In an Op-Ed piece in Sunday's Denver Post two air-headed women proclaimed their belief in the moral purity of homosexuality. Laura Leprino, a self-proclaimed "political activist" and Jessica Peck, an attorney, wrote a scathing critique of historic Christian doctrine, proclaiming it to be bigoted, outdated and filled with hate. Interestingly enough, both women also profess to be political conservatives. Let's consider their argument for a moment here today.
I quote the heart of their argument in favor of political protection for homosexuals here:
"As conservatives, we believe in the free market. If bigots don't want to serve certain classes of people, our instinct is to say 'let the market decide.' Ultimately, we theorize, the bigots will go out of business. This philosophy unfortunately now runs head first into those who proclaim they need the government to protect their 'religious freedom.' While state and federal laws protect religious freedom, they do not protect the right to discriminate against those of other religions on all matters outside religious organizations and places of worship. Our opponents believe more laws are needed to allow businesses to discriminate against gays under the guise of religious freedom. Instead of banning discrimination, backers here demand the right to freely discriminate. As a society, we say 'no' to discrimination based on race, gender, national origin and other protected characteristics. Gays deserve to spend their hard earned dollars at the same place we spend ours."
To aid in my critique, here are a couple of definitions:
Bigot: "a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group."
Discrimination: "the ability to understand that one thing is different from another thing." Interestingly enough, political correctness has infiltrated Merriam Webster and another accepted definition for this term is, "the practice of unfairly treating a person or group of people differently from other people or groups of people." Why a morally neutral word should suddenly be filled with moral connotations is not described.
Freedom: "the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action."
Air-Head: "a stupid person (i.e. there is air where brains should be)."
Our air-heads begin by affirming their belief in the free market. A free market exists when there is a total absence of necessity, coercion or constraint in choice or action. If I am forced to engage in business transactions with other people then I am not operating in a free market. If I am coerced to engage in business transactions with other people by an act of law, then I am not free. If I am not free to engage in business transactions as I see fit, with whomever I want whenever I want, then I do not live in a free market or a free country. If the Bobbsey twins who wrote the argument quoted above really believe in the free market they would recognize that a government law requiring me to engage in business dealings with someone I would rather not engage in business dealings with is a coercive and oppressive law that should not exist in the free market.
The fair ladies quoted above do not like bigots. I think it would be fair to say that they are bigoted against bigots, although I strongly suspect they are inconsistently filled with self-love rather than self-loathing. The key concept in the definition of a bigot is the incorrectness, unfairness, injustice or immorality of the position held by the bigot. A person who believes that all blacks are intellectually inferior to whites can be proven wrong by a sample of IQ exams. A person who believes that all Arab terrorists are haters of Amerikan freedom and worthy of death by bombing can be proven wrong by studying the history behind how they became terrorists, especially how the career politicians and military of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika are primarily responsible for the political destabilization and economic destruction of their homelands. So the key question is this, do Christians have an unfair, inaccurate or immoral understanding of homosexuality?
Rather than presenting an argument as to why homosexual behavior is morally right and proper the ladies writing the article simply presuppose their position on the moral propriety of homosexual behavior to be correct. That is not the way to compose a rationally logical and necessary argument. That is the style of argumentation generally found among air-heads. In a part of the piece that I did not quote they make reference to how the majority of the citizens living within the geo-political boundary known as Colorado now believe that being homosexual is just dandy. Since the majority now believe homosexuality to be moral, it must be moral. How it changed from being immoral to being moral simply because the majority now believe it to be so is not described. Only one thing is clear from their argument. Morality is determined by majority vote. When our ladies presuppose that homosexual behavior is morally good they beg the question. It is impossible to prove them wrong because their conclusion is already presupposed to be correct. When they make the presupposition that homosexual behavior is morally good and glorifying to God, they are acting, quite ironically it seems to me, as bigots. Their intense dislike for Christians and historic Christian doctrine is palpable.
By definition all Christians are bigots, if the good women are correct in their presupposition that homosexual behavior is pleasing to the God of the Bible. The problem for the good women, and all advocates for homosexual behavior, is that the God of the Bible is strongly opposed to homosexuals and homosexual behavior. I will not give you a long list of biblical proof texts to prove my point. By now everyone should recognize that historic and orthodox Christian doctrine has held homosexual behavior to be sinful for two thousand years. Nothing has changed in Christian circles except that what was previously considered to be a good doctrine is now deemed to be evidence of bigotry.
These two writers take a dramatic shift into irrationality after proclaiming their faith in the free market and their religious belief that Christians are bigots. They quickly abandon their belief in freedom and call for government laws to protect homosexuals because of what they bizarrely allege is a movement among Christians to call for government protection of Christian doctrine, most especially the doctrine of the immorality of homosexuality. A little history lesson is in order here. First, we did not start this fight. No Christians that I am aware of were going to Washington and asking Congress to draft a law that would criminalize homosexual behavior and punish those who practice it with death. Even more to the point, no Christians anywhere in this hate-filled country were going to any legislative branch of government and asking it to pass a law that would allow them to hold to the ancient, historic and orthodox Christian doctrine of the immorality of homosexual behavior. It was only after the militant homosexual lobby had already obtained such laws for themselves, and the endorsement of the Supreme Court of Jokers, that Christians were forced to ask an oppressive and tyrannical government to grant us permission to continue doing what we had been doing for two thousand years. It was only after certain militant homosexuals decided to start a fight by purposely going to Christian businesses, flaunting their homosexuality, and demanding those businesses "obey the law" and serve them that this issue even came up. The brainless fools writing the op-ed piece attempt to make it appear as if Christians are running to government to get laws written to give us the ability to oppress others. When they write, "our opponents believe more laws are needed to allow businesses to discriminate against gays..." they show their extreme stupidity. Were it not for the prior action of the militant homosexual lobby we Christians would be doing nothing at all The attempts we are making today to defend ourselves from oppression can scarcely be cast in the light of running to government to make laws to oppress others. All we want to be able to do is what we have been doing for two thousand years. We have awakened to find ourselves in a land, filled with new laws and politically protected groups, that criminalizes biblical preaching and teaching. Do we have no right to defend ourselves? According to the women we do not. Indeed, we are bigots if we try.
In addition to lying about their belief in the free market, the ladies are also socialists. They use the infamous "we" when it comes time to advance their cause. "As a society, 'we' say no to discrimination," they write. Well, I am a member of this society and I do not say that. Who is the we they are writing about? It does not include me or anyone else I know. I suspect the "we" they so fondly refer to is the new majority of people who agree with them. Under their socialism the majority always wins and the rights and beliefs of the minority are trampled underfoot. Strange indeed are the days we live in. In the old days the career politicians who ruled over us, as well as their civilian supporters, believed that government largely existed to protect the rights of the minority. My how things have changed. When Christians are in the minority there is no call for support. On the contrary, the minority is slandered, oppressed and framed as a group of neanderthal bigots deserving of punishment for their evil ways.
I wonder if the ladies discriminate? Is there any reason they would go to King Soopers rather than Safeway? If so, they discriminate. Is there any reason they go to Conoco rather than Shell? If so, they discriminate. Is there any reason they go to one movie theater over another? If so, they discriminate. I suspect these two hypocrites discriminate thousands of times every day. After a day of heartfelt discrimination they sit down to write a piece in which they accuse Christians of bigotry simply because we happen to maintain a historic Christian doctrine about homosexuality. I think it is fair to say that these two women "unfairly dislike other people and their ideas; especially, they are people who hate or refuse to accept the members of a particular group, especially Christians." In a word, they are bigots.
I hope Laurie and Jessica feel better about themselves now that they have published a piece in the newspaper in which they unfairly and irrationally attempt to classify Christians as a group of people that is seeking special government protection. I find it fascinating that they are apparently quite angry about the alleged fact that Christians would dare to do something like that. I wonder if they held the same degree of anger for Martin Luther King when he rushed to government in search of civil rights protection? I wonder if they held the same fury for the militant homosexual lobby when it cast itself upon government in search of a civil right upholding their lifestyle? I wonder if they reserve the same vitriol for the transgendered lobby that is seeking government protection as I write this piece? Ultimately Laurie and Jessica prove what R.J. Rushdoony wrote many years ago. I will leave you with that quote:
"Law is in every culture religious in origin....It must be recognized that in any culture the source of law is the god of that society. If law has its source in man's reason, then reason is the god of that society....Modern humanism, the religion of the state, locates law in the state and thus makes the state, or the people as they find expression in the state, the god of the system....In any society any change of law is an explicit or implicit change of religion. Nothing more clearly reveals, in fact, the religious change in a society than a legal revolution....There can be no tolerance in a law-system for another religion. Toleration is a device used to introduce a new law-system as a prelude to a new intolerance....Every law-system must maintain its existence by hostility to every other law-system and to alien religious foundations, or else it commits suicide."