Tolerate, Accept, Celebrate

The “work” of the radical is never done, it seems.

In the 1960′s, the civil rights movement pushed — and pushed hard — to get rid of racial discrimination. Opposition to the wing of the Democratic Party known as the KKK was on the rise, finally resulting in the complete integration of the school system and all other “public accommodations,” regardless of race.

Today we’ve come full circle. Now people of different colors must be treated differently in order to be treated fairly. If you don’t control university admissions according to race, then you’re a racist. If you don’t hire based on race, then you’re a racist. From government contracting to bank loans, if there’s any “racial imbalance,” in the group of people served, you’re a racist — hence, ironically, everything in the world now has a race filter sitting right up front. This is supposed to be less racism?

We went from tolerating those with different color skin, to accepting them, to celebrating them. We went from paying attention to skin color to not paying attention to skin color to paying attention to skin color. We should have stopped at acceptance, because that’s the real point where equality lives. Instead, we’ve moved to celebration. You’re a racist if you don’t celebrate that someone has a different culture or a different skin color — even if the demand to celebrate along racial lines is, itself, racist.

In the 1980′s, a second civil rights movement pushed — and pushed hard — to get rid of discrimination against homosexuals. Now almost every company in the world provides “partner benefits,” and there is little to no discrimination against homosexuals in most industries (I know homosexuals will disagree with me here). We’ve moved from tolerate to accept for most of American culture.

But the work of a radical is never done. now we must all celebrate the homosexual lifestyle. We must actively participate in homosexual weddings, or we’re “homophobic.” We must not tolerate, we must approve by specifically choosing homosexual friends, fighting to “homosexual rights,” alongside homosexuals, making certain a solid quota of homosexual folks are involved in entertainment (and never shown in a bad light), etc. We’re now forming a regime of discrimination in favor of homosexuals in the name of being “non discriminatory.”

In the 2000′s, death rights activists pushed — and pushed hard — for the “right to die.” Not that anyone, anyplace, can’t actually commit suicide if they really want to, but these folks wanted to make certain doctors were handy to “do it right.” The terminally ill, we’re told, must be allowed to “die with dignity.” And, generally speaking, they’ve won, especially in Europe. Even if it’s illegal, there’s always some doctor someplace who will help you out by prescribing just the right brew of medicine to take once you’re home.

But we’ve moved along the same path. We’ve gone from tolerating (and disapproving) of those who commit suicide to accepting (it’s a morally neutral act), and now we’re to the celebration phase. In Belguim, doctors are pushing for the right to kill anyone they think has a “mediocre quality of life.” Without the “patient’s” permission. Without the family’s permission. After all, shouldn’t we all celebrate when the life of someone with a less than stellar life story dies?

There are a thousand others. Abortion. Apartheid (it’s open season on whites in South Africa, but genocide of whites is not, apparently, a crime worth discussing). The “Palestinians.” The plight of the polar bear.

The radical’s work is never really done. At least not until they’ve remade racism into racism, homophobia into heterophobia, death into joy, good into evil, and evil into good.

Homeschool Apologetics, Week 20: Confronting Islam (Part 1)

Tax Day Thoughts (A Day Late)

Alas, on tax day, even those who tend to think of wealth redistribution as some high form of Christian charity still try to come out on top, most likely believing that, when push comes to shove, they know how to spend their money more wisely than our bloated federal government. And, despite their conflicting cries of “greed” and “avarice” about their wealthier neighbors, they would be right. Assuming responsibility and stewardship at the lowest levels possible — through our own hands, by our own spiritual discernment, guided by not our own thoughts and inclinations — is bound to be more personal, prudent, and powerful in touching lives, empowering people, and unleashing human flourishing. Government has its legitimate purposes, of course, and our tax money can and should be used to fund those purposes in turn. Insofar as its proper role is being fulfilled and our tax money is being spent to cultivate the conditions for a free and virtuous society, celebrate we must. But true social justice rests on rightly ordered relationships — across families, churches, institutions, businesses, and governments. Achieving such a balance requires a rightly ordered imagination, and this, we should stop and note, means a proper understanding of where obligations ultimately reside. Allegiance to our local governments becomes part of that broader framework, but we mustn’t pretend that submission to the State’s planning priorities of 2014 is the preferred avenue for expanding our Christian witness. -Acton

Rights Verses Rights

When sexual rights go up against religious rights, what is the answer? According to the left, it’s simple.

I’m having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win. -gay activist, law professor, and EEOC Commissioner Chai Feldblum, quoted at TownHall

The logic the left uses to get here seems to be pretty straight forward:

  • Sexual behavior is genetically determined (and besides, sex is liberating)
  • Religious belief is not (and besides, conservative religious belief is oppressive)
  • Hence, sexual behavior should be prioritized as a right over religious belief.

But does it actually work?

Let’s assume the left has it right — sexual behavior is genetically determined, while religious belief is not. Does this mean any and all sexual behavior is genetically determined, and hence it’s all okay? Not really, for the left also believes that sex is only okay if there is consent. But isn’t requiring consent actually suppressing the sexual appetite that’s part of our genetic makeup, and therefore evil and oppressive (according to the left’s own definitions)?

So that’s not going to work, is it? Looks like we need to try something else…

What if we assume all behavior is genetic, and not just sexual behavior? Isn’t this, after all, what the “modern neuroscience” folks are all telling us? But that just leaves us with another hard question — why should it be that suppressing one genetically determined behavior pattern (sexual preference) is oppressive, while suppressing another (religious belief) is liberating?

The lib’s seem to be stuck between a rock and a hard place here, don’t they? No matter how you slice this line of reasoning, it’s irrational. And you thought the left was where all the rational/reasonable/tolerant people live? If you did, you were wrong.

If the IRS were a Movie…


Which one would they be?

If Paul had Only had a Facebook Account…


Welcome to the Future of Health Care

A world where the cost of health insurance is skyrocketing… Health Plan Premiums Are Skyrocketing According To New Survey Of 148 Insurance Brokers, With Delaware Up 100%, California 53%, Florida 37%, Pennsylvania 28%… Health insurance premiums are showing the sharpest increases perhaps ever according to a survey of brokers who sell coverage in the individual and [...] [...]

Imagine a Conservative…

Imagine you open a magazine or online article about a famous or powerful conservative. In this article, you find images of the person’s family that includes some art on the wall, and some modifications, that seem to imply this conservative is much more extreme than he lets out in public. For instance, suppose one of [...] [...]

The Mozilla Files


It must be Easter

How can you tell that Holy Week is approaching? Well, I hope that you’ve been observing Lent, and that you always keep an eye on the liturgical calendar. But even if you don’t, you can tell we’re getting close to Easter because a secular publication has given prominence to a flimsy argument against traditional Christian [...] [...]