On The Battlements Of Culture

Artist reconstruction of Spack's gender reassignment procedure.

Artist reconstruction of Spack’s gender reassignment procedure.

Chick-Fil-A should be put out of business, the owners of its franchises stripped of all assets, and all its employees thrown in the street. No amount of pain is too much. The reason is obvious. Its founders once said something complimentary about traditional marriage.

Yes, each hourly worker at Chick-Fil-A deserves what he gets. After all, it is their responsibility to investigate and vet each level of management in the restaurant chain to ensure these folks are not only not silent on important matters, but that they have active, participatory policies.

There is only one politically correct view and you shall have it. We all agree about this.

Like agreeing Cisco was right to fire Frank Turek, an outside consultant who had been providing stellar service and who never, not once, discussed religion or politics or morality on the job. Thank Obama that a Cisco manager searched for Turek and discovered his web page on which was the horrible evidence that Turek supported traditional marriage.

The manager rightly squealed about Turek’s views to Cisco’s HR department which then “commended the manager for ‘outing’ Turek.” There are some things—it says so right in the Tolerance Handbook—that cannot be tolerated. If you want to work for Cisco, you must believe.

Oregon Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian, whose heart is large, doesn’t believe in punishment for unbelievers, but in rehabilitation. He would reeducate the owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa, whose owners mistakenly support traditional marriage, instead of shutting them down. Of course, rehabilitation is the goal but the stubbornly recalcitrant must be shuttered.

There’s more than one way to stop the flow of money to unbelievers. The New York Times suggests pressuring credit card companies to cease processing donations to “anti-gay”, i.e. pro-traditional marriage, groups, donations which are now “allowed.”

Dr. Norman Spack of Children’s Hospital in Boston has a better idea. Get ‘em when they’re wrong. Spack is the “champion” of the procedure for children “designed to halt their development as males or females and, ultimately, completely change the sex of their birth.” Spack thinks the “transgendered” have “differences in their brains that render them, literally, of the wrong sex.”

Once a child is brought to Spack’s Gender Management Service Clinic, he begins by injecting them “puberty-blocking drugs.” But he notes that his drug works “best at the beginning of the pubital process, typically age 10 to 12 for a girl and 12 to 14 for a boy.” Don’t delay getting your kid an appointment. Spack is very popular.

Is Spack a German name? We wonder because it is Germany which leads the field against the tyranny of biology. Germany “is set to become the first country in Europe to introduce a third, “indeterminate” gender designation on birth certificates.” This allows “those born with characteristics of both sexes to choose whether to become male or female in later life.”

Actually it was Australia, believe it or not, the once home of the manliest men and womanliest women, which introduced the idea that “individuals can select the third category irrespective of whether or not they have undergone sex reassignment surgery or hormone therapy.” This shows that progress can come from any direction.

Like from Scotland, where children will quite rightly be indoctrinated to having proper views on marriage. DVDs “promoting same-sex pairs” are being provided “in direct response to the overwhelming requests from schools and teachers to help them teach and celebrate the reality of what different families in modern Scotland look like.” Parents who don’t wish their kiddies to learn what’s best are, as is only right, out of luck.

And there are bright lights even from such places as New Jersey. “Gov. Chris Christie plans to sign a bill Monday barring licensed therapists from trying to turn gay teenagers straight, making New Jersey the second state to ban so-called conversion therapy, along with California.” Christie is wise to do this quickly before he faces the inevitable questions about the “B” in LGBT and from testimony of those who have undergone these kinds of therapy successfully. These would only muddy the waters.

Whatever we do, keep people from reading things like this:

Do you think that I have come to establish peace on the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division. From now on a household of five will be divided, three against two and two against three; a father will be divided against his son and a son against his father, a mother against her daughter and a daughter against her mother, a mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.


Comments

On The Battlements Of Culture — 20 Comments

  1. I just don’t understand the fuss on the theme:

    IF the USA is a “free” society, one needs to let others “sin” to the extent their “sins” do not impact you/others. For all the talk on this theme, such impacts are almost never stated, and those that are don’t make sense — at least given the facts of history.

    “Christians” have this curious mindset that some “sins” are intolerable, even when committed by consenting adults in the privacy of their homes. To rectify that they endorse a totalitarian form of intrusion.

    Further, these same “Christians” think that the behavior of a small minority (maybe 3% of the population are gay) will undermine everything marriage-related, morality-related, etc. etc. etc.

    …even though the behaviors continue regardless–in private vs. more openly, fundamental behavior is NOT changing either way.

    …the only thing really changing is the public awareness of reality as lived by a minority…and even that ain’t much, or any, change for the majority involved…

    …and, even though “Christianity” arose in an environment of pagan worship, all manner of behavioral deviancies including some most never heard of, “Christianity” prospered & became dominant.

    ……….yet……despite that pedigree, some public acknowledgment for an ever-present group defined by an “un-Christian” behavioral orientation is…today…somehow…going to undermine the morality of the majority????

    Bah Humbug. If modern “Christianity” is threatened by this then it is not the Christianity that arose from much much worst, it must be something else, something fragile & inferior relative to its antecedents….or…maybe it’s some self-proclaimed Christians that are being too much of a busy-bodies about what others do when they’d be better served by tending to their own affairs?

  2. Pingback: Egypt Nuns Marched Thru Streets Like Prisoners of War - BigPulpit.com

  3. Here’s the fuss. Compulsion cuts both ways. Objecting to Christians forcing their moral standards on others requires you to object to businesses forcing theirs on employees. As any other Christian may do, Briggs is warning that certain practices and behaviors are harmful in the Christian world-view. Admittedly, some warn out of fear for themselves and those close to them. But many do so out of compassion for those they warn. You won’t hear about that in the media. In fact, just the opposite is a juicier story. But you will see it at rehabilitation homes, prison ministries, crisis pregnancy centers, and many small unnoticed churches around the globe, if you bothered to look hard enough. Christianity, modern or ancient, is hardly threatened by those it seeks to tell about the Good News, even if some of it’s followers are still infants in the faith.

  4. “Christians” have this curious mindset that some “sins” are intolerable, even when committed by consenting adults in the privacy of their homes.

    Love the scare quotes. Also that consent is the sole criteria of the good, although sometimes consequentialism raises its incoherent head — at least ‘impact’ [whatever that is] on others.

    Evil is defectus boni, a deficiency in a good, and sin is a deliberate turning toward the de-fect and away from the per-fect. It is not like a technical violation of some civil code or regulation.

    Of course, we know from neuroscience that habituating neural patterns originating in the more primitive parts of the brain (associated with the appetites) ‘vulcanizes’ the brain and interferes with neural patterns originating in the neocortex (associated with rational thought).
    Hence, indulgence of the appetites reduces rationality, and a less rational culture does impact us all. Even if this is not immediately and locally apparent to the actors. The pagan Epicureans of old knew this, and despised the hedonists.

  5. Ken:

    “IF the USA is a “free” society, one needs to let others “sin” to the extent their “sins” do not impact you/others. For all the talk on this theme, such impacts are almost never stated, and those that are don’t make sense — at least given the facts of history.

    “Christians” have this curious mindset that some “sins” are intolerable, even when committed by consenting adults in the privacy of their homes. To rectify that they endorse a totalitarian form of intrusion.”

    The problem with your argument is that human beings are inherently social animals, so it’s impossible for us not to be affected by the society around us. “No man is an island,” and all that.

    Imagine for a moment that incest became widely accepted. You might not partake of it, but it would nevertheless affect your interactions with your family. For example, you could no longer take it for granted that, say, hugging your parents would be seen non-sexually. You’d either have to change the way you interact with them to avoid anything which could be seen as sexual, or have the issue constantly hanging over you, regardless of whether or not you supported the normalisation of incest. Or, to give an example that’s already happened, the spread of casual sex means that anybody who tries to uphold traditional moral standards will get dismissed as a weird, repressed prude. That’s going to change how other people think of you, and hence how they interact with you. Unless you want to become a hermit on a remote island somewhere, societal opinions do affect you, so even by your own standards it’s perfectly legitimate to take an interest in what society thinks.

    (Of course, that’s leaving out the damage that many socially liberal policies cause to society. If weakening the importance of marriage leads to an increase in juvenile delinquency, then this most certainly does affect you, as you and your loved ones are now more likely to be the victims of a crime, and as the police will require more resources, requiring you to pay more taxes.)

    “…even though the behaviors continue regardless–in private vs. more openly, fundamental behavior is NOT changing either way.

    …the only thing really changing is the public awareness of reality as lived by a minority…and even that ain’t much, or any, change for the majority involved…”

    It seems quite counter-intuitive to suggest that societal opinions and the law have no affect on people’s behaviour. Do you have any evidence to back this up?

  6. Sheri,

    Of course, those who are intolerant are so tolerant to begin with.

  7. Briggs,

    Following your reasoning, people should be allowed to claim their anti-gay agenda, while other should not.

    Freedom works both ways, Chick-Fil-A can express their point of view, and pro-gays are free to react to the claim made by Chick-Fil-A.

    Pro-gays reacted by making sure that the public new the position of Chick-Fil-A on gay marriage, and they then asked people that agree with them to boycott Chick-Fil-A. No one has any obligation to follow any of the pro-gay request. The problem for anti-gays activist is that the majority of the population don’t care shit if two people of the same sex get married.

    As for the case of Mr. Turek, you complain that he got fired but would you complain if he had been fired because he was gay, because there are a lot of people that are fired for this reason.

    In Canada, it is both illegal to fire someone for being gay or to fire someone for religious reason. This what a our Charts of rights and freedoms do for us.

  8. Sylvain,

    I do not like you imply or imagine that the solution to every problem is government. In no way anywhere or anyhow do I suggest the government step in and create laws for these situations.

  9. Briggs,

    Then why do you complain about Turek being fired but not the gays. Reality is that government is needed to make sure no one looses his jobs for expressing his opinion in private.

    When there is no government what substitute it is violence. You see it in Russia lately where gays are beaten to death for something they have no choice over.

  10. Not sure what your story has to do with Russia. The reality is that in Russia gays are getting beat up in daylight.

    So they panic for real reasons.

    Not all laws are goud but not all laws are bad either. Laws that favors individual liberty are rarely bad.

  11. BTW, in the story you provided, the man arrested was actually the gay that was being beaten not the thugs.

  12. Pingback: Abortion Safety: Doctors V. Nurses & Physician Assistants & Midwives—Part I | William M. Briggs