Saturday, December 17, 2005

Level of Discourse, Part IV

When we first started MassResistance, we included a little personal touch in our profile, noting that one of our favorite authors was George Eliot. After a few weeks, we decided to keep this blog issue-centered, and remove personalized information. Well, one of our "lurkers" apparently had noted this favorite author...

And recently, this person sent us an email, printed below -- which they signed "George Eliot". It's typical of the pseudo-"respectful" stuff that gets sent. But in fact, it reveals the obsession that the homosexual community has about this subject. We also include the response to "Alias George Eliot" from one of our contributors, John.


I am contacting you with regard to your blog, MassResistance. You recently noted your dissatisfaction with the level of discourse of your opponents, and cited this as a reason not to open your site to comments. As such, I am addressing some specific aspects of your most recent posts in the hopes that you really are as reasonable as you purport to be. I can only assume that if you are truly intent upon rational discourse, you will answer my inquiry with forthrightness and respect.

First, I want to address your latest post, which makes reference to the "crystal clear" connection between pro-choice groups and pro-equality groups. You state that this connection exists, but you never explain how or why. Moreover, the links you provide do not contain any explanation of this connection. As an individual who is both pro-choice and pro-equality, I can state that I do see a connection--respect for the individual and a belief in self-determination. To me, these are the beliefs that are at the heart of both movements. I suspect, however, that the connection you are drawing is very different from mine (as evidenced by your false syllogism of "culture of death = abortion + homosexuality"). What is this dangerous connection that you have discerned? Aside from pointing out that some feminist groups support marriage equality, what evidence do you see?

You next report a story about hate speech in Sweden, and threaten that this trial portents the end of religious freedom in the United States. Frankly, I cannot see any connection between the two. I know that you are aware of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, because I have seen you laud its protections in your blog. As such, I don't believe you can, in good conscience, report that the end of religious freedom is nigh. You know as well as I do that all political speech, including hateful speech, is protected by the First Amendment. It is only when that speech encourages, incites, and results in violent acts that it may be prosecuted. Following this to its natural conclusion, it means that no preacher or priest in the U.S. could be tried for hateful speech unless that speech directly advocated violence. Certainly you would not defend a priest who specifically instructed his congregation to commit acts of violence against homosexuals in the name of the Lord. (I attended sixteen years of Catholic schools, and could therefore identify scores of Biblical passages which call for the love, respect, and forgiveness of one's opponents.) With this being the case, I simply don't see what it is that you fear.

In this same vein of religious freedom, I note a distinct tone in your blog which seems to hold that, because your interpretation of the Bible condemns homosexual acts, homosexuals in Massachusetts do not deserve equal rights. Clearly, religious freedom is very important to you, and rightly so. The separation of Church and State is crucial to this nation's democratic structure. However, the same First Amendment which guarentees your freedom to worship as you see fit, *also* guarentees that citizens of this country will not be governed by the strictures of any one of this country's many religions. How is it, then, that you will accept only the first portion of the First Amendment (the portion which protects you), and reject the portion which protects the rest of us from establishment of a governmental religion? Do you not see, as I do, that the right to religious freedom necessarily includes the right to freedom from someone else's religion? You believe the edicts of the Catholic church which condemn homosexuality. This is your right, both according to your conscience and according to the Free Exercise Clause. However, homosexual individuals also have the right not to be governed by your interpretation of the Bible.

Lastly, I noted a discrepancy in your discussion of the media's treatment of Catholicism. For instance, on November 21, you criticized the Boston Herald for failing to challenge the Catholicism of certain individuals. You seemed to state that you believed people who encourage respect for homosexual individuals could not truly call themselves Catholics...and you expect the Boston Herald, a mainstream periodical, to enter into a theological analysis of what it means to be Catholic. Yet, on November 28 and 29, you criticized the Globe and Herald for--in editorials--"challenging the Archbishop on Catholic doctrine." Even if this characterization of the editorials were correct, I don't see how you can hold this position. One week you tell Herald that it's not wading deeply enough into Catholic dogma, and the next week you criticize it for doing that very thing. This position is untenable. Moreover, your discussion makes me wonder whether you realize that the Globe and the Herald are not, in fact, Catholic organizations. Perhaps you mistakenly believe these newspapers to be mouthpieces of the Catholic church?

I am genuinely interested in your responses to my queries, and I hope that you will reply with the same amount of respect with which I have addressed you.Thank you for your time.

MassResistance understands that it is the Catholic Church as an institution which defines Catholic doctrine -- not the Boston Globe, the Boston Herald, Mayor Menino, or homosexual activists. Our friend John responds to "George Eliot" in more detail:

You have not signed your name or given a town of residence. You select an alias for reasons that we both understand to have sinister intent. Thus, you mock your own posture of "forthrightness and respect." Why waste my time with non sequiturs and hypocrisy?

Your love of "self-determination" stops short of human infants in their mothers' wombs, whom you arbitrarily de-humanize as if you are some sort of divinity or as if the burden of proof of its humanity is on the baby in the womb. Your claimed dedication to "self-determination" also does not stop you from endorsing forced indoctrination of other people's children into your worldview, your politics, your ethical nihilism and your sexual and moral suicide.

Religious freedom? Freedom of speech? A person of your interests cannot be unaware that in countries such as Canada, with laws similar to ours, a modern update of an ancient, relentless and militant homo-fascism has settled over the land and people are dragged before neo-Stalinist "human rights tribunals" to be punished for uttering "homophobic" religious speech. Is anyone threatening to criminalize your views? To force public schoolchildren to accept my views? Are major corporations and universities and government agencies firing and disciplining people for pushing homosexuality? No. It is my views that are routinely punished in these places.

You know well that this is the exact purpose and effect of your thinly disguised "hate crimes" legislation and politically-correct corporate and university policies. Can you deny the joy that this repression gives you? Can you deny the thrill you feel that multiple portions of the Massachusetts state constitution have been quietly suspended in order to create the illusion that homosexual "marriage" -- a contradiction in terms if ever there was one -- is now "legal"? Can you deny the thrill you get by knowing that breaking into the home of a leader of the Resistance causes children to fear for their safety?

And, "respect for homosexual individuals"...? Hmm, if you can't avoid the cheap rhetorical trick of equating "respect" with total ideological, political and moral surrender, then you really need to grow up and look in the mirror. Since you have not surrendered to my views on these issues your own logic makes you a bigot, a hater, and a fanatic, right?

And we both know you're beyond the pale with this claim: "One week you tell the Herald that it's not wading deeply enough into Catholic dogma, and the next week you criticize it for doing that very thing. This position is untenable."

No. Actually, it's not untenable, as you know. We do have to take for granted that you can see the hypocrisy in a newspaper which:
a. by avoidance of the flagrant theological contradictions, intentionally provides cover for self-proclaimed "Catholics" who aggressively subvert Catholicism;
b. suddenly ventures into theology and doctrinal questions only to distort and to be a mouthpiece for those whose passion is to hijack the name and institutions of Christianity for a "religion" that Caligula and Nero would endorse.

So the untenable position is yours, as we both know. You applaud the Herald for "wading into church dogma" to condemn -- by transparently false logic -- those whom you hate, but you applaud the Herald for avoiding dogma when it would expose your heroes as using pseudo-Catholicism to destroy Catholicism.

And try to make sense of the non sequitur in this beauty (you wrote it): "...scores of Biblical passages which call for the love, respect, and forgiveness of one's opponents. With this being the case, I simply don't see what it is that you fear."

Okay, so, one more time: How do Christian love, forgiveness, and respect magically get reasonable people to agree with you and start pretending that your agenda is no threat to democracy and to the moral development of children? Are there no steps in between, like you respecting those who (without hating you at all) objectively regard your choices and your worldview as tragically dysfunctional? Before demanding more "respect", shouldn't you demand an end to forced indoctrination of other people's children into blind acceptance of a lifestyle that shortens men's lives by twenty years on average? Shouldn't you demand that fundamental changes in law and society be implemented, if at all, without striking down a constitution and the right of self-government? If not, then you admit to endorsing the fascist route to power.

You have still more writing to be ashamed of: "Perhaps you mistakenly believe these newspapers to be mouthpieces of the Catholic church?"

No, we both know they are mouthpieces for moral nihilism and increasingly for authoritarian repression of the religious foundation that provides the only philosophical soil for inalienable, God-given human rights. Buy and read David Barton's book "Original Intent" before you talk silliness about the First Amendment and what it means. You owe all of your rights to the Christian tolerance (the authentic kind) that produced modern democracy. "Original Intent" will be a revelation to you, if you have the guts to read it.

All of the political values that you claim to honor are not only manifestly contradicted in your politics, but as even Marxist historians admit, are rooted firmly in a political culture that could only have arisen from Biblical Christianity -- which you seek to banish by progressively outlawing its public expression, brainwashing all children against its moral code and by diluting it from within through dishonest claims of alternative "interpretations" of scripture. Language is not infinitely malleable -- nor is reality.

As for equal rights, the rights of homosexuals do not extend to imposing on children a freakish, revolutionary kind of childhood that all psychological, sociological and pedagogical evidence reveals to be contrary to their innate needs. No honest person denies that every child needs one father and one mother. If you can't handle that, please don't bother writing any more. Surely there is some aspect of your social, sexual, theological, political and constitutional revolution that you have doubts about. Surely. If not, then an intelligent mind is going to waste for the sake of a cause that is consuming your conscience.

Peace, not hatred,