You May Not Be Interested in the Culture War, But the Culture War is Interested in You

Some thoughts on the Planet Fitness genderism madness --

0) Better late than never, I suppose. What I mean is, PF has been allowing perverted men into the women's rooms for years and has been cancelling the memberships of women who object;
1) This is the world that *women* demanded;
2) Until women as a whole culturally reject the constant demands of 'feminists' to invade "men's spaces" -- including not only men's social organizations, but also the police and fire-fighting forces and the military -- this sort of thing cannot really be ended: perverted men invading women's spaces is just the flip side of perverted women invading men's spaces;
3) Thus, until *women* reject feminism -- really reject it, rather than merely saying, "I'm not a feminist", while simultaneously using the fruits of feminism against men when it suits them -- I don't really see this as a fight in which I have a dog;
4) That said, if I did have a PF membership, I'd cancel it, out of intellectual and moral honesty. I think it would be great if PF goes bankrupt.

5) The fellow whose video I've linked is still too "conciliatory" about genderism madness. Toward the end of the video, his "solution" is for gyms to create "family changing rooms" (similar to his "solution" for sporting events: creating a third, or even fourth, category of competition). No, the only solution to genderism is to *refuse* to go along with *any* of it.
6) I once had a membership at a local gym, over 35 years ago. I let it lapse partly because I was busy working on my house, partly because the building wasn't well maintained and cleaned, and partly because I was tired of perverted men trying to hit on me. So, I think I have an inkling of how these innocent women feel at having this sort of perverted men invading their spaces.

The Quarting: Planet Fitness BOYCOTT Gets WORSE As NEW Pictures Shock & BACKLASH Costs 500 Million In 5 Days!

The One True Bureaucracy ... and Celibacy!

From the comments of K T Cat's post concerning recent revelations about the Lavender Mafia within the bureaucracy of the Roman denomination (here "Catholic Arguments Against A Celibate Priesthood") --

K T Cat: "Tim, I'm sure the requirement for celibacy is rooted in logic and derived from some solid first principles. Everything in Catholicism is."

I'll explain it to you --

1) it is a natural aspect of the psychology of (normal) human males to put the interests of his group ahead of his own interests, even to the point of sacrificing his life for the group;

2) when a (normal) man is married, his primary group naturally becomes his wife and children;

3) the bureaucrats of The One True Bureaucracy -- which base their absurd claim to universal dominion over the souls of mankind upon a deliberate mis-reading of a single verse -- require its priests to be unmarried for much the same reason that generals (and street-gang thugs) would rather their soldiers be young and unattached: it's far easier to turn that natural masculine instinct to serving *your* ends if there isn't a woman (and children) mucking things up.

============
lee: "Having been part of another religion with married clergy, there is no bigger pain in the backside, them and their family."

Yes, there is that, too.

============
============
Please understand, above I am explaining why the Roman denomination settled on a demand of celibacy of its priests; I am neither praising nor condemning the decision.

Feser on Radical Skepticism

... and as relates to same-sex mirage --

Edward Feser (2015): Marriage and The Matrix

Hitler was a Leftist

John Jay Ray: Hitler was a Leftist (this link is to the index page)


Homosexuality in the Nazi Party (this link discusses that favoréd canard of "gay" "rights" activists that if one disapproves of homosexual behavior, then one is Just Like Teh Nazis!)

So that people can see them

Douglas Wilson: In Which I Paint With Some Bright Yellows --

First, whenever we get to that elusive and ever-receding “hill to die on,” we will discover, upon our arrival there, that it only looked like a hill to die on from a distance. Up close, when the possible dying is also up close, it kind of looks like every other hill. All of a sudden it looks like a hill to stay alive on, covered over with topsoil that looks suspiciously like common ground.

So it turns out that surrendering hills is not the best way to train for defending the most important ones. Retreat is habit-forming.

This brings us to my second goal this morning, which is to highlight the principle. ...

...
But I am not trying [to] equate anything here — I am simply trying to illustrate how a believer’s conscience ought to work if he is employed by a government that tries to sin grievously through the instrumentality of a godly magistrate. This is just how I paint illustrations, with bright yellows and gaudy greens. I do that so that people can see them.

Douglas Wilson: Benedict and Beza Options

But that, though a nice statement of the problem, does not answer the problem. We need a solution to the impasse created by political polytheism, which is what under-girds our incoherent system of pluralism and diversity. Schizophrenia doesn’t work for cultures any more than it does for individuals.

So all these questions can be answered, I believe, by emphasizing something that all politically-engaged Christians should get tattooed on their frontal lobes — facing in, so that they can see it all the time.

Political process is not neutral. Administrative process is not neutral. Procedures are not neutral. Constitutional law is not neutral. Nothing is neutral. Everything we do corporately in the body politic is an expression of our foundational faith. That faith will either be the true faith — what I have been calling mere Christendom — or it will be an attempt to build a great skyscraper civilization on the foundation of our watered-down secular concrete.

The “rule of law” is not some “pure neutrality,” an ethereal gas that enables a bunch of members of different faiths and religions to bond together in the same society. The rule of law is actually a codified expression of certain aspects of our Christian inheritance. It is part of our legacy and heritage for a reason. It came from somewhere. It grew and developed in some countries and not in others for profound religious reasons. The rule of law has no evident authority apart from the authority of a transcendent God.

There is *always* a "god of the system", and if that god is not The Living God, then it's going to be some idol ... and there is going to be at least one demon inhabiting the idol, just waiting to feast on human souls.

Michael Egnor: Christian county clerk sent to jail for her opposition to gay marriage

Michael Egnor: What's the difference between a clerk not enforcing gay marriage law and a president not enforcing immigration law?

Michael Egnor: What's the difference between a clerk not enforcing gay marriage law and a president not enforcing IRS law?

Michael Egnor: Why are the President's myriad and persistent refusals to enforce law treated as discretionary, but a clerk's refusal to issue a marriage certificate deemed worthy of jail time.

Michael Egnor: What Judge David L. Bunning got wrong

Who stands where on the victimization totem pole?

GayPatriot: "So, we had to purge all Confederate Battle Flags because Dylann Stormdoor was a southern white supremacist; can we please ban that horrible rainbow flag now? Or does gay privilege trump white privilege?"


Douglas Wilson: Pretty Sure It Is Not You

How will 'gay' mirage affect *your* marriage?

One of the favorite non-arguments of the proponents of "gay" mirage -- that is, when they're pretending that they are willing to try to get what the want through democratic means, and accept the consequences when the demos says, "No, thanks" -- is to pose the rhetorical question: "How will 'gay' [mirage] affect or harm *your* marriage?" And, of course, the approved, albeit false, answer is, "It won't!"

Here, Mr and Mrs America, is one of the ways that "gay" mirage is going to harm *your* marriage -- since it is impossible that a woman is a 'father' or that a man is a 'mother', and since it is also impossible that the leftists will acknowledge that marriage exists only between one man and one woman, the "solution" to this dilemma will be to remove the words 'Father' and 'Mother' from birth certificates, replacing them with 'Parent A' and 'Parent B'.

So, thanks to the judicial imposition of "gay" mirage upon the nation, once this particular logical implication works its way through the courts, you will no longer legally be your children's mother or father; at best, you will be 'Parent A' or 'Parent B'.


Eventually, even the word 'parent' will have to be scrubbed from birth certificates, for it still whispers, a bit too loudly, the truth.

Render Unto Caesar

Douglas Wilson: Children of the Rainbow -- "As Voddie Baucham put it memorably, if you render your children to Caesar, don’t be surprised when they come back Romans."

People frequently quote the verse (*), "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's" without thinking about the context.

Now, for sure, the overall context is that some Pharisees (and partisans of the Herodian dynasty) were trying to set a trap for Christ: they say only two answers to the question they posed him, both of which they could spin to his condemnation. His answer was to expose the question's false premise on which rested the dilemma by which they thought to trap him..

However, *that* is not the context to which I wish to draw Gentle Reader’s attention, but rather to a sub-context of that overall context.

What did Christ ask them? He asked, “Whose image does this coin bear?” What he didn’t ask explicitly - for in the context of people who live and breathe the text (even if not quite the spirit) of Scripture - it is always implied: “Whose image do you bear?”

So, here is how they understood has answer to them: “Here is a coin; it is marked as being the property of Caesar. And here is you, who are marked as being the property of God. So, if Caesar demands what is his, give it back to him. But do not give him what is God’s.”


(*) and frequently, just the first half; I think we can expect this frequency to increase in the near future


Edit 2015/07/05:
The Other McCain: What Education Teaches

On the bright side

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.