By Erik Rush
Given the lassitude with which Christians in America have responded to the hostile rhetoric, legal harassment, and coordinated political antagonism on the part of militant homosexuals (the “gay lobby,” I believe they call it), I think it’s fairly safe to say that Christians had been very much willing to “live and let love” with regard to equal opportunity, civil rights, and societal parity for homosexuals.
I say “had been” because it may be that this co-existence is no longer possible.
A few of us have expounded upon the apparent alliance between the political left and elements of the Islamist community. The so-called “gay rights agenda” in America is driven by the political left, not homosexuals, and it has given rise to a sad and perhaps dangerous phenomenon that is similar to a tactic being employed by militant Muslims in America.
Like the violent Islamists who for some reason get to command the discussion concerning Islam (despite all of the supposedly “peaceful Muslims” who nonetheless refuse to condemn violent action by Muslims), apparently America’s most militant homosexuals are being allowed to drive the narrative concerning the rights of homosexuals.
This week, Breitbart’s Thomas D. Williams reported on an op-ed by The New York Times’ writer Frank Bruni, a gay activist and former Times restaurant critic (of all things). Bruni’s argument – made in the wake of the Indiana religious freedom protection legislation being passed – is that Christians must ultimately be forced to embrace the gay lifestyle.
Williams shreds Bruni’s column, and justifiably so, because the thing reads more like the manifesto of a gay Unabomber than an opinion piece.
According to Williams, Bruni contends that people who hold “biblically-based beliefs regarding sexual morality have no place at America’s table and are deserving of no particular regard” [emphasis mine].
Interesting. That’s how I am increasingly coming to view leftists. But I digress…
“As a food critic, NY Times writer Frank Bruni was entertaining and occasionally informative. As an op-ed columnist he is adolescent and often repetitive. But as a theologian, he is simply abysmal.
Bruni takes it upon himself to explain how the Bible can be interpreted to read that God is really fine with sodomy and that all that antiquated stuff against adultery, fornication, and ‘men lying with other men’ is a quaint vestige of an archaic worldview that went out definitively with Freud.”
- Ken Blackwell, Family Research Council
And we all know how well-adjusted and unbiased Sigmund Freud was…
As Williams points out, the “scary part” is Bruni’s elitist, far-far-left view that those who disagree with him, his homofascist friends, and their vision for American culture (i.e., Christians) ought to be forcibly reeducated.
As you’ll see at the end of this column, I do measure my words rather carefully, even when they’re intentionally incendiary. Here, we have a columnist for the august New York Times shamelessly and unapologetically advocating for blatantly totalitarian public policy: the forcible reeducation of a segment of our society.
Ken Blackwell, a Senior Fellow at the Family Research Council, wrote this week about a talk given at FRC by homosexual “end of marriage” activist Chai Feldblum, who told the audience that “in any conflict between religious freedom and gay rights, she could not imagine an instance where the religious freedom side could win. Or should win.”
This archetypal leftist harpy isn’t just some anonymous hag howling in a dark forest over a cauldron somewhere. Feldblum was named to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) by President Obama himself.
How’s that for stacking the deck toward a win for “fundamental transformation?”
“We are not given the option to ‘live and let love.’ We must embrace and applaud every advance of this movement. We must celebrate what they want to do to our country, our churches and synagogues, our schools, and our families.”
- Ken Blackwell, Family Research Council
While the worldview and desires of those who advocate the Judeo-Christian paradigm of society have been steeped in thousands of years of history, trial-and-error, mistakes, wars, schisms, and enlightenment, the worldview and desires of those who advocate for the botched coat hanger abortions of Marxism, socialism, and secular humanism are based on nothing more than their narcissism, arrogance, and indulgent tendencies.
Yet, their viewpoint is “every bit as valid” as ours; we know this because they’ve said so. In fact, it’s even more valid; they’ve determined that our system is antiquated which, for some arbitrary reason, is bad by definition.
So we’re going to try it their way for the next few hundred years or so – and if Christians don’t like it well, they can be forcibly reeducated. Perhaps in the tradition of the political icons that the homofascists’ Marxist-Leninist overlords admire so much, they’ll decide to save the time and trouble of forcible reeducation and simply execute them all.
But here’s the real danger: This “comply or die” attitude to which people like Bruni, Feldblum, and no doubt many others subscribe is going to wear very thin, very quickly.
More and more Christians in America are hearing homofascists’ calls for violence against Christians, the burning of their businesses – in short, the escalation of hostilities on the part of these militant deviants – and they are beginning to see the writing on the wall. They are looking to history and realizing that our nation actually has been taken over by radical Marxists, but that despite the left’s pacifistic propaganda vis-à-vis how they think Christians are supposed to act, our survival over the last 2000 years has often meant dispositions relative to our non-Christian enemies that involved, shall we say, extreme prejudice.
Unfortunately, when circumstances get to that point, the innocent tend to suffer right along with the guilty, and that is tragic.
The last couple of statements will no doubt be taken as “proof” that I’m a big fat hater who advocates killing homosexuals. This is not true, of course; I would only advocate such action for those among them who favor religious persecution, disenfranchisement, the compulsory dismantling of cultural convention, forced re-education, or any of the other draconian measures they elect to employ against those who would retain their liberty.