Cretin Part Deux

Now we have our own near-Clueless-length post on the matter. Observe:

Phil linked to Dawn's, uh, statement? on her self-described "moderate" views.

Let's go find the most amusing sentences. Well, maybe those that are most amusing to us crazy-ass secularists.

"This is a typical tactic of secularists, angry leftists, libertarians, and others who attempt to use their own sense of moral superiority against those who take a principled moral stand. "
Our lead-off is this remarkable example of self-parody. I am reasonably confident she has no idea what she's just said.

"He takes the most far-out, "God Hates Fags"-type counterdemonstrators, and parades them as though everyone who opposes homosexual marriage must be like them."
Yeah, and the right would NEVER do this. ;)

"In fact, a recent poll showed that 20 percent of white evangelicals support civil unions"
Holy Cow! A whole 20%? Feel the love, everyone. At least from the 20%. The other 80%, maybe not.

"I personally would not oppose civil unions for homosexuals. Morally, I object to them very strongly. However, I am willing to allow them because I believe it is impossible at this point in time to turn back the tide of homosexuals wanting certain legal rights. "
No other reason? Just that one? You're just goin' with the tide? I can't be sure of what Christ would say about that, but there's gotta be something, somewhere.

"Marriage is society's model for the highest form of a human relationship—the two-parent family. Were the government to sanction any kind of "marriage" other than that between one man and one woman, it would send the message that marriage is only about with whom or with what one has sex."
The highest form. Wow. Didn't know that. Um, so why exactly? What part of regular, plain-ole straight marriage makes it the highest form? The parenting bit? This tells us what Dawn is really thinking, see? She doesn't feel that there is anything to a homosexual relationship other than sex. She said it. Right there.

"There's a reason why murder is a crime even when the person murdered is not a productive member of society. "
Even when? But it's almost not a crime? Me for the not understanding! Me not understand!

"Two men plot a murder and, just in case they get caught, they get "married" first. "
Oh, please. It's called the Fifth Amendment; go look it up. At least until we have Patriot Act III, and we lose it, on account uh terrur.

"Note also the hatred in Dennison's language, his reference to "the good Jesus People." Again, he's using the timeworn secularist tactic of painting anyone who disagrees with him as being hate-filled, while he is a kind and loving person who only has righteous anger. "
Allow me to further qualify precisely how we actually dofeel, Dawn! We do not think you are filled with evil. Rather, we recognize that you are filled with a gooey, Walmartish sort of self-righteousness, the kind that is most often found amongst those who have succeeded in surrounding themselves with large numbers of sufficiently like-minded persons, and have therefore not been challenged by intolerance, or often even had it pointed out to them. But maybe Dawn has a gay friend! Cluckity cluck -- too bad for him. She's trying to save a country here, dammit!

""Pray Until Something Happens."
Too good to pass up! Make up your own caption. ;)

"People like Phil Dennison—and I'm only singling him out because he put his views out there for all to see—subscribe to a relativist rationale, where liberty means pleasure to the exclusion of responsibility and truth. That is exactly the philosophy against which our Constitution was created to protect us."
Boy, do you ever not get America, babe. Liberty means that I get to decide, for myself, what pleasure and responsibility and truth are. We don't take Judeo-Christian (pick a denomination, any denomination) fundamentalist mores and hold them up as an ideal.

My ideal American is someone who keeps his religion to himself, carefully considers his actions when those actions impact others, takes political positions based on an honest balance of fact and opinion, and has at least a vague sense of why those who sacrificed themselves to create a country and society where individual freedom is paramount, and happiness (pleasure, if you will) is to be pursued.

Here is the great truth that Dawn just doesn't get, and why the tyranny of the majority is something responsible citizens must protected everyone against: Only 3% of the population of this country is gay. Just leave them alone. Stop your demonstrations, stop your hate, stop your attempts at "conversion", at "fixing", at all that crap. Just stop. Go away and find something else to do.

I think that a religious conservative's lack of respect for personal dignity and responsibility stems from their conviction that no such safe haven exists; that God judges all, and that judgement extends through individual actions to the judging of society.

You either believe in equality or you don't. Dawn believes in equality where it benefits her, or is convenient for her belief system, then reserves the right to draw whatever moral lines she pleases. That insidious self-righteousness is precisely one of the evils that the constitution is intended to protect us against; it becomes particularly and overtly dangerous when it seeks enforcement through law.

I can't help but feel that with a large percentage of the population out there being ready and willing to impose their morality on a small, hunted minority we must find a way to take power from the federal level and put it back in the states, where it belongs. We can't have nut cases pushing for homogenizing, hateful crap like the FMA. There has to be a safe haven, a place for people to go, where like-minded people can live in tolerance. It's a big country.

FMA people, please go live in your red states. Make all the draconian laws you want. Moralize amongst yourselves; pretend that God thinks what you think he thinks.

"Defense of Marriage"? Bullshit. It's "Attack the Fags". How about Dawn, or some other "Christian" (I use the term loosely because I know some real Christians, who live the teachings), tells us when she asks a "God Hates Fags-type counterdemonstrator" to leave the, uh, counterdemonstration. Or maybe ask them to wear a special T-shirt. Sometimes it gets hard to tell you-all apart.

Posted by Ross Ross on   |   § 9

§ 9 Comments

1

Ross Judson: when you need den very Beste in left-wing attackery.

Nice work, Ross. Dawn is quite reasonable, to a point, and willing to understand, to a point, and you show her just what the facts actually is.

What the hell is people's problem with gays?

2

Ross, I appreciate the free press. Your tone does not invite argument. But if you really want to know, you have succeeded in getting under my skin. There's a word you used--and it's not even really a word--and it's not even spelled right if it were a word--that makes me want to do something, well, un-Christian.

That word is "Walmartish."

First of all, the name of the store is Wal-Mart. Look it up. I'm sure it appears at least five times a day in the business section of the New York Times or whatever pinko paper you read.

Oh, but I forgot, you wouldn't do anything so bourgeois as read the business section of a newspaper. Excuuuuuse me.

The reason I object to "Walmartish" is because I am not the stuffy, Midwestern, conformist, surrounded-by-her-like-thinking-friends person you think I am. I have BONA FIDE bohemian credentials, Mister. Admittedly, I gained them during the 31 years of my life that I was a card-carrying liberal (the card, which I still carry, is my Film">http://www.filmforum.com]Film Forum membership--now playing: "The Battle of Algiers"), but they come from real [url=http://www.dawneden.com]accomplishments[/url] and I will not let anyone begrudge me them.

Next time, try visiting a person's home">http://www.dawneden.com]home page before assuming that Christian conservative views are the product of a Stepford Wives-like existence that is far less hip than your own.

3

Oh, dear. What hath I wrought?

I think the paragraph about the 3% is instructive, in a certain way. Over at Obsidian Wings there was an interesting exchange, in which an extremely conservative Christian stated that what he and others really wanted was to return all these things -- abortion law, marriage, law, etc. -- to the power of the legislature and take them out of the hands of the courts.

Another person asked him if that meant that, should he find a state where gay marriage, sodomy and abortion were all illegal and live there, but New York made them all legal, would he be content with that, and his answer was, "No, then we could just work to persuade them to elect better men and women to their legislature." Sigh.

Just to play peacemaker:

Nowhere in our e-mail exchanges did I get the idea that Dawn is a bad, evil person. I just think that approaching these things from a strictly religious perspective leads one to conclusions that may align well with one's faith, but humanistically speaking, are woefully unjust.

As for Ross, I've had chili, beer and football with the man. He can Do the Bourgeoise with the best of us.

4

Dear Dawn:

Sometimes I am a mean old man. Except we are roughly the same age, and I just get a little, oh, combative at times in these pages.

It is entirely probable that you are Cooler Than Me. That wouldn't take much, as I am a Computer Person.

That being said, "Walmartish" is kind of mean, isn't it?

Here's how it gets to be Non-Walmartish: Back it up. I am poking some fun (maybe mean fun) at what you wrote. I disagree with you on the misnamed "Defense of Marriage" issue. I think your arguments are based on biased and convenient assumptions, one of which is that your personal convictions about marriage and relationships are inherently superior to other notions. Your arguments are circular.

Wal-Mart products are low-quality, low-cost. They don't stand up under heavy use or scrutiny; they've been created under suspect circumstances. The purpose of these products is not to fulfil a function correctly: It is to create profit for Wal-Mart.

We all need to be careful about where we buy our opinions.

When in doubt, err on the side of freedom. I call it the "tellin' other people what to do" test.

9

re: "Next time, try visiting a person's home page before assuming that Christian conservative views are the product of a Stepford Wives-like existence that is far less hip than your own."

Like many people, Dawn was sick the day the Economics of Free Thought was being taught. Imagine a graph with a finite base line wherein the base line is an abstract concept labeled free thought. At the extreme left is a theoretical point where no belief system exists. Like absolute zero this point is nigh impossible to reach. Unlike absolute zero, nothing stands still here. Kinda hard to anyway with all the drugs in your system. At the extreme right of the base line is a theoretical point of pure dogma, the point at which independent thought cannot occur. The best Soviet thinkers could only imagine this red Shangri-La. The points in between are heavily populated by all us flawed humans. In typical bell curve fashion most of us lumpenproles hog the middle. Dawn's problem is she's on the Stepford side of the hump. The proof? She has to state that she's cool. I'm an overweight middle-aged suburban parent. I know the utter imbecility of trying to make *that* argument. Ipso facto her argument is null and I'm having fun.

[ You're too late, comments are closed ]