It’s rather humorous, in a way, to look back through history and consider just how unenlightened we consider so many of the civilizations that have gone before. The Romans, for instance, are considered barbaric and cruel because they crucified people en masse, and had massive blood sports where people were either killed by wild animals, or pitted against one another to the death for the pleasure of an audience. We just simulate our bloodshed now, so it’s not quite so bad, and destroy people’s reputation rather than their bodies.
We’re so much more civilized, you see.
Perhaps no area of our modern world illustrates this more fully than American foreign policy. Over at the Federalist, for instance —
It makes some sort of sense that American has such a foreign policy, for America was fundamentally transformed from a Christian nation into a progressive one sometime around the Second World War. Looking at American foreign policy, though, you have to wonder if there will ever be a point when the progressive throws up his hands and says, “you know, I just don’t think this is going to work.”
Just catalog the world outside America, thinking through every place where America has intervened in order to “build a nation.” Where has it worked? The entire Middle East, except Israel, is a complete disaster. You might wonder if the reason the American elite hates Israel so much is because those uppity Jews just won’t play the victim card and accept “American help.” After all, you can’t get that paternal feeling if the erstwhile victim won’t play the part the way you want. Did it work in Afghanistan? Perhaps Iraq? Maybe someplace in Africa? South America?
Can you think of one place where the heavy paternal hand of America has actually built a nation that worked? I can, but it’s a long time ago, in what feels like a galaxy far far away — Japan.
What does this progressively failing foreign policy — this inability to build nations, to impose the progressive view of reality onto the world at large — tell us about the progressive worldview? What should it?
And are we paying attention?
In case you’re wondering, the government has, in fact, sued trucking and other transportation (taxi, for instance) companies for forcing Muslim drivers to carry alcohol, dogs, and other things they deplore. The progressive response is that Muslims aren’t objecting to genetic conditions, like race, but rather choices, like owning a dog. In the case of the Christian, homosexuality is genetic, so objecting to it is akin to being a racist.
There are two problems with this reaction.
First, it’s a provable lie. In the case of a Washington florist who has lost not only her business, but is now at risk of losing her home, her savings — essentially being bankrupted at a late stage in life, and living off social security and charity — she specifically served homosexual customers on a regular basis. It’s homosexual marriage, specifically, that she objected to. To claim that someone is hateful because they won’t support a person’s actions — no matter how they actually treat that other person — gives away the lie that this isn’t about discrimination, it’s about forcing your views down someone else’s throat.
Second, in claiming that because homosexuality is genetic we must all support the normalization of homosexuality is to commit the naturalistic fallacy — to claim that because it’s natural, it’s moral and good. Following this logic, alcoholism is good, pedophilia is good, (or at least, not evil) rape is good, and those icky wasps that lay their eggs in spiders, so the spiders are eaten from the inside out once the eggs hatch, are good. Perhaps Daniel Payne says it best —
What we are seeing is not a war for equality, but a war for inequality — a war against Christianity and Christians. It is nothing less than the first step in “othering” Christians, to make Christianity a topic that cannot be discussed in polite company, or practiced in real life.
This isn’t about “marriage equality,” it’s about religious inequality — in their feeling of triumph, the “nones” don’t want to be confronted with hard or honest questions.
Any suggestion that Christians should have any ability to say no to homosexual marriage is said to lead straight to the moral dissolution of society at large (all the while arguing that the slippery slope argument against homosexual marriage is a logical fallacy, of course).
In other words, it’s not about marriage equality. It’s much simpler than that. The double standard of the progressive elite is all about shut up, already.
Bill Whittle nails down the progressive litany of lies yet again. Reality, if you’re rich enough, is optional (you can pay people to make it […]
Our Final Invention James Barrat
What if you took a child — a child of far greater than average intelligence, perhaps even superhuman intelligence — […]
Copyright © 2015 Thinking in Christ - All Rights Reserved
Powered by WordPress & Atahualpa