Somebody had the good idea to say “Ban Porn” on Twitter the other day. If there was anything non-controversial for “conservatives” you’d think it would be this.
Porn is debilitating, addicting, poisonous, unhealthy, harmful in every way. It has no redeeming benefits. We all wish we never seen any of it. At least, this is what I wish, having had too much easy access to it in years past. Once you break yourself of it, you can see how evil it is.
The one question everybody asks: Why is it free?
Answering that question may be one reason Conservative Inc. reacted so violently against commonsense. They were appalled at the notion that the should government step in and do its job and enforce the obscenity laws already on the books.
“Ban porn?” they screamed. “Then we’ll have to ban booze, Pop Tarts and Pencils! If you don’t want your cellphone-holding 10-year-old to watch porn, be a better parent!” A typical response is from The Federalist’s Ben Domenech, who said “Are the conservatives who think they can ban porn online purposefully ignoring the massive expansion of government this would require, or are they too stupid to realize it?”
We await only the NRO’s hot take “The Conservative Case For Porn.”
It was impossible to keep these cruise-ship conservatives on point. They have convinced themselves that porn is a “right”, and that, anyway, even if it isn’t, we don’t dare unleash government lest government go on a banning spree. As if that isn’t what the government has been doing anyway.
I don’t want to make this article about porn. It’s about the fecklessness of so-called conservatives. But before we leave the topic, the Twitter fracas was responsible for this:
If you can’t see the tweet, it is by one Joey “Salads” Saladino who is running for Congress in “conservative” Staten Island. He boasted “I will protect your porn.”
What a sad culture!
Now I know it’s the anti-Christian New York Times, but we need to hear from them because they managed to dig up another Conservative Inc. person to write “Christian Doomsayers Have Lost It“. We, dear readers are the doomsayers. This Peter Wehner thinks Christians should be happy. After all, abortions are down! (Though perversion is way up, thus pregnancies down.) So why have Christians “given their full-throated support to President Trump”?
Wehner seems to remember there might have been a worse alternative, that Trump “is by far the lesser of two evils.” But immediately after supplying the sane and true answer, he discards it and dispenses with warm anecdotes of Hillary.
And then begins complaining we aren’t nice.
Sohrab Ahmari — a convert to Catholicism who is both the op-ed editor of The New York Post and a contributor to the religious magazine First Things — was so outraged that drag queens were reading stories to children at a library in Sacramento that he has relegated civility to a secondary virtue while turning against modernity and classical liberalism.
Ahmari spends most of his time in the Conservative Inc. camp, so it was gratifying that he spoke out against perverts on the prowl for kids. Civility is not the answer. This is war. Aharmi sometimes sees this. Whener not at all.
To my fellow Christians, then, a friendly reminder from a conservative who shares many of your concerns: We are not living in Nero’s Rome. In world history, there are very few nations that have been as accommodating to Christianity as the United States is today; and America is hardly on the edge of a moral abyss.
Backwards, Whener. It should be Christians accommodating non-Christians, not the other way around.
I’ll agree with him about one thing: we’re not at the edge of a moral abyss. We’re up to our throats in one, and sinking fast. Yet Whener needs to think things are good so he can pin the blame for all ills on Trump.
As if Trump ultimately means anything. Unless our orange boss declares martial law, dissolves the Senate, and rules with an iron rod, Trump is wholly incidental. Even card-carrying Conservative Inc. member and NRO denizen Michael Brendan Dougherty can see this.
Why can’t Whener? Instead he says this: “Jesus didn’t view the world primarily as a battle zone. Neither should we.”
This is the danger of reading Bibles a the New York Times offices. Lord only knows what has been expurgated. Like the bit where our Lord says “Do not think that I came to send peace upon earth: I came not to send peace, but the sword.”
To support this site and its wholly independent host using credit card or PayPal (in any amount) click here