I already referred to this but I want to be able to locate it more easily when it goes down the memory hole: NBC was deceitful about what Zimmerman said in order to stoke racial animosity.
The other day my cousin asked on Facebook: If you could purge one word from the dictionary, what would it be? I didn’t answer because I could think of a few. “Extreme” is so overused it has become useless; if everything is extreme then nothing is. “Like” gets on my nerves when used as vocalized quotation marks. “He was like… and I was like…” There are a few others.
I would vote for the word “homophobia.”
Words are useful because they signify something in particular; this thing or that idea or that action, or how we feel, etc. etc. Even when words denote something abstract, we might debate honestly about that abstract thing. But I think the term homophobia is inherently dishonest. It doesn’t point us to anything, but rather points in the wrong direction so that we don’t see something.
Am I denying that people within the LGBT spectrum are sometimes mistreated as a direct result of their preference, identity or lifestyle? No, I’m not denying that. I do deny that the situation is unique though. You can point to examples of people being mistreated for everything from their skin colour to their religion to their hair colour to their favourite sports team. Sometimes people are mistreated for no reason at all; they simply have the misfortune to cross paths with someone who is unhappy and looking for someone else to take it out on. Yet those cases are not given a special terminology or designated a faux pathology. Demonstrations and “education” efforts are not exerted to raise awareness of the mistreatment of people with red hair.
And faux pathology it is. Unlike other phobias –irrational fears– homophobia is not listed by mental health practitioners as a pathology. The term does not arise from psychology the way fear of heights or fear of spiders do. Its coinage and mainstreaming are a propaganda coup, pure and simple.
As a practical matter, any and all failure to affirm and celebrate same-sex relations is treated as homophobia, the purportedly irrational fear or gays, lesbians, bisexual, transgendered, or anyone who fits somewhere in between. It really is that simple. Health concerns based on statistics? Irrational. Distaste? Hateful. Or as someone once put it to me, “The only reason someone doesn’t support gay marriage is because they let other people tell them what to think or they are afraid of people who are different than them.” No need to think or ask questions; simply submit and go along with fashion or else you are “diagnosed” with an irrational fear and treated like a caveman who drags his wife around by the hair.
Is that really the only reason a person doesn’t support same-sex marriage or celebrate “diversity”? Let’s take a step back from the narrative, the slogans and talking points, and get a little historical perspective.
As long as human beings have been on this planet, they have paired up just like the other species. Humanity has known probably longer than it could articulate that survival as a species has as an absolute, non-negotiable requirement the union of male and female. It has also been understood that chances of survival are enhanced when daddy stays with mommy and child rather than bouncing from one encounter to another like an alley cat. Marriage is a universal across all human races, cultures, times and places. The legitimizing and legalities of marriage varies from place to place, but the essential nature of it has remained incredibly consistent. And it has only ever been understood as the commitment of a man and a woman. Even societies that were relatively tolerant of same-sex relationships, like ancient Greece and Rome, or the Pashtun today who consider man-boy relationships right and proper, never thought to call such arrangements marriage. A billion years multicellular organisms have been on this planet and things took their natural course. Now, suddenly, we are all informed that neither mating nor procreation have anything whatsoever to do with marriage, and that only the most recalcitrant hate-filled bigot would dare suggest otherwise. There was no debate; everyone in the media says the issue is settled and dissent (as with many issues) is not tolerated. We’re inclusive and tolerant now, so shut up and go along already, son of a silly person!
Somewhere between Adam and Eve and the Stonewall riot, the world’s three great monotheistic religions arose. According to them, a personal and transcendent Creator created the universe and everything in it. He made them male and female and told them to go forth and multiply. Marriage was hence between man and woman. (Polygamy happened but wasn’t commanded by God. Jesus discouraged polygamy when He said, “A man cannot serve two masters.”) Thus religion echoed what nature already told us: marriage was between man and woman. With the modern advent of reproductive technologies, couples could for the first time in human history contemplate marriage without children, and these technologies and adoption now provide routes for same-sex couples to acquire children. More than technology has changed though.
The Western world has for several hundred years now been at least nominally Christian. Christian teaching had been unanimous until this generation that same-sex relations are inherently immoral. (And psychology, until the 1970s, listed same-sex attraction as a pathology.) Sure, it happened. Even a few kings of England through the centuries were rumoured to prefer men. But it was kept in the closet. Beginning in the late 1960s, homosexuals decided that they wanted to celebrate their lifestyles in the open without fear of persecution, and so they asked us to “live and let live.” Not everyone is a Christian now and it’s unfair to impose the morality of some upon everyone. This seemed reasonable to most people. The same Christian tradition that tells us that same-sex relations are immoral also tells us that hatred and mistreating of others are immoral too. And so out of the closet they came, and they have been parading (literally) ever since. True, some are still in the closet and some still fear mistreatment. But other people are subjected to mistreatment and injustice also. As a social consensus, and increasingly as a matter of law, same-sex relationships are not just allowed but affirmed.
Although Christians have largely acquiesced to demands for pluralism and tolerance on the basis that not everyone shares our beliefs, today the goal posts have been moved and something even more unprecedented is being pushed as the Only Acceptable Orthodoxy. The “agree to disagree” arrangement that has prevailed since the 1970s is gone. Now we’re not free to disagree. Apparently pluralism was only a transitional stage until the legal framework for a new dogmatism could be put in place. One nation after another, one jurisdiction after another, gay marriage is the law. It has become law mostly through fiat decrees of courts; when the proposition is put to the will of the people via ballot measures or votes in legislatures they almost always fail. Nevertheless, where it becomes law, the law does not recognize any silly nonsense as “live and let live.” If you own a business that is asked to take part in a gay wedding, you had better do it whether your silly little superstition says it’s OK or not; otherwise your livelihood can be taken from you.
Implicit in this new orthodoxy is that we as nations are no longer agnostic or neutral on the question of whether the Christian God truly exists or has spoken to the human race in objective, proposition terms on the topic of sexuality. As a matter of law, He does not in fact exist. Or if He does, He has not spoken. Sure, you’re free to believe in God or the tooth fairy or whatever, as long as you keep it within the walls of your church (and even then, watch what you say there, Canadians!) but don’t expect to be allowed to act in the real world like it’s true.
As long as it is well-settled law that you can’t mistreat homosexuals, why has it become one of the defining issues of our day that you must affirm that two men in a relationship is to be called a marriage? Why is this orthodoxy so important that other people’s freedom of conscience is violated? I think it’s because that’s the point. Gay marriage, like the promotion in schools and media of homosexuality, has become a proxy issue. Ultimately, I don’t think it’s about sexuality at all. Nobody will admit this that I know of, but if you spend enough time in the comboxes of news sites that actually allow debate and diversity of opinion, it happens so often, so consistently that it’s hard to ignore or deny. When a story involving homosexuality comes out, even a story that has nothing to do with Christianity or religion, people come out of the woodwork to respond by expressing their unremitting hatred of Christians in terms that would instantly be recognized as hate speech and mindless bigotry if anyone else was the target. It happens every day. (And it happens with many issues, not just gay rights.) Like the proverbial fish that doesn’t feel wet it is now such a commonplace part of our environment that we no longer notice it.
Long story short: If you don’t affirm homosexuality, it couldn’t possibly be because you are convinced of the truth of Christianity. You couldn’t have examined competing worldviews rationally with an open mind and arrived there. Because every channel on TV tells us that only the mentally defective or mentally deficient would do that. No. It’s simply that you are irrational, a hater, a poison. End of story.
Last week, prominent Halifax gay activist Raymond Taavel was beaten to death outside a nightclub. Initial reports lacked mention of a perpetrator or a motive. But immediately there was a flood of discussion that assumed that the beating was due to “homophobia,” and the narrative was again reinforced and reiterated that homosexuals are inordinately singled out for mistreatment based on fear of The Other. Subsequently it was discovered that Taavel had a penchant for seeking out confrontations with belligerent strangers and his beating death resulted when he tried to break up a fight. One of the combatants, who has a history of violence and mental illness, turned on him. So the real crime was the negligence of whoever let the assailant out on a one hour pass. But for a few days we could indulge again in the narrative of homophobia with the implicit blame of the usual suspects. The cause of homophobia is that Christians –usually designated as extreme, far-right, ultra-conservative Christians — believe homosexuality is wrong. A conclusion arrived at through moral reasoning within the context of a coherent world view is equated with fear, hatred, and incitement to murderous violence. Think that’s a leap of logic? You must be a homophobe too!
I see this all the time, over and over, as news cycles play out and Joe Six Packs comment freely, not guardedly under the constraints of a “respectable” news or activist organization that must maintain plausible deniability. They comment, connecting the dots in the mainstream media enthymeme. When a violent crime happens against a gay person, or a Democrat, or a Muslim, they jerk the knee and assert that Christians are responsible. Blame the Christians publicly in comment sections, Facebook and Twitter and push that narrative until the facts come out. When it turns out that the perpetrator is a Neo Nazi or an atheist or simply insane, quietly drop the subject. Then wait for the next crime and the next opportunity to blame and demonize Christians. Drip, drip, drip. See how long Christians are depicted as the devil before people start to act on that. Oh wait, it’s already happening. Last summer a church near here was vandalized. Satanic messages were spray painted on the exterior. Local law enforcement informed the public with a straight face that there is no evidence that it was a hate crime. If it’s not acknowledged then it didn’t happen. It only counts if certain groups are perpetrators and certain groups are victims.
Because it’s not about diversity or tolerance or equal rights for all. Sincere people who think that’s what they are fighting for are being used. They should realize that the same
principles attitudes that legitimize the demonization and marginalization of Christians today can legitimize the same things being done to them tomorrow. If gays and lesbians were conversant enough with history to contrast Christian treatment of sexual minorities with the treatment they received under the atheistic regimes of the twentieth century, they would vote for theocracy tomorrow. As it is, they are cannon fodder in the march to a nightmarish future of statism. History is not at an end; liberal democracy is no static, permanent Utopia. There is a trajectory and it is clear; we are going back to the future. Hail Caesar!
The beating death of Trayvon Martin was rightly condemned. Delay in the arrest of George Zimmerman created problems. No question there. But is Trayvon’s death more newsworthy than other killings? Ninety-four percent of murders of blacks are perpetrated by other African-Americans, but when was even one of these given attention in the press? Why are all those deaths less noteworthy? Why is the race of the perpetrator what determines whether we get:
- weeks of non-stop press coverage with demonstrations and incitement to violence, or
- not a peep?
Why do some people so desperately want racial animosity that they publish deliberately deceitful accounts of what happened?
Now a white man has been beaten almost to death by a mob of African Americans, one of whom reportedly said, “Now that’s justice for Trayvon.” It’s mostly ignored in the American press, although it sure sounds like news to me. Unlike the killing of Trayvon, racial motive has allegedly been expressed (as opposed to assumed). But go about your business, citizens. There’s no story here.
I can see only one possible reason for the enormous disparity in how these cases are treated by the politico-media complex. They really don’t care about all the black people being killed, or the occasional white person. They are just collateral damage. The real concern is what will help achieve political objectives. Only white-on-black crime is useful to the narrative.
There are many Goldsteins today on the left and the right, because there is much to distract us from.
But what was strange was that although Goldstein was hated and despised by everybody, although every day and a thousand times a day, on platforms, on the telescreen, in newspapers, in books, his theories were refuted, smashed, ridiculed, held up to the general gaze for the pitiful rubbish that they were – in spite of all this, his influence never seemed to grow less.
Prime Minister Harper doesn’t see eye to eye with President Obama. Now some would say it’s just because he’s such a Far Right Wing (TM) Extremist. But that doesn’t explain Australia having some of the same issues. Apparently their Labour government doesn’t agree that we can evade economic reality by printing more money.
OK, this got lots of press attention in Canada, but I find it odd that they waited until the third round of voting before launching a DDOS attack. I wonder what it means…
They’ve been at it before. Funny, any other time someone has been targeted by them it’s been a major news story. Perhaps it’s inconvenient for people to see the drumbeat of demonization against the Church leading to actions, or start asking what “heated rhetoric” might be responsible.
I never tire of quoting Noam Chomsky on this: “If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for those we disagree with, then we don’t believe in it at all.”
Admittedly I didn’t look at much American news the day of the protests, but when I did look at had no mention of it. The narrative on this is that the Catholic Church seeks to deny women access to contraception, which is false. The controversy is over the US federal government’s attempt to force everyone, including Catholic agencies and employers who believe artificial contraception is immoral, to pay for it for others via mandatory purchase of medical insurance that is mandated to provide it. It’s a matter of whether the government can compel individuals, agencies or churches to act against their conscience. The Obama administration says it can. Allegedly, RomneyCare in Massachusetts took the same position.