Words of Hope for Our Culture in These Dark Times

Our only final hope is in God, but as a culture there is certainly precedence that we may survive these dark times. And dark times they are. The LEFT seems to be ascendant in what remains of Christendom, which is perhaps another way of saying that Christendom is to have no remains in the West. We will not be granted any terms save unconditional surrender, and this it may not be enough:

Religious liberty is the terms of surrender the Right is requesting in the culture war. It is conservative America saying to the cultural and political elites, you have your gay marriage, your no-fault divorce, your obscene music and television, your indoctrinating public schools and your abortion-on-demand. May we please be allowed to not participate in these? 

But no. Tolerance isn't the goal. Religious conservatives must atone for their heretical views with acts of contrition: Bake me a cake, photograph my wedding, pay for my abortion and my contraception.... 

Even in abortion, the Left is tired of long-observed truces. The Hyde Amendment, which for decades has restricted federal funding of abortion providers while never intruding on the freedom of women to abort their children, is no longer tolerated by the abortion lobby, which even killed a human trafficking bill over it. 

As stunning as their ambitions of total victory is their continued pretense to be fighting a defensive war. It should be obvious to all that the Left long ago dropped its love of pluralism and tolerance — if that ever was their goal.

The Left is not interested in our terms for surrender--which is a very good reason for us not to surrender! To make use of an often-suggested metaphor, they are in the phase of the culture wars in which they are patrolling the wreckage of the battle fields in search of survivors to execute.

The barbarians of the last Dark Age came from outside the walls of Rome, had little trouble getting in because of the decay from within. We certainly have our barbaric outsiders--ISIS, Boko Haram, Al Qaeda, and I'm sure there are some who are not Islamic. We also have our interior decay, which shows that the barbarians are already running things here, too.

But, as I mentioned, there is some hope that our culture can re-emerge after this dark age, even if none of us will be alive to see it. Rod Dreher discusses the glimmers of this hope, whcih he calls the "Benedict Option." He quotes Alasdair Macintyre to the effect that we can hope that our culture, too, will find its St. Benedict:

It is always dangerous to draw too precise parallels between one historical period and another; and among the most misleading of such parallels are those which have been drawn between our own age in Europe and North America and the epoch in which the Roman Empire declined into the Dark Ages. None the less certain parallels there are. A crucial turning point in that earlier history occurred when men and women of good will turned aside from the task of shoring up the Roman imperium and ceased to identify the continuation of civility and moral community with the maintenance of that imperium. What they set themselves to achieve instead—often not recognising fully what they were doing—was the construction of new forms of community within which the moral life could be sustained so that both morality and civility might survive the coming ages of barbarism and darkness. If my account of our moral condition is correct [one characterized by moral incoherence and unsettlable moral disputes in the modern world], we ought to conclude that for some time now we too have reached that turning point. What matters at this stage is the construction of local forms of community within which civility and the intellectual and moral life can be sustained through the new dark ages which are already upon us. And if the tradition of the virtues was able to survive the horrors of the last dark ages, we are not entirely without grounds for hope. This time however the barbarians are not waiting beyond the frontiers; they have already been governing us for quite some time. And it is our lack of consciousness of this that constitutes part of our predicament. We are waiting not for a Godot, but for another—doubtless very different—St. Benedict.

Dreher states optimistically that we may not have reached the point-of-no-return, but I am a bit more pessimistic on that point. It seems to me that victory is beyond our grasp, though I pray that I am wrong. Victory is the primary goal in the culture wars, I suppose, and (more importantly) peace. But the secondary goal, which persists long after the first is gone, is to hold off our culture's utter annihilation until the next Benedict can get these community outposts established. I am left to wonder what such things would look like. And, it seems to me that there is one other right response, the only one left for us laymen who cannot simply leave all to enter the monastic life: we must remain at our posts and do our right duties as best we are able, even as society crumbles around us.

It may be that for those of us in that position, the right patrons are Athanasius, John the Baptist, Thomas Beckett, John Fisher, and (most of all) Thomas More.

Marriage and the Clash of Worldviews

Another day, another story for the "clash of orthodoxies" file, if that is a fair label (some so-called "orthodoxies" hardly involve right thinking or right belief). This time the item in question comes from Slate via Business Insider, and yes it's a little bit old, but it's been making rounds recently for some reason. It is yet another of those articles in which much of the analysis is correct (albeit slightly distorted), and is basically a good case for not doing what the article urges us to do: in this case, adopt similar attitudes towards marriage (and let's be honest, sex) as the Dutch.

I mean to give some credit where credit is due: the author does identify some real cultural problems in America. One of these really is the fixation on marriage as the be-all end-all. Not everybody is meant to be married: this is a true statement, as the writer of this article notes: "I am not here arguing against marriage, but against marriage as a rite of passage, against the assumption of all little girls that they will one day be married in a white dress on a green lawn." Indeed, marriage is a vocation, and a highly important one. From the standpoint of human society, marriage and parenting are the two most important of all vocations--but yet there are some single vocations which are more important and necessary still (many of which are also in decline in America and more broadly in the West).

The writer, Katie Roiphe, argues that if we adopt a dutch attitude towards marriage, fewer people will care about marriage. She cites this as a good thing, I consider it a very bad thing. To quote from Miss Roiphe:

"What would it mean to end the centuries-long American fixation on traditional family structures? Would we be able to look at families living outside of convention without as much judgment, as much toxic condescension?... 

If we woke up one morning and discovered that in America marriage was suddenly regarded as a choice, a way, a possibility, but not a definite and essential phase of life, think how many people would suddenly be living above board, think of the stress removed, the pressures lifted, the stigmas dissolving... 

Whatever one thinks about the institution, the truth is that marriage is increasingly not the way Americans are living. If one goes strictly by the facts—that the majority of babies born to women under 30 are born to single mothers, or that about 51 percent of American adults are married—one has to admit that marriage can’t be taken for granted, assumed as a rite of passage, a towering symbol of our way of life. But somehow this hasn’t dimmed our solid sense of marriage as the American normal. 

If we suddenly stopped being in thrall to the rigid, old-fashioned ideal of marriage, we could stop worrying about low marriage rates and high divorce rates. We could stop worrying about single mothers and the decline of marriage as an institution, especially in the lower middle class, and the wasteful industry of wedding planning." 

Yes, much of this would probably result from Americans' no longer caring about marriages. The problem is, much of this stuff is actually healthy for a society. The decline of the Traditional family--nucleus one man and one woman wed for life, but also including the earlier decline of the larger extended family--spells much mischief for society. The social stigmas have at times been taken too far--but that they can be taken so far implies that they have a rightful place.

We should as a society discourage adultery, fornication, polyamory, polygamy, and worse forms of sexual degeneracy. We should not encourage women to go become single mothers--or rather, we should acknowledge that this is often the gritty reality (inasmuch as the alternative, abortion, is far worse), but we should not encourage women to actively seek out this "lifestyle." And the high divorce rate should be a cause of concern, even as it is declining (largely as a result of fewer people getting married to begin with).

The creator of XKCD, Randall Munroe, is probably not a conservative, but occasionally he articulates the conservative argument for such customs as "stigmas" and "taboos."

The problem, at the end of the day, is that there are ultimately only two "right" ways to live: faithfully in a marriage, or singly celibate. Any alternative is what was once called "sin," and now has been--as any evil act often is--euphemized as "alternative lifestyles" or "lifestyle choices." A rose by any other name--but these alternative choices are not so much comparable to roses as to the thorns. Ultimately, those who engage in them are hurting themselves, their "partners," and all-too-often, society at large (if only on a small scale).

----
As an ironic aside, she also writes this line: "We could instead focus on actual relationships, on intimacies, on substance over form." Um, substance = form + matter--perhaps this is the source of so much of her confusion?

Comparative Religion

Comparative religion tends to make people comparatively religious, as the saying goes. Prominent scientist (TM) and philosophical hack Lawrence Krauss has suggested that we should start using comparative religion to indoctrinate children against any religion (save his--atheism is hardly exempt from the charges made against other religions). His analysis of the effects of this are mostly right--which is why I largely believe that we ought not require religion be taught in public schools. This is also why I don't think that universities should be required to teach courses on the Bible, and why I don't think that "Great Books" programs are a cure-all. Too many people in academia (especially) are morally and intellectually compromised to the point where having them teach these subject matters largely result in their ruining these subjects for their students.

This is not to say that all comparative religion classes, or courses covering the Bible, or Great Books programs, are bad. All can be well-done, and well-taught, and when well-taught they are invaluable. But on the whole the effect of requiring a secular-skeptic type academic to teach a religion class will be a comparative religion class so presented as to systematically undermine every religion covered, with the deliberate end being a cultivated skepticism.

We really are at a point in which world-views clash cosmically. Our differences of opinion are increasingly (or perhaps merely more openly) over what constitutes the good and not how to best encourage it. I concur with Dr. Krauss as to the effects of requiring all students to study "comparative religion," and as a result he wishes taht this requirement be put in place whereas I hope it is not.

The Know-Nothings are Alive and Well

Apparently, rank anti-Catholicism is still at least a little bit acceptable in politics, in particular Leftist poltics. I've seen some small traces of it in Republican politics, especially in deep southern states. But it is worse, far worse, and far more blatant, in today's Democratic Party. The apple does not fall far from the tree, apparently.

This cartoon was reportedly run against Republican (formerly, Democratic) candidate Mark Miloscia. A man decides that he takes his faith seriously, even in the politics sphere. As a result, he switched parties from Democrat to Republican (there aren't a whole lot of Democrats who manage to even sound serious about their faith, though they often voice platitudes). The Left is infuriated, of course, but they have decided to take issue with his faith (because he's Catholic, he opposes our right to offer due sacrifice to Moloch through the murder of our children, and he opposes our rights to demand the celebration of the sins of Sodom! He must be intent on establishing a theocracy, just like all other Catholics!). Whatever issues the Republican party has, it should be obvious at this point that the Democratic Party--the same party which booed God--does not want Catholics, and should not be supported by them.

It is also obvious that there is a culture war, indeed, a kulturcampf, which persist to this day. Yes, it's mostly aimed at Catholics (though perhaps some evangelicals, Baptists, and Fundamentalists have tasted a bit of it, too), but the goal still remains to drive faith form the public square--and perhaps after that, to criminalize it outright. We already see the beginnings of that criminalization, what with fines and now jail time plus reeducation camp for people who refuse to support "gay marriage;" and fines for those who do not wish to purchase immoral "goods and services" such as contraception, sterilization, and even abortifacents for their employees.

As an aside I am still scratching my head as to what "Proposed a statewide DNA database of law-abiding citizens" has to do with being Catholic.

When Children Belong to the State

There is a rather alarmist column at National Review--but its alarmist tone does not mean we should dismiss it as entirely unfounded. The proposition is to target homeschooling children, because, of course, homeschooling and guns are the things to blame for Adam Lanza's shooting spree. It couldn't be, for example, the fault of the various state-run public schools (half prison, half re-education camp) where all of these shootings occur.

But children belong to the state, after all, or so the progressive line goes.

Lithium and Technical Solutions

David Warren's excellent anti-blog has a post of sorts about the question of finding a good technical solution to the age-old moral problem of happiness--well, self-satisfaction, at least:

Today, after the discovery of how useful lithium can be in helping to settle “bipolar” and similar psychiatric cases, the proposal to add it methodically to the water supply, along with fluoride, is coming into vogue. It may soon be a “progressive” cause, such that no one will be asked to vote on it. What better way to deal with a general population which, thanks to the success of other progressive causes, is now going insane?... 

There is, of course, a little problem with lithium as a catch-all cure for ambient mental illness, for while the “don’t worry be happy” response to increased lithium doses is a commonplace of current psychiatric medicine, it does not have the same effect on all customers. Some, reasonably tame before, flip right out upon receiving it. Others are inspired to feel better about themselves while committing major crimes. Yet the prevailing statistical utilitarianism continues to insist on “the greatest good for the greatest number,” and it is the presumption of modern technology that exceptional cases may be overlooked.

And therein lies a limit of sorts to the usefulness of science as a solution to all the world's problems.

Equality Implies Difference

My friend and somewhat intellectual mentor, Prof. J. Budziszewski, has a short post on his blog quoting Michael Novak. Since it is a quoted excerpt, I will reproduce it here in its entirety:

"For it was Christian faith that first taught the male warrior a code of courtesy, compassion, and charity, whose first expression was Christian chivalry, whose later expression was the ideal of the Christian gentleman, and whose underlying ideal has been the equality of women and men in baptism, in faith, and in the promises of God.  The Christian ideal of equality before God not only did not erase sexual differentiation, but, on the contrary, rested upon that reality as its foundation."

This is getting at something which I have been mulling myself for some time: namely, that equality not only  doesn't precludes differences, but actually presupposes them.

This is something which we can see logically, as for example in a math (or physics) class. As a simple example, we can consider the force of friction working on an object (say a block) which is sliding down an inclined plane:

The force of friction is in general determined by the coefficient of friction multiplied by the normal force:
(1) Ff = ck FN
On the other hand, the sum of the forces must be equal to zero if the block is sliding down the incline with a constant velocity, as per Newton's First Law:
(2) Fg + Ff + FN = 0
--> (3) Fgx - Ff = 0 and (4) FN - Fgy = 0; NB bolded quantities are vectors, plain type are scalars.
Thus, we can states that the coefficient of friction ck is in this case equal to the ratio of the magnitude of force of the x-component of gravity to the magnitude of the normal force; of in other words that it is equal to the tangent of the angle A subtending the incline and the ground:
(5) ck = Fgx/FN = tan A

But we should not in so stating forget or even imply that there is no difference between a coefficient of friction and the tangent of an angle. Indeed, the equality between the two is actually conditional, in this, conditional on choosing the exact angel at which the block slides down the ramp at constant velocity. It would be an erroneous statement to identify the coefficient of friction with the tangent of any arbitrary angle, or even with any angle A subtending an inclined plane.

For that matter, it would be an error to identify friction as "the force which is equal to the opposite of the x-component of gravity"-- a restatement of equation (3). There can, after all, exist a nonzero force of friction on a surface which is not inclined, though in this case the x-component of gravity is typically zero. For that matter, there could be some force of friction, and indeed a significant force of friction, in a region in which there is little (virtually none) gravity. Yet, this is an assertion which follows in this case from the premise that equality is the same thing as identity or interchangeability.

The Federalist on Homosexualists

First, misleading title. Our language hasn't quite caught up with the fact that it's not just homosexualists per see that are looking to destroy our culture with the deviant sex and sexuality department. The transexuals are in many ways worse by far, and the two movements aren't necessarily one and the same (though they are closely allied).

With that said, The Federalist's Stella Morabito has really done a nice job of outlining what is at stake in the whole redefinition of marriage (and ultimately, the family) battle:

We’ve seen also how the Obama Administration’s push for same sex marriage has occurred in lockstep with policies that are hostile to marriage, such as the severe marriage penalty written into Obamacare. 

Activist judges have taken their cues from Attorney General Eric Holder who used the DOMA repeal to proclaim open season on any state that recognizes marriage as an organic (i.e., heterosexual) union of one man and one woman. In their crosshairs are state constitutions, businesses, students, communities, churches, and all of those bogus “conscience clauses” that were written into same sex marriage legislation in order to sway wavering state legislators to vote “aye.”... 

Without civil marriage, the family can no longer exist autonomously and serve as a wall of separation between the individual and the state. This has huge implications for the survival of freedom of association.

The homosexualist movement is ultimately totalitarian, both in its means and ultimately in its end. And the most commonly used tactic for all of this is, of course, also aptly described:

Indeed, “civil rights” is always a nice line. It works well to stop debate. There’s lots of emotional blackmail involved because of the social punishments (labels of “hater” or “bigot”) heaped upon anyone who might question the agenda.

No questions about it, this is one of the most destructive (to culture and civilization) lies we've bought into as a civilization.

Assorted Doom from Abroad

Homosexualists in Denmark have decided to force their beliefs on the churches there. The parliament passed--by a wide margin--a law making it mandatory for all churches to conduct "gay marriages."  Worse still, "Under the law, individual priests can refuse to carry out the ceremony, but the local bishop must arrange a replacement for their church." It is entirely possible that, decades hence when Christianity has been driven underground, the places which have implemented Sharia Law will be preferable to those which have implemented it secular analogue.

Meanwhile, the homosexualists in the United Kingdom are calling for some votes concerning "gay marriage," but also are suggesting that only those who vote the right way should be counted. It's an election which is every bit as fair and open and democratic as in the totalitarian communist countries. Opposition to "gay marriage" will by branded as "not acceptable," An most ironically, given Denmark, is this little nugget:

 But Mr Clegg disagreed, pointing to the fact that the original law bringing in civil partnerships was also not passed on a free vote in the House of Commons.

He the BBC’s Andrew Marr porgramme: “My view is that in the same way that the civil partnerships legislation that was introduced under Labour was a whipped vote, I personally don’t think this is something that should be subject to a great free-for-all because we’re not asking people to make a decision of conscience about religion.” 

Mr Clegg said gay marriage was not “a matter of conscience” because the Government was not forcing churches to marry homosexual couples.

Yes, but for how long will that be true?  As Chesterton observed, "that road goes down and down."

About That Secular Inquisition

I've already mentioned the unsettling development of the secular Left's inquisition, and how they will begin ferreting each other out for being insufficiently dedicated to the progressive ideology. They will of course drop any quarrel to go after us first. Lest that seem an overstatement, we have Exhibit B (Eich being A): the public outcry against Dropbox for its hiring of Condeleeza Rice. One of my friends had about the right reaction to this: "Seriously? The left is out of control. They become outraged when conservatives get jobs now."

That does seem to be about the shape of it. To be fair, there are some legitimate reasons for concern, and many of the people involved voice those concerns, specifically that it does not bode well for privacy/security to appoint the woman who oversaw the expansion of the NSA to the board of a file-sharing/cloud storage service. This is, however, just one of four major complaints against her listed by "Drop Dropbox." The others are that she supported the Iraq War (as did a large majority of Americans at its beginning, according to most major polls), she supported torturing prisoners, and she was also on the board of directors at Chevron. In other words, the reason why we should be outraged by Dropbox's hiring of her is that she is a Republican, a part of the Bush Administration, and she happens to have been a board director for a big oil business.

I don't necessarily agree with all of the things she's done, and I consider some of these complaints to be legitimate reasons why she should not be trusted with high political power. Some of these are at least legitimate enough as reasons that reasonable people could disagree whether to vote for her in a hypothetical election. None of these save for the wiretapping is a reasonable reason why she should not be hired by any company as a board member; and wiretapping seems to be the least of her offenses (greater only than being a board member at Chevron), if "Drop Dropbox" is listing here "offences" in order (let alone by the written content of each grievance). Further, there is little evidence that her authorization (and use) of wiretapping as a member of the Bush Administration will necessarily lead to her violating user privacy/security as a board member for Dropbox.

Of course, the leftist might respond that he is only targeting people who are being hired to high-level positions in a company, or only targeting the people who are directly involved in a given "bad" issue. He is only targeting Mr. Eich, because Eich was to be made CEO and he donated a substantial sum ($1000) to the non-progressive side of a major issue. He is only targeting Dr. Rice because she was an actual member of the Bush Administration, was actually in charge of implementing or was directly involved in implementing some of these policies, and is now being hired to the board of directors. The Leftist might excuse himself by saying "We're only going after top people," meaning people who have a direct and measurable impact and who are being hired to top-level leadership positions.

This is already problematic as-is. It essentially says that you can dissent from the Left, as long as you do it quietly and as long as that dissent is impotent, even in the short-term*. Alternatively, you can still freely oppose the Left's "progress", but in so doing you become a second-class citizen. You might after being beaten be allowed to live--to make a living--to find such employment as you will, but there will be a ceiling** on how high you can rise. The old glass ceiling has long since been shattered, but the progressives want to replace it with a new one.

Of course, it's a very small step from arguing that a person can't be ever allowed to hold top leadership, to excluding them from middle management and then from entry-level positions. It's also a small step from barring those who visibly work for or contribute to a cause or candidate--political, social, cultural, moral, whatever--to barring those who somehow supported it in any way at all. Today, it's those who helpd implement the Wars in the Middle East; tomorrow, anyone who supported the Iraq (and Afghanistan, for that matter) wars under Bush***. Today, it's anyone who donated to the pro-marriage (and therefore anti-"gay marriage") bill in California; tomorrow anyone who at any point in time voted for a similar bill in any state. Today, it's any member of Bush administration; tomorrow, it's anybody who voted for Bush.

-----

*Impotent: the progressive Left is always bragging about being  on the right side of history, whereas their opponents are "on the wrong side of history." If they really believed that, then all dissent is ultimately impotent, though it may slow the tide of history for a short time.

**Ceiling: in honor of "income equality day," which was sometime this week. The usual tired (and blatantly false) 77% statistic was trotted out, most prominently by the President. This is the same president who pays his own female staffers 88% of what he pays his male staffers, presumably for the same reasons why women--averaged over all careers at all level of experience--make on average less than men averaged in the same way. 

***Under Bush: the wars have been going very badly under Obama--with far more casualties in Afghanistan than were suffered under Bush. We've just stopped hearing the daily reports now that it's Obama and not Bush who is in charge of the war.

A Critique of Modernity in a Review of a Review

John C. Wright offers this lengthy vivisection of modernity in the form of a response to a 60 year of review of "The Lord of the Rings." He has a tendency of being long-winded (even more so than I am), and of going down various rabbit-holes (even more than I do), but it is all interesting and entertaining and mostly correct. More importantly, it is a good read, and an important defense of the virtues, and of truth and beauty and goodness.

Excerpts will not do it justice, but here are a few anyway:

Now, the great matter of heroism is that it comes in three stages, a childish stage, a pagan stage, and a final stage.

The heroism of children, as in STAR WARS, is concerned with the plain and straightforward heroism of bravery and camaraderie; the heroism of pagans, as in Homer, is more mature yet, for it deals with the bright moments of glory and the dark, melancholy sorrow of inescapable fate that follows; the heroism that is more mature yet deals with the dark melancholy of free will and of fates that are freely chosen, albeit that they lead through dark and drear lands, but with the promise, in the end, of a bright harbor at the end of suffering, and a ship to carry the weary traveler away to a home he never knew, somewhere beyond the walls of the world.

Han Solo is an example of the first, as is John Carter the Warlord of Mars, or Robin Hood, or any number of action heroes or superheroes; Achilles is an example of the second, as is nearly every major figure in the matter of Troy; and of the third there are too few to list as examples, but that short list includes humble Frodo Baggins.

Each stage of heroism builds on itself, from mere bravery or courage, to fortitude, and at last to heroic virtue.

Lust and fornication, the moderns certainly admire and support, but lust and romance are opposites, even as fornication and marriage are opposites. The idea of a bride and bridegroom both coming to the marriage bower as virgins and cleaving to each other in tender yet fierce mutual adoration, worshiping each other with their bodies, and forswearing all other partners, this is an image the moderns find repellant, if not incomprehensible. It reminds them of the suburbs, or white picket fences, or Ozzie and Harriet. To them it is saccharine and nauseating. The only marriages they favor are gay marriages.

As for glory and honor and patriotism, love of chivalry and love of nation, the modern mind regard these things with distaste or disgust or even horror. They are regarded as machismo, as sinister attempts to oppress the weak, or to glorify violence and aggression. Patriotism to the modern man is bigotry, and vile; love of God they dismiss as superstition. The moderns have an insolent double standard: The superstition is harmless or even admirable, in an avuncular and condescending way, when practiced by Mohammedans or Buddhists or Animists, but it is an appalling enemy of enlightenment and progress when practiced by Christians.

The modern man disdains heroism in all its forms, and reduces them all to the heroism of children, brushing them away as "childish." Yet, even the child's heroism is greater than the cravenness of the modern men. The heroic virtue of the Christian saint sears the conscience of the craven man like a flame, and thus he hates it most of all, though he attempts to dismiss it as no different than "childishness."

There is a porn star who at the time of this writing is a Duke University freshman who appeared on a ‘rough sex’ website which portrayed her being choked, spat upon, and insulted during the sex act.

To justify herself in the face of criticism, she has publicly and defiantly stated that true feminism, true liberty and happiness, consists of her ‘ownership’ of her body, which ownership renders her immune from criticism, and hence allows her to do whatever degrading acts she wishes to herself for her own pleasure. She absurdly assumes a moralistic stance to blame the decent people who are disgusted by her acts. She is also a homosexual, and suffers from a crippling self-loathing. People who like themselves don’t act out fantasies of sexual degradation.

Reading the words of this poor, young morally crippled fool is a chore I will spare the reader. I am sure you can find her words through a thousand references on the Internet. I will provide no additional links or pingbacks or clicks-through to such sites. I will, nonetheless, mention the clear absurdity the words convey. She objects in the strongest and most morally elevated language, in fiery tones worthy of Tom Paine and Nathan Hale, that anyone should say demeaning things about her choice of playacting in scenes where she is demeaned. In other words, she enjoys being demeaned, but does not want anyone else to demean her. She is a masochist who does not want to be slapped.

This may be a bit of a rabbit hole, yet it is illustrative. Modernity is filled with people made of this material, the hypocrites (literally) who play-act and demand it be taken seriously and then decry those who critique the masks they wear. They are the men without chests, and perhaps worse, the followers of the faceless men who smell of the pit.

They are by nature iconoclasts, but only of fine and holy things, never of ugly and degrading idols; likewise, they are by nature romantics and idealists, but only of what is inhuman and loathsome. They hate happy marriages or heroism, but grow misty-eyed with deep emotion at the sight of Che or Mao lolling atop a mountain of corpses, and when they see the hill of smaller corpses of infants killed in the womb, they laugh and cheer and skylark, bright-faced and starry-eyed with rapture. So they have the same emotions as human beings, but merely reversed like a photographic negative.

 At this point, I've probably quoted as much as good internet etiquette allows without doing a more in-depth analysis or rebuttal. Please do go read the whole thing.

Actually, We're Pretty Much All "Born That Way"

There is an interesting opinion article on The Daily Caller about how the actual intellectual-scholars of LGBT(Q?) history states decisively that Nobody is "born that way." Most of these scholars are themselves members of the LGBT(Q?A?) communities themselves. An excerpt:

But scholars don’t think the ancient Greeks had a gay minority. Rather, that civilization thought homosexuality was something anyone could enjoy. In addition to a wife, elite men were expected to take a younger male as an apprentice-lover, with prescribed bedroom roles. The system was so different from ours that to describe specific ancient Greeks as gay or straight would show profound disrespect for their experiences, and violate the cardinal historical rule against looking at the past through present-colored lenses.

Another example in which evidence of same-sex relations has been misinterpreted to depict a gay minority involves 18th-century upper-class female romantic friendships. Even those women who probably had genital contact with each other in that context thought about sex, gender, and intimacy in such culturally specific ways that scholars have spurned the viewpoint (nearly universal among non-scholars) that any two females who wrote each other love letters and shared a bed were obviously lesbians.

Interesting reading, to be sure. However, there is another way of looking at it. The problem is not that some people are born that way and some are not. Rather, with some few exceptions [1] we are all to some extent "born that way." It's called "Original Sin" (or "the effects of the Fall"). In some cases, that leads to some proclivity (willed or not) towards the particular sin of sodomy (gay or straight), or towards illicit romantic involvements (whether between a married woman and a man who is not her husband, or between two single women, or two siblings, or a man and several women all of whom he attempts to wed). It could also be towards some other sin, such as gluttony (in particular, alcoholism) or sloth (for example, drug addictions).

And many of these other sins cannot really find licit satisfaction, either. Some alcoholics are so badly addicted that a single sip ends in drunkenness (and worse) every time. The kleptomaniac cannot steal even one purse, nor the man whose blood boils with wrath swing even one punch against a defenseless target.

Everybody is tempted by something. We all experience some kind of appetite or some passion or some desire which cannot be satisfied here. We all need temperance, and fortitude, and justice. We all need to die a little to ourselves, because we all have some desires which not only won't, but can't, be satisfied in this life.

----------
[1] The New and Old Adam and Eve.

Three Culture War Links: A Brave New World

Here are three quick links pertaining to the culture wars: I leave it as an exercise to the reader to see how they are related to each other.

First, on rights, responsibilities, and the idol of the idle.

Second, this post by Ross Douthat, which I am still working through myself. I do not agree entirely with Mr Douthat's assessment, by the way, but he raises a number of good points.

Third, this post about propaganda for the sexual revolution on Matt Walsh's blog (caution: some graphic content, NSFW). A key quote:

The results (of the social engineering in Huxley's Brave New World) were a society where people learned discipline and self-control. But tyrants do not want a citizenry with these kinds of characteristics. That’s one of the central themes in Huxley’s novel.

It’s terrifying to think of all the modern progressives who read this excerpt and nod their head in agreement with the Director. Huxley wrote Brave New World to be a nightmarish vision of a Dystopian future – they read it like a practical outline of their domestic agenda.

That’s why I chuckle whenever a radical progressive professes to have read and loved this book. It’s like they don’t realize that the entire thing is one long, stinging, merciless indictment against their ideology and worldview.

Such is where we are heading.

The Purpose of Public Schools

Once upon a time, public schools were established to ensure that we would have something resembling and educated populace. Increasingly, they are being used as just another laboratory in which to inflict the state- or union-approved ideology on students. The school may not be free, but they can ensure its free of education (with a few notable exceptions).

If that's not reason enough to make parents look for alternative option, a school in Wisconsin has come up with a new reason to homeschool. Children may have an older brother, but there's no Big Brother present:

A middle school in Marinette, Wisconsin got a group of 5th-8th graders together and organized a really fun game that asked students to step forward to answer “yes” to a series of highly personal questions...

I think we can all see how easily this could go sideways. This collection of information from unwitting children could be used to instigate social services investigations, to find out which parents are using their 2nd amendment right to own firearms, whether they’ve complied with Obamacare, what their lifestyle choices are, how they practice their religious beliefs, what the family’s political beliefs are, or to single out kids for forced medical or mental health treatment against the wishes of their parents. We need only look at all of the zero tolerance hysteria to see how quickly this could get out of hand.

Most kids don’t understand the greater ramifications of sharing this type of information, and that is exactly what the administrators are counting on. They are taking advantage of a relationship of trust between students and faculty, and exploiting that for their own purposes. So many things are illegal or illicit now that it’s impossible for a child to judge whether what he or she is saying will get someone into trouble.

I would ask "What could go wrong?," but that question only works if the possibility of something going wrong isn't at least a little intentional.

Repent or You Shall Be "Rehabilitated"

And by "Rehabilitated," I mean brainwashed. That's right, Oregon's Labor Commissioner (a.k.a. a rogue low-level employee of the department of labor in Oregon) is saying that the owners of the Oregon bakery which refused service to a gay "marriage" (isn't that still technically illegal in Oregon?) ceremony should be "rehabilitated." We are seeing Christianity and Christian morals slowly turned into something which is treated as a mental disease. God help us.

On Hitting Bottom: Some More Reactions

A couple more reactions on Joseph Bottom.

First, on the National Review site, J.D. Flynn gives arguably the most charitably kind piece I've yet read on this which still conveys a sense of taking the Church's opposition to "gay marriage" seriously:

If Bottum had pointed out only that the fight seems largely over, most Catholic leaders might have quietly agreed.

But Bottum didn’t stop there. Instead he said that “same-sex marriage might prove a small advance in love in a civilization that no longer seems to know what love is for.”

I don’t know whether Joseph Bottum believes that a falsehood such as same-sex marriage can advance truth, or charity, or goodness. I doubt it. His mind is too sharp for that, and too well formed. I do know that most Americans would agree with him — that same-sex marriage is here to stay. And that while we still argue, other battles — most particularly the irreducible moral battle over abortion — rage on.

Joseph Bottum knows that without a foundation of truth, laws against abortion are a faint hope. He knows that we order our common life to natural law in order to protect the unborn, and the disabled, and the elderly. That same-sex marriage will lead only to greater injustice.

He concludes that Mr Bottom is haunted by the apparent cries of those "hurt" by this fight, and so turns his back on it. He "tramples the fumie," that is, he turns his back on the good (if to him abstract) fight, which is to say that he turns his back on Truth (again, if abstractly). This is a mistake, though Mr Flynn conveys a sense of sympathy to those who are tempted in this way, and prays that we will not all be so tempted, or at least that we will not succumb to that temptation.

Meanwhile, Dr Edward Feser responds to Joseph Bottom's article.

If what Bottum means here is that the jurisprudential arguments that have won the day in recent decisions are obviously compelling ones, then as Matthew Franck says, this is simply a “howler.”  But perhaps what Bottum means -- given the qualifier “available today” -- is that the despotic legislating-from-the-bench that has become the trump card of even “conservative” justices like Roberts and Kennedy essentially makes a victory for opponents of “same-sex marriage” impossible.  Maybe so, and maybe not.  But such an argument would in any case prove too much.  It would “justify” caving in not only on “same-sex marriage,” but also on abortion, health care policy, and pretty much everything else.  It amounts to a recommendation that judicial despotism not be resisted if the despots are sufficiently ruthless.  What is conservative, Catholic, or even remotely sane about that? ...

He adds that the clergy sex scandals have undermined the Church’s moral authority on matters of sex anyway.  Perhaps Bottum would also have advised the early Christians to just lighten up and offer a little incense to Caesar -- the young people, after all, couldn’t see what the big deal was, and anyway all that martyrdom stuff was just making Christians look like fanatics.  Perhaps he would have told Athanasius to knock it off already with the Trinitarianism, since it was just alienating the smart set.  Besides, most of the bishops had caved in to Arianism, so that the Church lacked any moral authority on the subject.  And maybe Bottum would have advised the Christian warriors at Spain, Vienna, and Lepanto to get real and learn to accept a Muslim Europe.  After all, these various desperate Catholic efforts were, as history shows, a waste of time -- the Roman persecutors, Arians, and invading Muslims all won out in the end, right? 

But to be fair, those analogies aren’t quite right.  A better analogy would be Bottum suggesting that a little emperor worship might actually serve the cause of monotheism; or that giving Arianism free reign might advance recognition of the divinity of Christ; or that submitting to dhimmitude might be a good way of restoring Christendom....

As a famous non-American once said, no man can serve two masters.  And by Bottum’s own admission, people like his pal Jim aren’t likely to be satisfied with back-slapping bonhomie, or with the Church being a good loser.  They don’t want Catholics merely to quit the field.  They want them to obey -- to pay for contraceptives, to photograph same-sex “weddings,” to keep their opinions about sexual morality to themselves if they know what’s good for them.  If you’ll forgive more pop culture references -- perhaps the only “stuff we all still share” any more in this One Nation Under Compulsory Genial Tolerance -- Bottum starts by channeling Sally Field, but will end up on the floor alongside Kevin Bacon.

Also, this seems fitting for the occasion:

War Against Power and Principalities

It maybe old news, but I missed it earlier. That it's happening at all is bad. That it's being considered in San Antonio, in the heart of one of the reddest states in America, is downright scary:

In early August, the City Council will consider an ordinance to add “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” to the discrimination ordinances in the city code. The proposal would ban anyone that has ever opposed (“demonstrated bias, by word or deed…”) homosexuality from being involved in city government and/or performing a city contract/subcontract. The proposed ordinance provides no exemptions for religious beliefs on homosexuality, even beliefs expressed in Church.

They have since changed some of the wording, but there are still some remaining problems:

1. Ban on speech supporting traditional marriage and sexuality by board members and other appointed officials. (Sec. 2-252(b))
2. Men in the women’s restrooms and changing facilities. (Sec. 2-592)
3. Does not provide a free-exercise of religion exemption for places of public accommodation and will discriminate against (Christian) businesses that want to operate according to their religious faith. (Sec. 2-592)
4. Bans (Christian) businesses that refuse to add “Sexual Orientation” and “Gender Identity” to their companies’ nondiscrimination protections from working with the city. (Section 7)
5. Does not give Churches and other religious organizations clear protection in their hiring practices. (Sec. 2-550(b))

Yeah, not good. As an acquaintance put it, the Devil must be smiling at this set of ordinances. Another friend noted (concerning a different situation related to this same overarching issue) that this reminds him of the passage from Revelations in which all people who wish to interact with the market place must wear the mark of the beast. It's happened before under different guises (e.g. the persecution under Diocletian), and now it's happening again under a different guise:

I’m not an eschatological literalist (far from it), but I have to wonder if there might not be a bit of the “mark of the beast” in anti-discrimination law.  Consider this case of an Iowa baker who refused to provide a cake for a lesbian wedding.  Hate mail, a boycott, and a possible investigation by the state Human Rights Commission have followed.  Or this case, where Western Washington University has booted a Christian law school from participation in a law school information fair because the law school’s code of conduct prohibits homosexual activity (among other sexual sins).  This campaign against Christians is simple: regulate everything in a way that prohibits Christians from conducting business (or even administering charity) while following their faith.  Force Catholic pharmacists to dispense contraception (and Catholic universities to provide it), Catholic hospitals to perform sterilizations and even abortions.  Force adoption agencies to place children with gay couples.  Require businesses to participate in gay weddings.  Force teachers to promote homosexuality.  These are not distopian predictions about a slippery slope, these are reality, and they will get worse.  Professional certifications will be contingent upon approval of homosexuality.  The goal is simple, the economic strangulation of Christians.

Meanwhile, the occasional report surfaces about Christians in general and conservative Christians (Catholic, Evangelicals) in particular being classified as "extremists" and "potential threats" by our government. The two things are not unrelated, and they make apparent just why it is that our "surrender" in the culture war--and especially the specific issue of "gay rights" and "gay marriage"--will not result in our finding a culture which is suddenly more friendly to us. That logic only works if we assume that we are fighting against merely secular power and principalities.

The "gay rights"/"gay liberationists" movement is merely the guise under which this struggle is brought into the public sphere, and our opposition to this particular sin may become the pretext of eventual persecution. We've been there before many times, but removing this pretext won't really change the persecution. This is especially evident by the original intent in the ordinance, to punish "anyone that has ever opposed ('demonstrated bias, by word or deed…') homosexuality" (my emphasis). Surrender only works when the enemy will actually take prisoners and not mistreat them.

Brainwashing?

A N.I.C.E. neurologist from Oxford's school of hideous strength has proposed treating religious fundamentalism as a mental disorder.

She told The Times of London: "One of the surprises may be to see people with certain beliefs as people who can be treated. Someone who has for example become radicalized to a cult ideology -- we might stop seeing that as a personal choice that they have chosen as a result of pure free will and may start treating it as some kind of mental disturbance."

Taylor admits that the scope of what could end up being labelled "fundamentalist" is expansive. She continued: "I am not just talking about the obvious candidates like radical Islam or some of the more extreme cults. I am talking about things like the belief that it is OK to beat your children. These beliefs are very harmful but are not normally categorized as mental illness. In many ways that could be a very positive thing because there are no doubt beliefs in our society that do a heck of a lot of damage, that really do a lot of harm."

What she doesn't say, because this will only come later, is that this will then be turned from "child-beaters" and "terrorists" to simple Christians; as in, "those homosexual-hating bigots who refuse to accept gay marriage" and "those misogynistic chauvinists who refuse to support abortion and contraception." Eventually, "free will" becomes the enemy of the servile state, and while this lady does not outright deny the existence of free will, I suspect that she (and much of the rest of her field) has embraced a materialist's conception of man in which there is nor room for will. Right now, it's the child-abusers (the definition will be loosened eventually, when the time is ripe) and the Jihadists (eventually to include anybody who does not swear complete obeisance to Ceaser and his holy academics).
The real question is when we'll find a way to cure people of the brainwashing they receive first in the public school and then (more thoroughly) in the universities.

Quick Link: The Pro-Abortion Mindset

It's all about access to easy and consequence-free sex. Well, at least for some people (mostly guys, I won't call them men). Those hedonists are, believe it or not, the good pro-abortion activists. For others it's about a "Brave New Morality" of sorts, a morality in which we see the abolition of man (and woman), a morality which turns to mock worship of demons, under which real worship of the same can hide. Mockery, sneers, even attempts at self-justification and misrepresentation can be prophetic, too.

Follow-up Post: Sex Abuse and Blaming the Victim

In Friday's post, I wrote a  bit about a passage from Gene Wolfe's Pirate Freedom, noting that while I don't entirely agree with everything he says, he makes at least a couple of good points. Yesterday, I followed up with a personal story to illustrate the first point, which is that sometimes standing up for yourself (even "violently") does work.  The second is that saying this is not blaming the victim, which is what I want to write about today.

The "blaming the victim" card is akin to the "racist" and "sexist" and "bigot" cards, in that they are often played to silence the other side. "Blaming the victim" is often trotted out in discussion of rape (and other lesser forms of sexual assault)--it gets it most frequent play here. To be fair, there are cases in which it seems like the victim actually is being blamed (noon of these charges would ever derail a discussion if they were always plainly untrue). However, far more often it's when a genuine solution--or start to a solution, a necessary if not a sufficient component of the solution--is proposed which demands a change in behavior of the victims and/or the "bystanders" ratehr than the perpetrators.

Now, obviously, the perpetrator is the one hose behavior ultimately needs to be changed (at least curbed or checked). But "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure," as the expression goes. And in many cases, the prevention (and, really the cure) involves some social change on the part of the potential victims.

Note well the word potential. These are people who are not necessarily already victims, but who might conceivably become victims. The woman who walks alone at night in dark alleys is not necessarily ever victimized, either by kidnappers or rapists or muggers, but she certainly is a potential victim of these things. To some extent, the woman alone and not in a dark alley might also be a potential victim of these things: but which of the two women is more likely to be a victim of these abuses?

I will grant that in the perfect world, neither would be. I will also grant that we all desire such a perfect world, and that such a perfect world exists: in heaven, but not this earth. We live in this world and not in the perfect world. We have to work with what we have, not what we want to have, and so we must take such precautions as not walking down dark alleys alone at night.

Looking now towards the child-abuse crises, I tend to agree with Mr Wolfe that part of the solution is to teach boys from a young age to stand up for what is right. If this means that they must fight occasionally, even lose, so be it. When they choose at a young age to be victims, quiet victims, passive victims, then they are still victims. They are victims both of the perpetrators and of the "bystanders," who in this case are the people tasked with raising boys to become men: their parents. This means that while the particular abuser is primarily and formally to blame, the parents do share some blame in turning their children into victims, they have played some material role in making their children become victims.

It was never their intention that things would play out this way, and of course the vast majority of children are not abused in this way--either by priests or by school staff or by relatives or by "friends and acquaintances" of the family. Yet, by raising boys to believe that violence is the worst thing in the world, that they ought never commit violence even in the defense of themselves, they have raised a generation of victims, of boys who would permit violence of the worst kind against themselves without raising a hand or (often) even a voice in their own defense until much, much to late. They boys themselves are nothing but victims, and really can't be blamed: they were doing what they have been trained to do, and finding that what they have been trained to do is hopelessly inadequate when faced with sexual molestation. And, because they put up no resistance, even helpless resistance, their abusers would continue to strike again and again, thus creating more victims.

Educating children, teaching them virtues, teaching the boys the "military" virtues are all difficult tasks. But the alternative is to create not merely a generation of cowards or cads, but of victims. And that is a tragedy which cuts as deeply as the actual abuses suffered by these victims.