Archive for ‘religion’

May 11, 2009

SCANDAL! A HETEROSEXUAL PRIEST!

Some of my Catholic friends may be shocked to discover that somehow a heterosexual made it through seminary and, indeed, there is scandalous photographic proof of his interest in women:

Father Alberto Cutie, known as “Padre Oprah,” the nationally known Spanish language television host, advice columnist and bestselling author of the book “Real Life, Real Love,” is creating quite a stir as he appears to be getting a dose of real love himself.
A Mexican magazine ran pictures of Father Cutie cuddling with a woman on a Florida beach and kissing her at a bar.
In an interview with the Spanish language network Univision, Father Cutie said that despite the scandal the photos have created, he doesn’t want to give up either his collar or the woman he loves.

Yes, you read that right: Father Cutie, which is actually pronounced “Koo-tee-ay.” When I saw the “Father Cutie” headline at Pundit & Pundette, I thought it must be a joke. But (a) he is kind of a cutie, and (b) the real joke is that this guy, who couldn’t be faithful to his own vows, was on the archdiocese’s radio show giving “relationship advice” to others.

Father Cutie is now reportedly considering leaving the priesthood. As I said at Taki’s:

Of course, conservative Catholics can expect a spree of columns pondering “what this means” for the celibate priesthood, whereas liberal Catholics will wax nostalgic for the “good old days” when priests molested altar boys.

Being a proud Protestant means there is no ecclesiastical hierarchy to blame when these scandals happen. Jimmy Swaggart? Jim Bakker? Ted Haggard? They were never my leaders, and their scandals were their own embarrassment.

Advertisements
May 4, 2009

The Demographics of Dhimmitude

DEMOGRAPHIC CRASH

April 25, 2009

Shhh! Don’t tell anyone!

“Large families collect comebacks to the question ‘Why do you have so many kids?’ and here’s one I once heard: ‘We’re trying to take over the world.’ . . . Let God plan your family and the world will be a vastly better place.”

April 23, 2009

‘Forbidding to marry’

Laura from Pursuing Holiness wrote a post at the Hot Air Green Room that inspired me to respond at great length:

Christians believe that marriage is an institution ordained by God, and every marriage is thus blessed. However, in ordaining marriage, God commanded man to “be fruitful and multiply.” This commandment has never been repealed or amended, no matter what any Malthusian population-control fanatic tries to tell you. One trend that has undermined marriage has been the rise of the Contraceptive Culture, which celebrates sterility as the norm and views fertility as a pathology requiring medical prevention.
How many Christians have embraced this false — dare I say, evil — worldview? How many young Christian married couples use contraception because “we can’t afford children now”? And how many married Christian couples have unwittingly subscribed to the Zero Population Growth ideal of exactly two children per couple? Did you know that surgical sterilization (tubal ligation) is the No. 1 form of birth control for American women? It’s the “two and tie ’em” mentality: Have exactly two children, then get yourself surgically sterilized. . . .

You should read the whole thing.

UPDATE: In the comments at the Green Room, Anna writes:

My husband and I were married at 21. . . .
What galls me is the anti-child atmosphere nowadays. We have 3 kids (including a set of twins), and we’d love to have another. We aren’t really in a position to have another right this minute, but the door is not shut. However, mention this to my (devout Lutheran) in-laws, and they rant about how they’ll kill my husband if I get pregnant, and how they don’t ‘need’ any more grandchildren. We even hear from other members of their church about how we’re too young to have so many kids – how are we going to pay for college/cars/etc for not only them, but for ourselves. We’re 26/27! How is that too young? There are only so many times that I can retort with “We’re old enough/it’s our family/you can take out loans for college, but not for retirement!” before I have to run to the bathroom to cry.

Anna, once you understand that their criticisms of you are actually a defense of their own decisions, this anti-baby attitude becomes more comprehensible. People can always justify their own behavior, and people who embrace the Contraceptive Culture typically display these attitudes. Negative conceptions of others — the “trailer trash” stereotype of large families — are a defense mechanism to enhance their own self-concept.

Believing that their way is the only way, they must necessarily believe that, by marrying young and having lots of babies, you are dooming yourself (and your children) to misery and poverty. The “how will you pay for college” question is meant to be the ultimate “gotcha.” My daughter’s working her way through college. Next question?

UPDATE II: More wisdom in the comments (here) from father-of-five Larry:

I cannot count the number of times we have been unintentionally insulted by well meaning, self-identified Christians, asking if we know what causes that (pregnancy) . . .

To which I always answer, “Yes, and we’re very good at it.” That shuts ’em up quick.

March 20, 2009

How long until Easter?

Cynthia Yockey was the Good Sapphic Samaritan last week, helping me maintain my Lenten vow (I’m a proud Protestant, but made a promise to a friend who is a notorious Catholic hypocrite), and now as further testimony that the Lord sends “angels unawares,” Katha Pollit adds her widow’s mite:

But [William Kristol’s] presence on the [New York Times op-ed] page reminded readers that David Brooks is not really what Republicanism is all about. Frankly, though, I don’t see why there must be two conservatives on the page.

I suppose I should also acknowledge that, via Rule 3, a hat-tip is owed to Matthew Yglesias, even though he couldn’t be bothered to read Atlas Shrugged before denouncing it.
Now, I have acknowledged to Cynthia that she is owed an apology, because when I responded at length to her dispute of my views on gay marriage, I ignorantly wounded her — an unintentional offense, yet an offense nonetheless.
Thinking that Cynthia was currently in a long-term lesbian relationship, I engaged in a hypothetical speculation on the possibility that, should she by misfortune become a “lesbian widow,” there would be no guarantee that her next relationship would also be lesbian. Whatever one’s orientation or your congenital predisposition, whatever your habit and custom, life is like a box of chocolates, and sometimes a chance encounter becomes a “pivotal life movement.” Not until many years later, wondering how you arrived at your present circumstance, do you look back and ask, “When did that road fork? Where did I turn?”

My intention was kindness, but the result was cruelty, for I did not know that Cythnia’s 20-year relationship had ended with her partner’s death — after a long, painful, debilitating illness — on Dec. 7, 2004.

Ms. Yockey has chronicled her devotion to Margaret Ardussi in a page that I promised her I would link. My oppressive patriarchal heteronormativity bids me speak, but as Smitty points out, “He that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding.” Therefore, Ms. Yockey, I pray only that my apology is sufficent and acceptable, as it is my continued hope ever to remain

Your most humble and obedient servant,

ROBERT STACY McCAIN
March 11, 2009

Insightful political commentary, etc.

Thanks to Smitty for the hard-hitting expose about Jesus and Elvis, plus moderating the comments, while I was out of pocket Tuesday evening. The man is owed cheeseburgers and beers for his labors, so hit the tip jar, people. (Second rarest sentence in the English language: “Thanks for picking up the tab, McCain.” Because of extremely low wages, newspapermen are cheapskate moochers, and I’ve eaten enough free food to alleviate Third World famine.)

Update blogging is in order:

Now, it’s time to address something that needs to be said: I naturally expect that, when I blog about gay rights/gay marriage in terms of God and sin and Anglo-American legal tradition, gay people are going to take umbrage. It is inevitable.

During CPAC, I met conservative lesbian Cynthia Yockey, and Miss Yockey gives me a very gentle and friendly Rule 2 rejoinder on my belief in biblical authority. (Note to self: Resist temptation presented by opportunity for brilliant double-entendre.)

As is my wont (and Miss Yockey can ask commenter Victor about this), I will avoid engaging the specifics of her critique, and instead focus strategically on holding more defensible terrain. To wit, refuting the routine slander that alleges that Bible believers:

  • Hate gay people.
  • Are ignorant of the reality of gayness.
  • Suffer from twisted sexual “repression.”
  • Lack familiarity with scientific evidence.
  • Wish to deprive gay people of their rights.

These are lies, Miss Yockey. And who is called “the father of lies”? ( Church Lady voice.) Satan!

Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
John 8:44 KJV

Miss Yockey, if you will read that chapter, you will find that Jesus spoke those words prophetically. The scribes and Pharisees, jealous of Jesus’ influence, were indeed already plotting his death. They kept questioning him, trying to trip him up so he would say something that would either justify his religious condemnation as a heretic, or else that would be seen as subversive of Roman authority and justify his condemnation for sedition.

John 8 begins with one of the most famous of these incidents, “the woman caught in adultery.” As everyone knows, Christ challenged the woman’s accusers, “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her” (John 8:7), and all of them walked away.

This woman quite literally owed Jesus her life. What transpired next?

When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

Romans 8:10-11

Jesus did not condemn the woman, but he nonetheless commanded her to “sin no more.”

Now, Miss Yockey, do not read that passage and think of yourself. Think of me. You have no idea how often I have cheated death. One night when I was 19, I consumed the better part of a half-gallon of psilocybin mushroom tea and tooted up a goodly amount of Bolivian flake cocaine.

Having started smoking pot as a 14-year-old, I’d done (and dealt) many drugs by the time I was 19. But psilocybin and cocaine I’d never tried and, as I did not realize at that time, I was under tremendous stress. My mother died when I was 16, I’d barely graduated high school, I’d goofed off so badly in college that I was on the verge of flunking out and — this was the real heavy one — my conscience was burdened with knowledge of my own sins.

By the time the psilocybin really kicked in, I had practically forgotten about that half-gallon of magic mushroom tea, whose effects I’d never before experienced. And as anyone who has ever done a lot of coke will tell you, that stuff makes you feel smarter than Einstein, a euphoria that borders on a sense of omniscience.

To say that I freaked completely out is to understate the case. I’ve always been about half-crazy, but for about 10 days there, I was 110% crazy, and when my older brother finally got me to the emergency room — oh, that was a wild ride — the doctor didn’t need to examine me much before he spoke those three fateful words: Nurse, Thorazine, please.

Recovering from that experience was a long, hard road, and I went so low that many doubted I’d ever recover, period. All that splendid talent, such once-promising genius, seemed destined to either institutionalization or else slumping along as a dim shadow of his former self.

However, people were praying for me, and people were willing to help me. I returned to college a year later, with only one last chance to make good or flunk out, and thus forfeit the full-tuition scholarship that the state of Alabama granted to the children of disabled veterans. My father had been quite nearly killed by German shrapnel while serving in France in 1944. (His Purple Heart and other medals hang on the wall beside my desk as I type this.) The merit of my father’s service had been rewarded with a scholarship for me — an opportunity I was on the verge of wasting.

I made Dean’s List that semester, my still-unstable psychological condition compelling me for the first time in my life to develop systematic study habits. It happened that one of my classes that semester was Introduction to Psychology, where I learned that long-term treatment with anti-psychotic drugs produces a debilitating side-effect known as tardic dyskinesia. So I weaned myself off the meds and, slowly, fought my way back to something like my old half-crazy self.

Now, Miss Yockey, I could elaborate at length all the miracles that God has wrought in my life over the past three decades. If you should ever see me write about angels, trust that there are angels, sent in answer to prayer, and “some have entertained angels unawares” (Hebrews 13:2).

“Go thou and sin no more,” Jesus said to the woman who owed him her life. Miss Yockey, if you think I’ve spent the past 30 years without sinning, you’re crazier than me. The apostle Paul once said, “Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief” (I Timothy 1:15), but if Paul was chief of sinners, I’m definitely part of the tribe. The only one of the Seven Deadly Sins at which I have not excelled is gluttony, being skinny by nature. (On the other hand, I’ve gained 25 pounds since my Speedo glory, and can’t resist a buffet, so I guess I’m a perfect 7-for-7 in the deadly sins.)

Last fall, I got an Instalanche for a post titled, “Is babe-blogging a sin?” And in all good conscience, I contend it is not. One of the happy blessings of advancing age is that my appreciation of beauty steadily becomes more aesthetic than erotic. (My extremely beautiful wife is skeptical of such assertions, with ample reason given the fact that she is the mother of our six children. The main reason we don’t have seven is that I manage to keep myself almost constantly in the doghouse.)

Make no mistake: Lust remains a real temptation, and quite dangerous, and I would hate to think that I was leading others to perdition by such silliness as “Sarah Palin bikini pics” or “Old School upskirt.” But if you think about it for two seconds, this is the Internet. Everybody reading this is one quick Google search away from as much raw porn as they want.

So if there are recovering pornoholics out there who need a little methadone to help them get off the heroin, a little Christina Hendricks is relatively benign. (Don’t you agree, Dr. Vodka?) If by happy accident that random porn-Googler finds himself reading a right-wing blog run by a homophobic hillbilly holy roller . . .

Miss Yockey, I don’t believe in accidents. I’ve been involved in too many conspiracies, and have been the recipient of too many prayed-for blessings (e.g., Mrs. Other McCain) to think that things “just happen.” The person who is reading this is no more reading it by accident than I am writing it by accident.

BTW, did I ever tell you about the time my 1973 VW Beetle went head-on into a pickup truck, and I walked away with nothing worse than a headache? One of many potentially deadly encounters I’ve survived. If you believe in accidents, how is it that I’m even here to be writing this?

Richard Spencer recently paid me the fine compliment of noting that, in my Taki’s Magazine columns, I have shown an ability to write about sex in a funny, engaging way that is not preachy or boring, as is most conservative writing about sex. Such is the tragic dimension of human nature and the decadent situation of contemporary culture that, it seems to me, we must learn to laugh about sex or else it will drive us to despair. Ted Haggard, Jim McGreevey, Mark Foley, Eliot Spitzer, the Big Sexy — oh, wait a minute. Never mind. Failure to send a promised box of Godiva chocolate isn’t all that scandalous.

My point is that sexual sin seems nowadays so widespread that even the most respected and eminent persons might appear in the tabloid sex-scandal headlines tomorrow. And whatever your sins are, or my sins are, or the Big Sexy’s sins are, the fact that they’re not splashed in 96-point type on the front of the New York Post doesn’t mean our sins are unknown. You know your sins, and I know my sins. And if we have sinned against others (which I most certainly have), then those against whom we have sinned are also aware of our sins.

Is there a God who is aware of all our sins? I believe there is, and I believe His judgment is far more to be feared — because it is eternal and righteous — than any judgment man can make. We are sinners in the hands of an angry God.

Now, at last, the gay thing. As I look at the clock just now, it’s 3:50 a.m. ET, and a couple of guys somewhere in Atlanta are strolling out of an after-hours disco, arm in arm, on their way to an eagerly anticipated carnal satisfaction. Sinners.

Simultaneously, however, it is 12:50 a.m. in Modesto, California, where a pimply teenage boy — with the assistance of a 4-pack of wine coolers — has finally gotten to third base with his girlfriend. Sinners.

To quote the American poet Bob Seger, they’ve only got one thing in common, they’ve got the fire down below.

Will you accuse me of “ignorance” or “hate”? You haven’t the slightest idea what I’ve known or who I’ve loved. (Or what I’ve loved and who I’ve known.) As for the charge that I am unfamiliar with scientific evidence, that can be easily refuted, if necessary. Everybody knows I’m not “sexually repressed.” More like irrepressible.

Ask my friend Michael Petrelis how much I hate gay men. Ask Tammy Bruce how much I hate lesbians. Ask Lynn Conway or Dierdre McCloskey how much I hate transsexuals. Far from wishing to deprive them of their rights, I will stand up for their rights — especially their First Amendment right to tell meddling politicians to go straight to hell, or their Second Amendment right to defend themselves against assault.

Miss Yockey, you have yourself said that I am irresistible, and you may have thought you were joking. But ask anyone who’s met my wife . . . well, she’s gotten better at resisting me, but it’s a difficult feat to accomplish. My late mother said that I could accomplish anything, if I ever put my mind to it, and please don’t tell me my mother lied.

The question of resistance, however, brings me to a conundrum that long contemplation has not resolved in my mind: Are “gay” and “straight” mutually exclusive categories? Would a Venn diagram show them as non-intersecting circles? Is Andrew Sullivan utterly incapable of erotic interest in a woman? Could Camille Paglia ever feel attraction toward a man?

I answer: “No,” “no,” “maybe,” and “it would certainly be nice to think so.” I do not doubt, Miss Yockey, that you and your partner are happy together. But if somehow you were to become so unhappy as to split up, or if by misfortune you were widowed (as it were), I would not automatically rule out the possibility that your next partner could be male. More amazing things have certainly happened.

Teenage dopehead psycho becomes notorious right-wing journalist with beautiful wife and six kids? Impossible.

My dear grandmother used to say that I missed my calling, and should have been a preacher. Well, if you miss one calling, you never know what the next calling will be. And if you ignore that one, and are called again . . . But God keeps calling and calling, like the finance company wanting to have a friendly discussion about my 2004 Kia Optima. And by the time you finally answer the call, maybe you’re so messed up that the only use God has for you is as a perpetually impoverished blogger. (Hey, it’s not His fault that I didn’t answer the first call.)

Well, it’s 5 a.m. now, and Mrs. Other McCain’s alarm clock is set for 5:30 a.m., so we’ll see how irresistible I am when I bring her a fresh hot cup of coffee. But if I’m not entirely irresistible, what about God? Can I resist God, Miss Yockey? Can you?

You did not read this by accident, did you? My original career goal was to be a rock star. I been bloggin’ all night, my hands are wet on the keys . . .

UPDATE 6 a.m. ET: OK, so it turns out I am resistible. But I did bring her the coffee and thought of something: Am I privileging patriarchal heteronormativity, or whatever they call it in Women’s Studies course nowadays?

Do I appear an arrogant chauvinist, to suppose that if Cynthia Yockey and her partner woke up this morning to find Brad Pitt standing there with two fresh hot cups of coffee, that they’d decide to have a Brad sandwich for breakfast?

Excuse me while I leave you to contemplate that scenario. As an old football junkie, my bet is that Brad would put it in the end zone, even if he didn’t make the two-point conversion.

UPDATE 6:10 a.m.: Just talked to Mrs. Other McCain again. Sly humor: “I don’t know!”

Trying hard to maintain family values while talking about baseball. Which reminds me that today the Braves play the Phillies in spring training. Who’s pitching and who’s catching? No, who’s on first! I don’t know! Third base!

UPDATE 7:15 a.m.: Professor Glenn Reynolds: “It figures this would come from a lesbian.” Ah, so two can play the old double-entendre game, eh? Well, back at ya, Professor!

Nothing says “family values” like ZZ Top . . .

I’m going to have to ask blogospheric neologian William Jacobson what to call it when the Professor sends me traffic via a carom shot off a lesbian blogger. Or perhaps Gunnery Sergeant Hartman will have some suggestions.

March 10, 2009

Evangelical collapse?

(BUMPED; UPDATES BELOW) I linked this in the headlines after seeing it in Hot Air Headlines, but wanted also to discuss Michael Spencer’s Christian Science Monitor article, which includes this point:

We Evangelicals have failed to pass on to our young people an orthodox form of faith that can take root and survive the secular onslaught. Ironically, the billions of dollars we’ve spent on youth ministers, Christian music, publishing, and media has produced a culture of young Christians who know next to nothing about their own faith except how they feel about it. Our young people have deep beliefs about the culture war, but do not know why they should obey scripture, the essentials of theology, or the experience of spiritual discipline and community. Coming generations of Christians are going to be monumentally ignorant and unprepared for culture-wide pressures.

Spencer does not mention Julia Duin’s important new book, Quitting Church: Why the Faithful Are Fleeing and What to Do about It, but it seems clear to me — if to no one else — that he’s read it. So I’ll begin by putting a mark against Spencer for failure to acknowledge his source.

There are many sources of the problems that Spencer (and Julia Duin) discuss, and the failure of churches to rigorously teach the Bible to kids is the nut of the whole thing. When I was a kid growing up in the Baptist church, “Sword Drill” was a big event.

“Sword Drill” took its name from Ephesians 6:17, where Christians are commanded to employ “the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.” So us kids were literally drilled in Bible memorization. I was by no means a good student, but some of it took, and the constant repetition of Bible study engrained in my mind — as I am sure it did with others — a solid core of biblical knowledge. It also developed a mindset that the Bible was an authoritative source.

This was reinforced during the sermons preached by Pastor Marion Beavers. If there are any others out there who grew up in Lithia Springs (Ga.) First Baptist Church back in the ’60s and ’70s, you know that “Preacher Beavers” (which was how he was addressed) was a first-class Bible preacher.

By the term “Bible preacher,” I refer to a sermon style that seems to have faded in the past three decades. The preacher kept the Bible in his hand, or open on the lectern, throughout the sermon. However he organized his sermon, it began with a reference to a specific biblical passage — the Verse of the Day, which was listed in the program — and was further elaborated with references to other verses.

“Turn with me now . . .” was a phrase repeated endlessly during the sermon. The people in the pews were expected to have their own Bibles and, as the preacher proceeded to cite “chapter and verse,” the people would turn the pages to follow his references and read for themselves. So, whatever the preacher’s eloquence contributed to the sermon, the people in the pews could see directly that his preaching was built firmly on a scriptural foundation.

He wasn’t just telling you his opinion, he was preaching the Word of God. The reliance was not on the preacher, but on the Bible, so if you subtracted the preacher from the equation, you still had the Bible to guide you. Bible preaching encouraged an autodidactic attitude in the congregation, so that the believer had a proprietary sensibility toward the Word: “This is my Bible, this is my God, this is my faith.”

The loss of that covenantal idea of mutual belonging — you belonged to God, and God belonged to you, and the Bible was an ironclad contract between you — is at the core of the evangelical decline that Julia Duin describes and which Michael Spencer sees turning into a “collapse” of American evangelicism.

We could talk about many other factors — e.g., the abandonment of the hymnal in favor of pop-rock “praise music” — but the shift away from old-fashioned Bible preaching seems to me the key factor in the waning of vital faith in many churches.

UPDATE: Linked at Memeorandum and Outside the Beltway.

UPDATE II: Linked by Donald Douglas, who notes:

Andrew Sullivan, in particular, has a number of posts up cheering all of this, for example, “The Young and the Godless,” and “A Coming Evangelical Collapse?
Sullivan blames these trends on … wait for it! … “Christianism,” of course.

I’m just waiting for Ace of Spades to take notice of this. Ace has never struck me as a particularly religious man, but if Sully is smiling, Ace is the man to wipe that smile off his face.

UPDATE III: Let me say a word or two in response to the anonymous commenter — the good ones are always anonymous, eh? — who said:

Good idea, get rid of contemporary music and bring in madrassa-style Bible drilling. That will bring in the young folk.

The anonymous idiot is not a parent, and has never studied developmental psychology. Four words: Children flourish under discipline.

If you know nothing else about dealing with children, you should try to understand this. My good teachers, my effective Boy Scout leaders, my winning football coaches, the choir, band and drama directors who knew best how to elicit superior performance — all of these worked with the understanding that discipline has positive value with children.

The failure of “seek-friendly” mega-churches is not an inability to “bring in the young folk,” but their unwillingness to apply discipline. After all, “discipline” and “disciple” are words of more than etymological affinity. You cannot build disciples without discipline. “Seeker-friendly” churches indeed attract youth, but they cannot retain them. They’re dealing Wonder Bread and Velveeta, when what the kids really need is whole wheat and red meat.

(Note: Anyone accusing me of going “crunchy” will be at risk of a punk-smacking.)

March 10, 2009

Gays. And marriage. And rights.

As an indirect result of my influence — I’m not “influential” in the Ross Douthat sense, but it’s not Easter yet, so I’ll drop it — Donald Douglas gets into a discussion of gay rights and political correctness with Little Mister Loser:

James Webb, of Brainrage, has asked of me repeatedly: “I’m just curious as to your views on gay marriage if one of your own boys wanted the same rights that many gays are now denied by yourself and others of your ilk.”

Now, you can go read the whole thing to get Dr. Douglas’s take on the subject. He should be thankful he’s got tenure, or he’d be fired for dissenting from PC orthodoxy and out here shaking the tip jar with the rest of us blogwhores.

While I claim to speak for no “ilk,” personally, I’m sick and damned tired of the transparent nonsense being peddled as “rights.” Judge Roy Moore got it right: An enormous and venerable corpus of Anglo-American jurisprudence classified homosexual activity as “a crime against nature,” having no legal sanction and certainly not constituting a “right.”

Yet scarcely five years after Lawrence v. Texas overturned Bowers v. Hardwick (a Supreme Court precedent that dated to only 1986) anyone who dares to question the existence of such a “right” is subject to vehement denunciation as a hateful troglodyte. We even have earnest young intellectuals telling us that gay marriage is “conservative,” despite any inkling of such an idea in the writings of Burke, Weaver, Kirk, et al.

A scam is being perpetrated, because too many so-called “conservatives” lack the necessary organs — two eyes, a brain, a spine, and a functioning pair of testicles — to tell the truth, no matter how unpopular the truth may be, or what the consequences of speaking unpopular truth.

Men and women are different. They were created different, designed with a natural complementarity, to fulfill specific life functions. There is a natural order to human life, and marriage between man and woman is part of that order. The legal status of marriage did not create marriage, but is rather a recognition of a pre-existing natural order — an order that was not created by human agency, but by the Creator.

The gay-rights movement would like you to believe that sexual behavior can be divided into two categories: Gay and straight. But according to the Creator, this is a false distinction. God divides sexual behavior into two categories: Righteousness and sin.

Righteous sex is the love between man and wife that creates human life, and which through that God-ordained intimacy knits together the couple in a permanent and exclusive union: “One flesh.”

Everything else — everything else — is sin. And this was once recognized by Anglo-American jurisprudence, which in one way or another imposed sanctions against every type of sexual behavior except between man and wife. But in the decades after World War II, in the name of “modernizing” the legal code, these sanctions were gradually repealed. “Sexual liberation” was the name of the game, divorce skyrocketed and the lawyers cheerfully liberated wives from husbands, liberated husbands from wives, and liberated fees from clients.

If “anything goes” was the prevailing legal spirit of the new order, so that people could hook up, shack up, break up and move on at random — well, in what sense was love between man and wife deserving of any special legal status?

American society stepped off the Solid Rock and onto the shifting sand, and it seems that no one — especially not young punks like our Brainrage blogger — even realizes that the old order ever existed, or what its fundamental principles were. “Conservatives” attempting to defend marriage tend toward citing sociological statistics, as if fundamental principles were a matter of charts and graphs.

To cite the most authoritative source — the Word of God — is to be accused of superstition, or of seeking to “impose your values” on others. But my values (or Dr. Douglas’s values, or anyone else’s values) are irrelevant. What counts is God’s values, and these are not subject to amendment or public opinion polls.

No one today has the courage to stand firmly on biblical truth, without the aid of any other authority or reference. Yet the disorderly debate over gay “rights” we see today is, in its own way, clear proof of the Bible’s authority:

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears.
I Timothy 4:3 (KJV)

The prophetic nature of the Bible is evidence of its authority, and if anyone wants to tell me that the successive disasters that have fallen on our nation in recent years aren’t just a wee bit apocalyptic in appearance, the Bible can answer that, too: Let him that has eyes, see.

“Straight” people don’t have any special dispensation to screw around willy-nilly and then point the finger of condemnation at gay people. You go into any church on Sunday morning and you know what you will see? Sinners. All of them, sinners. (“For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God,” Romans 3:23) The preacher in the pulpit, the soloist in the choir, the blue-haired old lady playing the piano — sinner, sinner, sinner.

There is nothing more ludicrous than a professed Christian pretending to be anything but a wretched sinner, whose only hope of salvation is the unmerited grace of God.

Well, now, you can laugh or you can cry about this. I prefer to laugh, and so I joke around a lot. But sin is a very serious matter, and the worse thing you can do about sin is to pretend that it’s not really sin. Call sin by its right name.

It recurred to memory a couple of hours ago, as I was writing an e-mail to friends, how this whole thing began with me trying to set up Clever S. Logan with Big Sexy. Think about it: There is no law that would forbid them from marrying tomorrow. Indeed, they could have been married many months ago. They have that right. So why aren’t they married?

Beats me. Maybe it has something to do with . . . sin?

It’s late. I’m tired. My beautiful wife is in bed, and I should turn off the computer and join her. I have that right. Too many people with itching ears have heaped to themselves teachers who tell them about their “rights.” They will not endure the sound doctrine that tells them about their sins.

And me? I’m just another sinner, too. Maybe not as bad as I once was, but still bad enough to deserve nothing but destruction. (“Sinners in the hands of an angry God” and all that.)

Still, even when I was hopelessly lost, there’s one thing I know: If I promised a girl I’d get her a box of chocolates, she’d doggone sure get that box of chocolates. What kind of miserable faggot would break a promise like that?

UPDATE: Welcome Cynthia Yockey readers. You might enjoy this response to Miss Yockey. It’s irresistible, isn’t it?

February 18, 2009

Atheist tedium

The boring irrationality of pure reason:

Atheists claim to value reason above blind faith and individuality above the lock-step certitude of religion. My own rejection of faith, I hoped, would allow me to indulge in wicked thoughts and pork-based dishes. I hoped I could, forever, avoid hallelujah get-togethers, groupthinky organizations and constraining labels.
Yet, these days, atheists are organized. They’re activists. They will probably sue you. They have become exasperatingly earnest, hopelessly serious and unnecessarily pushy.
They have, in other words, become as tedious as Joel Osteen. And there are few greater sins.

Ouch. Read the whole thing by David Harsanyi in the Denver Post.

February 11, 2009

The Hasidic pornography defense

Somehow, I don’t think his First Amendment rights are going to help him here:

NEW YORK – A Spring Valley man accused of having sex with underage girls claims his religious beliefs prevent him from viewing sexual photographs and helping his own defense.
David Silverman, 21 at the time, is accused of having sex with three Westchester girls during a day of debauchery in Manhattan in March 2007, authorities said. . . .
Silverman is accused of not only having sex with the girls, but also taking photographs of them having sex with other men, according to the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office.
But because he later returned to being an ultra-religious Hasidic Jew, Silverman won’t look at the photos, his lawyer, Israel Fried, said yesterday. . . .
A grand jury indictment accuses Silverman of having sexual intercourse and oral sex and of committing other sex acts with three girls – two 15-year-olds and a 14-year-old. . . .
Silverman and another man are accused of picking up the girls on March 23, 2007, in Westchester and driving them to a building near the Javits Convention Center on 34th Street.
A third man joined them, and they are accused of getting the girls drunk on alcohol.
Silverman and the other men were accused of having sex with each girl, with digital photos being taken, Kushner said.

OK, so three guys have a pornographic orgy with three jailbait girls, and one of the accused refuses to look at the evidence because he’s a born-again Hasidim. Just when you think you’ve heard everything . . .