06/26/2015
...as the course goes on, the movement becomes centrifugal; we rejoice in our abandon and are never so full of the sense of accomplishment as when we have struck some bulwark of our culture a deadly blow.
—Richard Weaver, Ideas Have Consequences
No way to delay
That trouble coming every day—Frank Zappa, "Trouble Every Day"
A Sad Day
Posted by: Louise | 06/26/2015 at 02:59 PM
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/you-will-be-assimilated_969581.html
Posted by: Mac | 06/27/2015 at 05:03 PM
"It is also interested, quite keenly, in punishing dissenters. But the ambitions of the movement go further than that, even. It’s about revisiting legal notions of freedom of speech and association, constitutional protections for religious freedom, and cultural norms concerning the family. And most Americans are only just realizing that these are the societal compacts that have been pried open for negotiation."
I can't remember if I had included this three-part series in my Belloc post.
But the title is similar
http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/1007/1007bellocutionp3.htm
"In a benevolent society, the government would follow the higher authority of God in writing its laws. Our own Founding Fathers recognized this as the make or break factor in the success of our Republic, but our leaders have abandoned divine providence in favor of a man-made utopian scheme that hates all that we Christians love. It is Antichrist. And the persecution has just begun."
Those pollyanna orthodox Catholics, who are not too worried by any of this, have no idea just how bad things could get in the West for all of us. I don't think we should be cowering in the corner, but I'd rather face the likelihood that things will become even less civil than they currently are (and perhaps very violent). I'm all for evangelising and being kind etc, but that won't stop the Totalitarian Regimes that are on the verge of taking over.
Posted by: Louise | 06/27/2015 at 06:43 PM
I don't disagree with that assessment. In fact I'd say it's a certainty that things will get less civil. Beyond that, who knows? It could go many different ways. I tend to think it will be a process of marginalization, rather than actual suppression. There will certainly be an attempt real soon to deprive Christianity of its traditional tax exemptions and other prerogatives. I don't know what the outcome will be, but I'm, again, certain that if the churches win the first round there will be many more to come. These people are deeply committed.
Posted by: Mac | 06/27/2015 at 07:03 PM
"Beyond that, who knows? It could go many different ways. I tend to think it will be a process of marginalization, rather than actual suppression."
Yes, I think that is more likely.
Posted by: Louise | 06/27/2015 at 09:15 PM
Mac I sent you eb white as an email. That eare some typos because I write half of it on my phone
#charlesdegaull
Posted by: Grumpy | 06/28/2015 at 03:18 AM
Ooh, I'm looking forward to EB White!
Posted by: Robert Gotcher | 06/28/2015 at 08:20 AM
Thanks, Grumpy! I was not expecting that. That gives me another week to finish my Ross Macdonald piece.
Oh by the way, to any and all who are contributing to this: you may have noticed that sometimes I add graphics when I post them and sometimes I don't. This is partly a matter of time and partly just whim. In general I like having some kind of image to accompany these. So if you have one or two you'd like to include, send them to me. If they're on the web you can just send me the link. They work best if they're sort of medium-sized--somewhere in the range of 300-800 pixels on a side.
Posted by: Mac | 06/28/2015 at 10:17 AM
A Tweet by VP Joe Biden's wife on the day the decision was handed down:
Joe is running through the halls with a rainbow flagged tied on like a cape high fiving everyone. #MarriageEquaility #LoveWins #SCOTUS"
So disturbing, on so many levels.
Posted by: Marianne | 06/28/2015 at 10:59 AM
Oh, dear. Apparently that was from a parody Twitter account. Sorry. That'll teach me to Google something before falling for it.
Posted by: Marianne | 06/28/2015 at 11:04 AM
It's hilarious. And believable.
Posted by: Mac | 06/28/2015 at 02:00 PM
Can we on some level be happy for people who have rights that were denied previously, and not concern ourselves with political issues?
Posted by: El Gaucho | 06/29/2015 at 07:46 AM
It's kind of hard, EG, when we don't believe that they were denied their rights, when we think that the result will be deleterious to them, and when our rights are almost certainly going to be denied as a result.
AMDG
Posted by: Janet | 06/29/2015 at 09:28 AM
On the other hand, I don't want to attack anyone, and I haven't been saying much at all because I can't see how it will help.
AMDG
Posted by: Janet | 06/29/2015 at 09:35 AM
It's like saying that we should be happy because they got the right to jump into a volcano.
AMDG
Posted by: Janet | 06/29/2015 at 09:53 AM
"...and not concern ourselves with political issues?"
But this IS a political issue, an enormous one. We didn't make it one. The effects are going to be huge. Just to pick one thing, tax exemptions for religious charities are unlikely to survive, which will have a huge impact on charitable work. This is quite knowingly part of an attack on the role of Christianity in our culture.
Posted by: Mac | 06/29/2015 at 10:02 AM
"It's kind of hard, EG, when we don't believe that they were denied their rights, when we think that the result will be deleterious to them, and when our rights are almost certainly going to be denied as a result."
Exactly, Janet.
Calls to scrap the tax exemptions were made within the first 48 hours.
Also, the White House has never before had colours splashed onto it. Not even the red, white and blue.
Sounds pretty political to me and rather huge.
Posted by: Louise | 06/29/2015 at 12:29 PM
EG, as I read around the internet it occurs to me that you might not have been talking about the right to marry per se, but about the other rights that people are concerned about, such as hospital visitation and the right to inherit. Well, I'm not at all opposed to stuff like that, but it could have been achieved by other means, and by linking those battles to same-sex marriage, you eliminate other people, e.g. single celibate adults who have lived together for a long time, who should probably have those rights too.
When I say they don't have the right, I mean the right to marry a person of a same sex. It's not even a question of that being a right. It's not even a possibility.
AMDG
Posted by: Janet | 06/30/2015 at 09:29 AM
"not even a possibility". Not very long ago that would have been obvious to everybody. Now it's hate speech.
Posted by: Mac | 06/30/2015 at 11:45 AM
Yes. Brought to you by the marvelous 21st century when intent means nothing and perception means all. ;-)
AMDG
Posted by: Janet | 06/30/2015 at 11:51 AM
And words mean what the Supreme Court says they mean.
Posted by: Mac | 06/30/2015 at 04:25 PM
Humpty Dumpty.
Posted by: Janet | 06/30/2015 at 04:32 PM
That is so true it scares me to death. On Monday night I was having dinner with wonderful Catholic women, who are all very knowledgeable in the Faith and yet one spoke of a homosexual she know as being "married." I said it's not a marriage. she said that legally it is. I said that no matter what the law calls it, it is not a marriage.
That's disturbing.
I have a homosexual family member. If he ever "marries" I will certainly not attend the fake wedding, nor call his lover (I refuse to use the word "partner" either) his "husband."
Posted by: Louise | 07/01/2015 at 10:07 AM
Actually, even "lover" doesn't work for me.
Posted by: Louise | 07/01/2015 at 10:45 AM
It's probably futile for us to say it's not marriage. But I just put up a post suggesting that people will inevitably find a way of referring to actual marriage. There's only so much the law can do to control language.
I really don't know how we should handle personal situations like that. But back when the "God hates fags" nuts first appeared, a friend of mine said that the first thing a Christian should ask himself in dealing with homosexual persons is "Is what I'm saying likely to bring that person closer to Christ?" That doesn't give you a specific answer, but it's a good rule of thumb.
Posted by: Mac | 07/01/2015 at 06:22 PM
Grim humour on twitter today:
"When a gay marriage ends, how will divorce court know who's life should be ruined?"--
Anti-feminist Comics
Posted by: Louise | 07/02/2015 at 11:40 AM
Actual statement (as best I remember it--it was several years ago), not as far as I could tell intended to be funny, from a lawyer:
"Gay marriage will be good for us, but the real money will be in gay divorce."
Posted by: Mac | 07/02/2015 at 02:13 PM