Robert George: The Days of Being a Socially Acceptable Christian Are Over

[JimG]

Yes, I agree that sixty years ago dogma fit right in with the era, not so much today. 1950+ was a very different time - television was just rolling out to the common man, most women were stay at home moms, even though many had worked during the War, there was no ABC other than condoms, you did not have a virtual computer in your hand where you could research claims immediately from many different sources, most people did not have college degrees since college was for the rich, etc… Most western Catholics do not believe the “party line” when It comes to contraception, so they are not afraid to vocalize their views on that subject.

I would add that most families did not have sons and daughters who were cohabiting rather than marrying, that out of wedlock birth rates were minimal compared to today. Artificial contraception has been widely rejected, and I would argue that that in itself facilitated the sexual revolution by separating children from marriage, leading to the whole gamut of sexual license, up to and including same sex marriage. The end result is the decline of the family, and the decline of social stability in the civilization as a whole.

 

[edwest2]

I would add that most families did not have sons and daughters who were cohabiting rather than marrying, that out of wedlock birth rates were minimal compared to today. Artificial contraception has been widely rejected, and I would argue that that in itself facilitated the sexual revolution by separating children from marriage, leading to the whole gamut of sexual license, up to and including same sex marriage. The end result is the decline of the family, and the decline of social stability in the civilization as a whole.

Yes, that was the end goal: destabilize a previous social order that, while not perfect, worked much better than the social disorder we have today. The points made by Mr. George:

Don’t be silent.

Speak up for those who cannot speak up for themselves, like the unborn.

Don’t feel comfort in accepting any anti-life and anti-family message being preached by the media and advocates today.

Reject the word “progressive” as it is used today. Death and decline in normal human behavior and the destruction of the family is a return to barbarism and “My will be done.” should not be in our thinking since God has laid out a plan in the Bible as to how we should live.

In pagan Rome, it was socially unacceptable to be a Christian. Be the salt of the earth, even if it’s mostly on forums like this one. Encourage one another.

Best,
Ed

 

[Solmyr]

Some serious corrections are in order. YOU - meaning the representatives of a small percentage of Catholics, who are ultra-conservatives, whose stance is somewhat to the right compared to the pope - are not being respected any more.

Not just by the population at large, but also by the moderate (you call them heterodox) Catholics. Yet, there is no persecution, no harassment here in the States. No possible candidate will automatically be discounted as a contender for public office if they declare themselves a Christian or a Catholic. The polls show that about 80+ percent of the population considers themselves Christian. And you think that the less than 20 percent is able to create an atmosphere where you are “persecuted”?

So, get real. No one persecutes anyone who simply professes to be a Christian. Fortunately this country was founded on the principles of equal treatment of all religions, and the non-religious alike. (Some of you gets upset about this.) Now, compare that with a possible atheist running for public office, who dares to declare his non-religion as part of his election process, and tell us, what chance that atheist has to get elected.

But there is no public harassment for this person either, though they don’t have a snowball’s chance in hell to get elected.

Get rid of your persecution complex.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Some serious corrections are in order. YOU - meaning the representatives of a small percentage of Catholics, who are ultra-conservatives, whose stance is somewhat to the right compared to the pope - are not being respected any more.

Not just by the population at large, but also by the moderate (you call them heterodox) Catholics. Yet, there is no persecution, no harassment here in the States. No possible candidate will automatically be discounted as a contender for public office if they declare themselves a Christian or a Catholic. The polls show that about 80+ percent of the population considers themselves Christian. And you think that the less than 20 percent is able to create an atmosphere where you are “persecuted”?

So, get real. No one persecutes anyone who simply professes to be a Christian. Fortunately this country was founded on the principles of equal treatment of all religions, and the non-religious alike. (Some of you gets upset about this.) Now, compare that with a possible atheist running for public office, who dares to declare his non-religion as part of his election process, and tell us, what chance that atheist has to get elected.

But there is no public harassment for this person either, though they don’t have a snowball’s chance in hell to get elected.

Get rid of your persecution complex.

Fully agreed, then. Persecution complexes don’t do anyone any good. Which is why they ought not be used to determine public policy in the way they have been used to determine “special classes” of people for the past 20-30 years in the “modern” western world.

 

[edwest2]

Fully agreed, then. Persecution complexes don’t do anyone any good. Which is why they ought not be used to determine public policy in the way they have been used to determine “special classes” of people for the past 20-30 years in the “modern” western world.

I agree. It seems that public promotion and “issue advocacy” by the media has resulted in laws for “special classes.”

Ed

 

[JimG]

No one gets in trouble for professing Christianity. They might get in trouble for practicing their Faith, though. Just ask the Little Sisters of the Poor.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Look with a dispassionate eye on America in the last 40 years and the changes in society, and then ponder this:

Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have."
2. "Never go outside the expertise of your people. When an action or tactic is outside the experience of the people, the result is confusion, fear and retreat… [and] the collapse of communication.
**3. “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy. **Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)
4. "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.”
5. "Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage."
**6. “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” **
7. "A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag. Man can sustain militant interest in any issue for only a limited time…"
**8. “Keep the pressure on, **with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose.”
**9. “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” **
10. "The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this unceasing pressure that results in the reactions from the opposition that are essential for the success of the campaign."
11. "If you push a negative hard and deep enough, it will break through into its counterside… every positive has its negative."
**12. “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” **
13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. In conflict tactics there are certain rules that [should be regarded] as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and ‘frozen.’…
"…any target can always say, ‘Why do you center on me when there are others to blame as well?’ When your ‘freeze the target,’ you disregard these [rational but distracting] arguments… Then, as you zero in and freeze your target and carry out your attack, all the ‘others’ come out of the woodwork very soon. They become visible by their support of the target…’
“One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angels are on one side and all the devils on the other.”

Sound familiar?

Saul Alinsky’s "Rules for Radicals’.

 

[HB11]

Like being fined for refusing a gay wedding cake? or a gay reception? or being forced to pay for abortion on a national health plan by a president who tells us we won’t have to have our consciences violated?

 

[edwest2]

Look with a dispassionate eye on America in the last 40 years and the changes in society, and then ponder this:

Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have."
2. "Never go outside the expertise of your people. When an action or tactic is outside the experience of the people, the result is confusion, fear and retreat… [and] the collapse of communication.
**3. “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy. **Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)
4. "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.”
5. "Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage."
**6. “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” **
7. "A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag. Man can sustain militant interest in any issue for only a limited time…"
**8. “Keep the pressure on, **with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose.”
**9. “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” **
10. "The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this unceasing pressure that results in the reactions from the opposition that are essential for the success of the campaign."
11. "If you push a negative hard and deep enough, it will break through into its counterside… every positive has its negative."
**12. “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” **
13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. In conflict tactics there are certain rules that [should be regarded] as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and ‘frozen.’…
"…any target can always say, ‘Why do you center on me when there are others to blame as well?’ When your ‘freeze the target,’ you disregard these [rational but distracting] arguments… Then, as you zero in and freeze your target and carry out your attack, all the ‘others’ come out of the woodwork very soon. They become visible by their support of the target…’
“One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angels are on one side and all the devils on the other.”

Sound familiar?

Saul Alinsky’s "Rules for Radicals’.

This is basic psychological warfare. The opponent must be told a few facts plus a lot of falsehoods, creating confusion, and, in some cases, acceptance of falsehoods. It usually takes a long time and a commitment by groups that have no apparent connection but follow and amplify the message. Wear the target down. If long arguments don’t work, switch to emotional insinuations. Again, the message is multilevel and comes from different places/persons.

In the end, know the truth and repeat it as often as possible.

Ed

 

[mikekle]

If you’re a Christian in the Middle East, China or Africa, yes you are persecuted.

If you’re a Christian in the US, people may disagree with you and even accuse you of nasty things, but it is hardly persecution. However it may not always be this way.

The bible warns us, eventually it will be a crime to be a christian, people are being killed for their beliefs in some parts of the world now, its just a matter of time before this happens in the US, the groundwork is being laid as we speak.

Ive always believed in the near future, society will in some way determine or make some kind of discovery, leading our ‘experts’ to call the bible and God into question, people will say its wrong and eventually be a crime to give credit for our creation to some ‘god’ of the bible, that was written over 2000 yrs ago…in short, people will discover their new ‘god’ and will look down on anyone who worships the old god.

Jesus himself said many would be tortured, imprisoned, killed due to his name in those times, to think that one nation would somehow be exempt from this is fantasy.

 

[vz71]

My experience is that wider society (culture) absolutely accepts and even longs for the Christian values that are at the forefront of our faith - love, charity, kindness, faithfulness, hope, beauty, patience, forgiveness, fellowship, etc… These things are not tiny. These things should be our witness.

The next time you are in a restaurant, pray.
And watch the reactions around you.

Then tell me people long for it.

 

[MacBP]

Get rid of your persecution complex.

I’m going to assume, and you’ll have to forgive me if I’m incorrect, that you probably identify as socially progressive. From my discussions with other socially progressive minded people, I’ve learned that it’s important not to try and speak about the experiences of others.

Let me give you an example. I am a Canadian, white, heterosexual man. From my vantage points, it’s hard to see how a homosexual man is, on the whole, persecuted. Canadian society takes great pains — at every level — to ensure that homosexuality is not only tolerated, but affirmed and celebrated. If you’re a public official, and you refuse to attend your local gay pride parade, you can be prepared to be tarred and feathered. Should any discrimination come your way, you can feel confident that the vast majority of Canadian society will “have your back”, and the source of your discrimination will suitably be tarred. In other words, the vast majority of the the political and social fabric of Canada celebrates homosexuality. So you might imagine that I’m skeptical when I hear the narrative of oppressed the LGBTQ+ spectrum. Similarly, I don’t really notice any systematic oppression of women or immigrants. Yet Canadian society identifies that women and immigrants continue to experience systematic oppression.

But here’s the thing: just because I don’t notice it doesn’t mean it’s there. Because I don’t have that lived experience, I can’t begin to speak to the experiences of those in the LGBTQ+ spectrum, women, or those who aren’t white. Consequently, it doesn’t really matter if I think those groups are oppressed because, quite frankly, identifying oppression takes an insider’s knowledge. If I were to say that that African-Americans have a persecution complex, I think that socially progressive minded people (likely including yourself) would dismiss that as being incredibly ignorant. And you know what? I agree. I can’t know what members of these group experience on a day-to-day basis, so I’m willing to listen and trust that that just because I can’t see oppression doesn’t mean that oppression isn’t there.

But this is where thing: shouldn’t be willing to extend the same privilege you give to the LGBQ+ community, women, African-Americans, immigrants, and every other protected class in the Western World to orthodox Christians? Why is that you can’t entertain the possibility that maybe, just maybe, orthodox Christians have a lived experience that you, as someone who isn’t an orthodox Christian, don’t have access to?

 

[Solmyr]

I’m going to assume, and you’ll have to forgive me if I’m incorrect, that you probably identify as socially progressive.

If a label is necessary, I would call myself a “libertarian” or “classic liberal”, someone who is fiscally conservative and socially liberal. But that is just a label, not particularly relevant here.

But this is where thing: shouldn’t be willing to extend the same privilege you give to the LGBQ+ community, women, African-Americans, immigrants, and every other protected class in the Western World to orthodox Christians?

I very strongly, vehemently support the same rights for everyone. I am very much against the “politically correct” differentiation among people. I am also against “hate crimes”, since there are no “love crimes”. In one sentence I can sum up my whole political philosophy: “the right of my fist ends where your nose begins”. Or let’s call it “live and let live”.

Why is that you can’t entertain the possibility that maybe, just maybe, orthodox Christians have a lived experience that you, as someone who isn’t an orthodox Christian, don’t have access to?

I don’t see a sign of discrimination. Of course I talk about the US here. I never heard of an instance when orthodox Christians were the targets of some violent behavior, when they were prevented from freely professing their faith. There are instances when practicing their faith clashes with the legal framework. But this limitation exists for everyone in the public sphere. If you would be a businessman who explicitly claims that he will only accept orthodox Christians (who establishes a closed, exclusive, private club for orthodox Christians members only), then you would be free to place whatever limitation you would like on the “rest of us”. There are instances for this, like the “Sam’s Club”. Only members are allowed there.

But if you run an open business, then you must follow the rules the society imposes on every business. Example is that bakery, which refused to create a wedding cake for a homosexual couple. They got what they deserved - and that was NOT discriminatory.

As a libertarian I would prefer an absolutely minimal government which only provides a framework for everyone to live as they please… with the all important caveat mentioned above about the fists and noses. But that is just a pipe-dream.

 

[Peter_Plato]

But if you run an open business, then you must follow the rules the society imposes on every business. Example is that bakery, which refused to create a wedding cake for a homosexual couple. They got what they deserved - and that was NOT discriminatory.

As a libertarian I would prefer an absolutely minimal government which only provides a framework for everyone to live as they please… with the all important caveat mentioned above about the fists and noses. But that is just a pipe-dream.

There is a direct conflict between your “absolutely minimal government” and “you must follow the rules the society imposes on every business.”

Why can’t business owners decide for themselves which products they choose to sell or not and the customers decide which businesses will get their support? That would be a truly free market. The only place for government is to insure that products are not being misrepresented, that fraud is not occurring and that goods being transacted meet a minimal standard.

I am not clear how being fined to the tune of $138 000 and losing a business for refusing to bake a cake is in any way “not discriminatory” AGAINST a particular viewpoint on what constitutes a marriage by the legal system. To claim they “got what they deserved” in no way seems “libertarian” nor does it demonstrate any preference whatsoever for “absolutely minimal government.” In fact, it seems to be advocating that the government has every right to meddle in the ability of individuals to think for themselves regarding moral considerations that impact important social institutions such as marriage.

Essentially, this is making it illegal to take a considered moral position that disagrees with the prevailing politically correct view. It isn’t as if the “gay marriage” side of the issue have cogently proved their position, they haven’t. They have imposed their own prejudiced views on others by coercion and this is one example of bludgeoning those who disagree by the imposition of an onerous toll merely for dissenting from the politically correct view.

This isn’t about fairly treating fists and noses, it is about a privileged few bloodying the noses of others by unfairly manipulating positions of power. Gay marriage didn’t exist as a law in Colorado at the time of the “cake incident,” so the “rules” had not been “imposed,” legally speaking, by “society.” Or are you insisting upon mob rule, now, as the way that society ought to “impose” its – meaning “the mobs” – “rules?”

 

[Solmyr]

There is a direct conflict between your “absolutely minimal government” and “you must follow the rules the society imposes on every business.”

There is no conflict. One is what I would LIKE to see, and the other is what currently EXISTS. And even that minimal government would have SOME laws, which should be enforced. Every government is based on force.

Why can’t business owners decide for themselves which products they choose to sell or not and the customers decide which businesses will get their support?

Even today that is possible. Let them form an exclusive, private club and cater for the members only. And state it on their doors: “Only good, orthodox Catholics are welcome here”. And if they are really courageous, they could place another sign: “Liberal trash stay out! Trespassers will be shot. If missed, prosecuted”. I would support their right to do it.

That would be a truly free market. The only place for government is to insure that products are not being misrepresented, that fraud is not occurring and that goods being transacted meet a minimal standard.

But that would also apply to the “exclusive clubs”. By the way, if you think that libertarians advocate truly “free market”, then you are seriously mistaken. No one seriously advocates the free market for weapons of mass destruction (there might be a few idiots, of course). And there are certain areas of society where the market does not operate. No one advocates that individual communities should have their own money printed, or have their local police with their own judicial system.

In fact, it seems to be advocating that the government has every right to meddle in the ability of individuals to think for themselves regarding moral considerations that impact important social institutions such as marriage.

They can think whatever they want to, just like the white supremacists can think that all those “N-word” are inferior sub-humans, but they cannot put their thoughts into discriminatory practice.

Essentially, this is making it illegal to take a considered moral position that disagrees with the prevailing politically correct view.

Oh, the poow KKK cannot pwactice lynching any mowe - accowding to theiw “mowal position”. My heart is just bleeding for them.

This isn’t about fairly treating fists and noses, it is about a privileged few bloodying the noses of others by unfairly manipulating positions of power.

That is what the ballots are for.

 

[Tablefor9]

…

They can think whatever they want to, just like the white supremacists can think that all those “N-word” are inferior sub-humans, but they cannot put their thoughts into discriminatory practice.

Oh, the poow KKK cannot pwactice lynching any mowe - accowding to theiw “mowal position”. My heart is just bleeding for them.

That is what the ballots are for.

Yes, that IS what ballots are for! Unfortunately, we now live in a society rife with judicial and executive activism, which pays no attention to the wishes of those in the ballot box. Americans spoke, clearly, in the ballot boxes. We SAID marriage was one man, one woman. What we have here is judicial overreach.

And–you didn’t just compare Christians to the Klan, right? Do you read your posts out loud before you hit submit?

 

[Solmyr]

And–you didn’t just compare Christians to the Klan, right? Do you read your posts out loud before you hit submit?

This might come as a surprise to you, but the members of the KKK were / are all Christians. Not Catholics, of course. But it is their dearly held moral conviction that black are inferior. Moreover, they can quote the bible to support it.

And you can only blame the Catholic church for not making a definitive, infallible teaching about the different chapters and verses of the bible. Anyone is free to take any verse, and interpret it according to their “considered moral code”. Even the KKK.

Fortunately they are not allowed to ACT on it… just like the ultra-orthodox Catholics are not allowed to ACT on their “considered moral code” vis-à-vis the gay marriage. Of course they are all free to believe otherwise and loudly proclaim their view. No one should prevent them from doing so. If necessary, the ACLU will come to their support. I will come, as well.

 

[Peter_Plato]

There is no conflict. One is what I would LIKE to see, and the other is what currently EXISTS. And even that minimal government would have SOME laws, which should be enforced. Every government is based on force.

Even today that is possible. Let them form an exclusive, private club and cater for the members only. And state it on their doors: “Only good, orthodox Catholics are welcome here”. And if they are really courageous, they could place another sign: “Liberal trash stay out! Trespassers will be shot. If missed, prosecuted”. I would support their right to do it.

But that would also apply to the “exclusive clubs”. By the way, if you think that libertarians advocate truly “free market”, then you are seriously mistaken. No one seriously advocates the free market for weapons of mass destruction (there might be a few idiots, of course). And there are certain areas of society where the market does not operate. No one advocates that individual communities should have their own money printed, or have their local police with their own judicial system.

They can think whatever they want to, just like the white supremacists can think that all those “N-word” are inferior sub-humans, but they cannot put their thoughts into discriminatory practice.

Oh, the poow KKK cannot pwactice lynching any mowe - accowding to theiw “mowal position”. My heart is just bleeding for them.

That is what the ballots are for.

In other words, you maintain your inconsistency “bolstered” solely by the bald assertion that your position isn’t inconsistent.

Well, okay, you do poison the well somewhat by bringing up the “poow KKK” as if that rhetorical flourish has anything at all to do with the point at hand except by the weird and tenuous connection between the two that appears to find endorsement in the far reaches of your imagination.

Recall that Obergefell v Hodges and Rowe v Wade have more in common with Dred Scott in that all three forced a prejudiced BECAUSE unsettled moral view on all citizens by legal fiat and coercion. None of these were settled “by ballot,” so apparently that isn’t “what ballots are for.”

In fact, it might be argued that the Democrats have no idea what ballots or representative democracy are all about because they continually strive to take the “representative” out of “democracy” by flooding constituencies with millions of “voters” who are not legitimate citizens. It might be asked, “Who precisely are Democrats striving to represent?” Clearly not bona fide citizens of the United States since they are working so hard at disenfranchising them.

 

[mikekle]

Yes, that IS what ballots are for! Unfortunately, we now live in a society rife with judicial and executive activism, which pays no attention to the wishes of those in the ballot box. Americans spoke, clearly, in the ballot boxes. We SAID marriage was one man, one woman. What we have here is judicial overreach.

Look how that turned out even when the voters spoke their mind, with the Prop 8 in CA, it was voted down, but was overturned…now, tell me how the people are in charge, or that voting mattered in the end? LOL

 

[Peter_Plato]

If necessary, the ACLU will come to their support.