crotches and faces and swastikas on their chests and foreheads, using markers to paint their faces with Hitler-like mustaches. They also performed obscene sexual acts in front of them and pushed their breasts onto their faces, all the while shouting “get your rosaries out of our ovaries.” . . .
While the site of the protest was the front of the cathedral . . . “the whole city awoke to graffiti in favor of abortion.”
Inside the cathedral, 700 people were also in prayer accompanied by their bishop . . .
After unsuccessfully trying to get into the building, the women burned a human-sized effigy of Pope Francis. “If the pope were a woman, abortion would be legal,” they shouted . . .
The police reportedly told the media they were unable to intervene because “they are women.”

Remember, I originally saw this in Spanish, posted by the blogger at Pagina Catolica, who said (Google translation):

Our readers know that the Spanish and American folk tradition, the Coven or Salamanca (in Argentina), is a meeting of witches, in which to realize the devil is present not only acts of sorcery, but also aberrant sexual practices.

Indeed, the raving frenzy of these radical feminists bespeaks an infernal origin. Susan Brinkmann at Women of Grace writes:

According to a report appearing on the Catholicism Pure and Simple blog, some of the youth who defended the cathedral said they had the impression that “it was a ‘satanic attack’ with ‘demonic figures’ being seen as part of an ‘anti-Christian world revolution.’  In one place the extremists lit a big fire and burned an effigy of Pope Francis as they danced around the fire.”

An “anti-Christian world revolution“?

Putas sucios comunistas! (That’s “dirty communist whores” in Spanish, at least according to the Google translation.)

UPDATE: Amazing the things you can learn on Twitter:

 

Britain Belatedly Admits It Has an ‘Islamist Extremism’ Problem

Posted on Comments

Woolwich, England, May 22: Killer shouted, ‘Allahu akbar!’

Gee, how did they ever figure this out?

Britain plans to classify “Islamist extremism” as a distinct ideology, British Prime Minister David Cameron said on Tuesday, as part the government’s response to the murder of a soldier on a busy London street.
Cameron said he would implement recommendations he had received from a task force he set up after the murder of Lee Rigby in May, to try to stop people being radicalised by “hate preachers”. . . .
“Islamist extremism” would, for the first time, be classified as a distinct ideology to guard against it being confused with traditional religious practice, he said.
Cameron wants to tackle violent ideologies that claim Islamic justification but by doing so in a way that does not alienate Britain’s 2.7 million Muslims.
The new definition would make it clear that “Islamist extremism” was a distorted interpretation of Islam that betrayed the religion’s principles and tried to sow division.

Did the killers of Lee Rigby betray the “principles” of Islam?

The Muslim terrorist who hacked a British soldier to death in broad daylight [May 22] — and was captured on shocking video shouting, “You people will never be safe!” — was identified [May 23] as the son of Nigerian immigrants who had embraced radical Islam to the horror of his devout Christian parents. Michael Olumide Adebolajo, 28, was known to Britain’s MI5 intelligence as a potentially dangerous extremist, the Sun tabloid reported. Sources told Sun reporters that Adebolajo became a Muslim as a teenager and was linked to radical leader Anjem Choudary, whose Islamist group Al-Muhajiroun has been banned in Britain. . . .
Lee Rigby, a 25-year-old Army veteran of Afghanistan, was the target of the attack. . . . Video of Wednesday’s attack showed Adebolajo yelling “Allahu akbar” while brandishing a butcher knife and a meat cleaver with Rigby’s blood covering his hands.

It seems there are an awful lot of Muslims who share this “Islamist extremism” hatred of the West. Perhaps I’m the only one who remembers watching TV news coverage on Sept. 11, 2001, when crowds of Muslims were dancing in the streets of Cairo and Gaza in celebration of the terrorist attacks masterminded by al-Qaeda.

Pamela Geller notices how the British government has tied itself in knots trying to distinguish Islam (good) from extremism (bad). Perhaps she and her colleague Robert Spencer could explain this problem to the British, if they weren’t banned from entering the country because of their “pro-Israel views”:

The move to ban us . . . was a massive operation. . . . At the first whisper of a rumor by some “hooligans” that Robert Spencer and I might be speaking at a freedom demo in the UK, numerous British government and law enforcement agencies sprung into action. Although Robert Spencer and I had not decided to go and speak in the UK until June, various government agencies began working to ban us as early as February.

Are supporters of Israel beheading British soldiers in broad daylight? Are radical Zionists bombing London’s subways and buses?

No, of course not, but the British elite class has succumbed to the kind of cowardly fecklessness that inspired Neville Chamberlain’s “peace for our time” folly at Munich and so — as appeasement to Britain’s most dangerous enemies — Geller and Spencer are banned.

Can no one in England do simple arithmetic? The population of the United Kingdom is 63 million, and yet Her Majesty’s Government is engaged in this humiliating appeasement because of their concern that they “not alienate Britain’s 2.7 million Muslims.”

The 4 percent tail is wagging the 96 percent dog.

While certainly no civilized person wishes to infringe anyone else’s legitimate rights, must the vast majority of Britons silently endure the humiliating spectacle of their own government tiptoing around for fear of hurting the feelings of the 4% Muslim minority?

How rapidly does decadence advance! Scarcely seven decades ago, Britain stood alone against the unspeakable terror of the Blitz. Her soldiers, sailors and airmen covered themselves in eternal glory, fighting in the distant desert, on the high seas, and in the skies over London to defeat Hitler’s deadly totalitarian war machine. Yet now the grandsons of those heroes are willing to surrender everything because they are afraid of offending a handful of disgruntled imams, professional “activists” and liberal newspaper columnists?

Is there not one courageous man left in the United Kingdom who can summon that once-proud nation to recall its great heritage?

UPDATE: “By the command of Allah“:

The alleged murderers of Lee Rigby told police they cut his throat with a knife because ‘this is how we kill our animals in Islam’, a court was told today.
Michael Adebolajo said in an interview that ‘the most humane way to kill any creature is to cut the jugular’, the Old Bailey heard.
He allegedly also told detectives that he and Michael Adebowale targeted Fusilier Rigby because he was the first soldier that they saw while waiting near Woolwich Barracks on May 22 this year. . . .
Describing the day of the killing, he said: ‘We decided to wait in the vicinity of the barracks that are in Woolwich. By the command of Allah, Allah’s decree, we waited to find a soldier because between us we decided that the soldier is the most fair target because he joins the army with kind of an understanding that your life is at risk.’

Britain’s soldiers are killed in the name of Allah, but Her Majesty’s Government must take care not to “alienate” Muslims.

 

 


Why Everybody Hates Atheists

Posted on Comments

It’s not just because atheists kill babies, because not all atheists do. But let’s admit that, in a universe of accidental randomness, there is nothing particularly special about a little clump of cells.

Or a bigger clump of cells, for that matter. So if the atheists who don’t kill babies have a good argument against raping babies . . .

Look, I’m not saying all atheists are like Mark Newton and Peter Truong, and probably, some atheists are against raping babies.

But that’s not the reason everybody hates atheists, anyway.

It’s the pushy, arrogant self-righteousness. And I’m not even talking about atheists like Kim Jong-un. Not all atheists are brutal communist dictators. Some atheists are against communism, dictatorship and brutality. On the other hand, 70 percent of those who stated their religion as “none” voted for Obama. Just sayin’ . . .

Tuesday evening, I noticed Gabriella Hoffman was under attack by Twitter trolls. Gabby complained about “militant atheists who thrive on souring the holiday season while behaving like tyrants.”

Ah, the War on Christmas — and the same obnoxious atheists who have spent years waging the War on Christmas now claim that this is something that Fox News and Bill O’Reilly are just making up. In fact, it was Peter Brimelow who first described the “War on Christmas” in 1999 — four years before the Southern Poverty Law Center branded him a “white supremacist.” Probably just a coincidence.

Anyway, atheists trolls were attacking Gabby Hoffman, because they hate women. That’s not merely cheap sarcasm, because the atheist movement’s problem with women is rather notorious:

[Karen] Stollznow says that, when she told friends about her situation, many were unsurprised, regarding [Benjamin] Radford as “creepy … a weirdo … sexist … perverted.” Her accusation was made in the context of a general complaint among women in the atheist movement that they are victims of sexism, discrimination and harassment. These complaints caused a stir a couple years ago when a young atheist, Rebecca Watson, got into an Internet dispute with Richard Dawkins, a famed Darwinian opponent of Christianity.
Watson told how women didn’t want to attend atheist conferences because “they felt uncomfortable in a room full of men” and “were hit on constantly” by seemingly desperate atheist men who “try to get in the pants of every woman who walks through the door.”

It’s not me saying this, you see.

As I say, however, it’s the pushy arrogance of atheists that makes everybody hate them, because the atheist cherishes the notion that his disbelief makes him intellectually superior to those whom he disdains as being in the thrall of ignorant superstition.

Atheists therefore cannot keep silent, but must constantly mock and scoff, publicly disparaging Christianity and the Bible, supporting every measure to marginalize and stigmatize Christian belief, so that no Christian can ever enjoy a moment’s peace.

Because . . . Science!

Ace of Spades has commented on this tendency:

If atheists are so logical and rational and sensible — which is the key point of atheistic evangelism, of course — why are they behaving in counterproductive, emotional, cult-like ways? . . .
What it seems like is a lot of teenager-ish acting up, a lot of anger over hurts in the formative years, a seething need to get payback against faceless oppressors. . . .
If freeing yourselves from religion has really made you more rational and all-around better thinkers, why do I see not only no evidence of such increased rationality and overall brainpower, but what I’d mark as a net decline?

Indeed, it’s like people who aren’t intellectuals, but use a lot of fancy jargon because they want to seem intellectual — a narcissistic desire to see oneself as superior to others, to be regarded as belonging to The Intellectual Club, from which inferiors are excluded.

This craving for a sense of superiority is a central focus of Thomas Sowell’s The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy, and is closely related to the phenomena described by Christopher Lasch in The Culture of Narcisissm: American Life in an Age of Diminishing Expectations. (These are books, by the way, which a lot of soi-disant “intellectuals” can’t be bothered to read.) Religion is an obstacle to self-worship, and the honest confession of ignorance — to say that we are mere mortals who don’t know all the answers — is a humiliation that the atheist arrogantly refuses to accept.

Barrett Brown promotes atheism on Fox News, January 2009

Pride goeth before a fall, and the first thing I ever knew about Barrett Brown was that he had been the communication director of the atheist group Enlighten the Vote, also known as the Godless Americans Political Action Committee, as I have remarked:

Brown’s atheism and his insuperable arrogance were hand and glove: Assuming that religious people are ignorant bigots, to whom he was infinitely superior, Barrett then proceeded to a series of assumptions that seemed to him equally plausible, ultimately including the erroneous assumption that he could get away with threatening to “destroy” an FBI agent’s life.

Barrett was a “Special Snowflake” to whom the rules did not apply, so that dropping out of college and “doing . . . a ‘heroic’ amount of Ecstasy and acid” was entirely acceptable, as was heroin, to which he became addicted. None of these failures was enough to convince Barrett Brown that he was less superior than he imagined; the belief in your own superiority is an article of faith in the Cult of the Self.

“Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.”

Barrett Brown ranting on YouTube, September 2012

Well, not every atheist has a paranoid meltdown that lands him in federal custody facing more than 100 years in prison, but Barrett Brown’s fate seems rather symbolic of what Ace described as “teenager-ish acting up, a lot of anger over hurts in the formative years, a seething need to get payback against faceless oppressors.”

Not every militant atheist is a raving lunatic or a baby-raper, nor do all atheists vote Democrat. But all atheists deny God, and are contemptuous of Christians, whom they regard as ignorant bigots.

It is this arrogant attitude that makes atheists so obnoxious in their behavior, so that everybody hates them — except Christians, whom Jesus commanded to pray for their enemies.

That Jesus — always spoiling the fun!

 

 


The Parable of Banging the Babysitter

Posted on Comments

It was perhaps inevitable that the Christian homeschooling movement would have a sex scandal sooner or later, but . . . Doug Phillips?

Former Vision Forum Ministries president Doug Phillips reiterated [Thursday] that his decision to resign from his leadership position was the proper outcome following his acknowledgement that he had “inappropriate relationship” with a woman who was not his wife. . . .
On Nov. 11, the Vision Forum Ministries board shutdown the non-profit, two weeks after Phillips publicly announced his resignation.

Maybe someone else saw that coming, but when I found out about this last night on Twitter, I was stunned. Apparently, this has been buzzing around since Phillips announced his resignation in late October, but I missed that news. The details of the scandal have been rather hush-hush. In his Thursday statement, Phillips vaguely acknowledged that “there was an inappropriate physical component with an unmarried woman” which “was intermittent over a period of years.”

Why the awkwardness in that confession? Well . . .

If we can believe blog commenters:

The affair was with a younger woman (girl) in her teenage years who was very involved with the ministries of both [Vision Forum] and the church. She also helped greatly with the family’s children as a nanny for many years.
This affair has gone on at least 10 years — although she is of age now, she was not when the affair began. . . .
This woman went unmarried all through her 20?s to be there for [Doug Phillips]’s every need and whim. When she finally realized she could no longer continue the affair, due to God’s conviction and disgust with the hypocrisy, she made it clear she would expose him if he didn’t confess.
I believe this will slowly be revealed in public.

Face it, as far as this woman herself is concerned, her identity must already be known by everyone who knows the Phillips family. How many people could fit that description? So she will no doubt eventually step out of the shadows and tell the whole sordid tale.

Or maybe collect a large payment to keep her mouth shut.

What I can’t understand — the mind boggles at the thought — is how any Christian girl could let herself be talked into this. Stipulate that Doug Phillips was a hypocritical horndog who deserves to burn in Hell. Still, what kind of arguments did he make to persuade this girl that it would be OK for her to have sex with him? “Oh, yeah, ‘Thou shalt not commit adultery, except for humping the nanny.’ That was in the original Hebrew text, but it’s left out of these ‘modern’ translations.”

This is a horrible thing, and I joke about it for the same reason I joke about a lot of horrible things. Sarcastic humor is a defense mechanism, because if I couldn’t make wisecracks about wretched stuff like this, it might drive me to utter despair.

Obama is president, which is enough despair for anyone.

 


Lena Dunham and the Politics of Vagina

Posted on Comments

“If you’ve ever watched Girls or have been aware of the things Lena Dunham says, you’d see a portrait of narcissism and entitlement. …
“It is the idea that the women on the show are entitled to men wanting them. Despite any flaw — whether it be physical, emotional, or a lack of accomplishments — they are owed a relationship with a man. Based on this premise, any poor behavior or lack of interest in their appearance cannot be the cause of why he didn’t call back.”
— Amy Otto, Nov. 12

“Why is it that every single issue of Cosmo has a ‘how to masturbate’ article or a ‘how to have better orgasms’ article or some variation thereof? And why are these magazines in racks at the supermarket checkout line, so that the minute your kids learn to read, they’re confronted with cover-blurb headlines like ‘Super Sex Secrets to Drive Him Wild’? …
“If you’re not happy with your sex life, you’re not going to find the answer in Cosmo.”
— Robert Stacy McCain, June 28

More than a century ago, Karl Marx’s colleague Friedrich Engels first used the term “false consciousness,” a concept that was developed by later Marxist-Leninist thinkers to explain why the proletariat failed to respond to communist calls for violent revolution. Workers who did not share the Marxist sense of class struggle — who did not share the radical agenda of overthrowing the bourgeois state, abolishing religion and the market economy — were said to be in the throes of false consciousness. Opponents of Marxist revolution, it was said, were deficient in knowledge of the historical processes of material development, and therefore influenced by “myths,” including the belief that they might improve their condition under the existing industrial capitalist system.

What does this have to do with Lena Dunham’s vagina? Everything.

Dunham’s show is a sort of propaganda for postmodern feminism, and Amy Otto critically examines the tenets of this ideology:

So since the central conceit of feminism (that one is owed a man’s attention) cannot be questioned — yet results in women being quite incapable of sustaining a relationship — we must pretend that obtaining said relationship is no longer important. We wouldn’t want to dispute the tenets of feminism:

  • He should love you and put up with any behavior you throw at him.  Its “quirky” and not deranged that you question him about everything he feels at every moment.
  • You don’t have to be particularly accomplished or worthy of his time. Being a woman is enough. You go, girl!
  • You are as beautiful as a supermodel no matter who you are — and men who dare to seek out a woman of similar or slightly higher attractiveness are craven idiots. You deserve a man as handsome as you would like him to be.
  • If it’s something that females experience, everyone else should pay for it too.
  • Corporations purposely pursue “sexist” strategies to exclude 50% of the market. Society is so inherently sexist that profit comes after the deliberate exclusion of women.

I say all these things as someone who was fed this nonsense by our culture and who partially bought into it for years — years of being single I might add.

You should read the whole thing, because her point is that beliefs about sex and relationships — beliefs influenced by popular culture, including Cosmo magazine and TV shows like Lena Dunham’s Girls — have a meaningful impact on politics. This is why free-market advocates are mistaken if they think they can win the War of Ideas strictly by making libertarian arguments for economic freedom, while ignoring the so-called “social issues” that are involved in the Culture War.

Yes, there are pro-choice lesbians who embrace economic liberty, but when you start examining electoral demographics and opinion polling, you find a strong correlation between the bourgeois lifestyle (marriage, religion, property) and the bourgeois belief system. Anyone who has examined exit polls understands that the “gender gap” could more accurately be called the “marriage gap” or the “religion gap”; disadvantages for Republicans among women voters are mainly a function of whether women are married and attend church regularly.

In 2012, 53% of married women voted for Romney, whereas 67% of unmarried women voted for Obama. While the published exit poll data did not correlate gender and church attendance, we do know that those who attend religious services weekly (whether male or female) voted 59% for Romney, whereas those who never attend church voted 62% for Obama. Those who believe that abortion should always be legal voted 76% for Obama; those who believe abortion should always be illegal vote 79% for Romney.

‘Giddy, Sex-Starved and Desperate’

There are some who look at data like that and draw the incorrect inference: “Social issues are hurting Republicans! The party is too beholden to the Religious Right!” But ask yourself this: Do the irreligious, the unmarried and the pro-abortion voters otherwise support the Republican agenda? Or, as I believe could be demonstrated — if sufficiently detailed data were available — is it the case that support for economic freedom is strongly associated with the bourgeois values represented by poll data on marriage and church attendance?

And don’t you think Democrats know this?

Annica Benning says this controversial ad for ObamaCare “portray[s] women as giddy, sex-starved and desperate”:

Amy Runyon-Harms, executive director of ProgressNow Colorado, defended them, saying: “People get upset when you portray women as independent.”
That is interesting — independence can now be defined based on sexual promiscuity?
In fact, the underlying message is not independence, as government-funded birth control doesn’t convey any form of personal independence, certainly not financially.

But that’s just it, see? Democrats want women to be “independent” from men — i.e., unmarried — so that they will then be dependent on government. And if these allegedly “independent” women are “giddy, sex-starved and desperate,” they’ll eventually need a scapegoat to blame for their miserable loneliness: Blame the oppressive patriarchy! Blame “corporate America”! Blame Republicans!

Defining “independence . . . based on sexual promiscuity” not only undermines marriage, but it also (a) results in women being infected with diseases, for which they require medical treatment, (b) creates demand for legalized abortion, and (c) fosters unwed motherhood, with more children growing up in poverty. The propaganda of Lena Dunham thereby helps grow the Democrat Party coalition.

And what about basic Judeo-Christian bourgeois morality, which Engels derided as “false consciousness”? It’s not just about sex, you know. The strongest possible condemnation of the liberal Welfare State can be summarized in four words: Thou shalt not steal.

It is fundamentally wrong to demand that government give you “free stuff” you have not earned, paid for by the taxes of people who work hard for their money. Amy Otto notices the “narcissism and entitlement” in Girls, which we might also call simple selfishness.

An irresponsible, self-centered attitude — Veruca Salt demanding, “I want it now” — is really what contemporary feminism is all about. Disassemble the ideological infrastructure, get past all the elaborate pseudo-intellectual rhetoric, and feminism is about the avoidance of responsibility: “Bad things happen to me because . . . sexism!”

It’s like the lazy young hippie punk with no skills who nevertheless refuses to take a “dead end job” at a fast-food restaurant because he’s not about cooperating with The Capitalist System, man.

‘A Culture of Complete Anarchy’

The same bourgeois morality that discourages sexual promiscuity also encourages hard work, thrift and honesty. Values matter, and the values upon which the American republic was founded were not the values celebrated by Lena Dunham’s Girls.

If America is to endure, to find the strength of will necessary to recover from the disastrous policies of the Obama administration, it will need a faith powerful enough to inspire courage. Pastor Mark Driscoll of Mars Hill Church in Seattle has a few words:

Rather than moral absolutes governing what’s right or wrong, Driscoll said that there’s a general view that people should be true to themselves — that they should essentially stand by their feelings and desires.
“We’ve shifted from a worldview where there is a God who makes laws, and they apply to you, to whether or not there is a God it does not matter — ‘I don’t recognize any laws external to me. The only thing that guides me is my own internal convictions,’” he said. “Authority has shifted from external to internal, from God to me. And what you end up with is not a discussion of morality but a defense of personality. And that’s the world we live in.”
Driscoll believes that there is “a culture of complete anarchy in the name of tolerance and diversity.”
“One in four women sexual assaulted, one in six men, people that are sexually addicted, sexually assaulted, sexually abused, rampant debt, broken families, suicidal,” he told TheBlaze. “The number one category of prescription medication is antidepressants. Somebody’s gotta stand up and say, ‘This ain’t working — we gotta try something else.’”

If we are heading toward “a culture of complete anarchy,” why? Because we have rejected “a God who makes law,” so that the law is whatever we want it to be, including a law that compels insurance companies to let you stay on your parents’ policy until you’re 26, including a law that compels pro-life Christians to pay taxes used to fund abortion and contraception for irresponsible women who don’t want to pay for the consequences of their degenerate lifestyle.

The Politics of Vagina — the “narcissism and entitlement” celebrated in Lena Dunham’s Girls — is defended by feminists for the same reason ProgressNow Colorado promotes “independence . . . based on sexual promiscuity.” Democrats know who votes for them and why, and they know that “a culture of complete anarchy,” without morality or religion, will yield more votes for Democrats.

Of course, this culture will also destroy America as we know it, but destroying America as we know it is what Democrats are all about.




 

UPDATE: Welcome, Instapundit readers!