On the bright side, with our rulers presently embracing (*) and pushing "gayness", it seems there is finally a way for a man (I use the word advisedly in the context of the linked story) to prevail in "family court"
(*) Give it some time -- after the leftists start putting us Christians in death-camps, they'll start putting the "gays" in there with us.
Monday, June 29, 2015
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Christianity is too weak to oppose the homosexual agenda being shoved down our throats. This is one area where Islam is superior. Muslims will not stand for it. Islam will stand up against homosexuality and the nonsense of "gay marriage", Christians will capitulate.
I have to agree with SRV on this one. The only thing I admire about the Mohammedans is their seriousness when it comes to religion. No pussy footing around for them!
But not every Christian nation is capitulating. The Orthodox are standing strong (so far).
In the next day or two I hope to post a lengthy response prompted by both these comments.
Ilion,
If you can stomach it, you ought to pop on over to im-skeptical's blog to see how he equates liberalism with the founding of America (!) and conservatism with its decline. (And he has the nerve to tell us that we need a history lesson! One could make a solid case for the American Revolution being the most "conservative" revolution ever.)
Now I know you don't have much sympathy for Catholicism, and the commenter Skeppy is inveighing against is of the Roman persuasion, but im-deluded is nevertheless hilarious when he champions liberalism as the bulwark of Western Civilization.
"Now I know you don't have much sympathy for Catholicism ..."
I think you misunderstand: I have no use for The One True Bureaucracy, and I think Christianity would be much better off without that organization.
But, having no use for Catholicism Inc, and hoping for its demise, does not prevent me recognizing the historic debt that the Western nations owe Latin Christianity.
"One could make a solid case for the American Revolution being the most "conservative" revolution ever"
It was a revolt, but not a revolution. That is, it was a revolt, and thus was called a 'revolution' -- at the time, properly. But, since the French Revolution, the meaning of 'revolution' has changed.
The American Revolution was the continuation of -- the third phase of -- the English Civil War of 1642-1651 and of the "Glorious Revolution" of 1688. Where the first two phases were about establishing that the Executive is not absolute, the third phase was about establishing that neither is the Legislature. The fourth phase, if we have it, will be about establishing that neither is the Judiciary absolute (even though all this is *explicit* in our Constitution).
People incorrectly think we were rebelling against the King (*). In truth, we were rebelling against the Parliament. The complaint against George was that he was shirking his duty as Executive to protect us against the depredations of the Parliament – though, considering 1688, I really don’t see what he could have done.
(*) But then, people also believe that high school civics bullshit about the Constitution establishing three co-equal branches of the Federal government, when it does nothing of the sort, and moreover, even if it did, that isn’t how the regime in DC has operated since at least 1803.
I think you misunderstand
I stand (well, sit, actually) corrected.
I have quite a bit of sympathy for Catholicism (but far more for Catholics), while simultaneously loathing the various idolatries, and hypocrisies, that Catholicism Inc encourages amongst its adherents.
Post a Comment