The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Is Roy Moore Wrong? And If So, Why?

Posted on | July 14, 2015 | 131 Comments

The Left is having a tantrum over remarks that Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore made at a Baptist church Sunday:

Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore told a church crowd on Sunday that the U.S. Supreme Court “destroyed the institution of God” by legalizing same-sex marriage.
Moore, who made national news when he ordered the state’s probate judges to withhold same-sex marriage license in violation of a federal judge’s decision, addressed a congregation of about 150 people at Magnolia Springs Baptist Church in Theodore.
“How do they come out now and say that marriage, which is ordained by God, doesn’t mean what it’s always meant, between a man and woman?” Moore said. “Not between two men, two women, or three women and one man.
“See, they don’t have a definition. They’ve just destroyed the institution of God. Despite what they think, it’s not their doing. Satan drives us. He’s out there destroying everything God created including us as human beings.” . . .
“The issue is not about same-sex marriage. It’s about a sexual revolution. It’s about having people decide whether they are male or female. You’re talking about overturning God’s natural order …. When you start teaching kids that they have the right to choose whether they are male or female. . . .
“What we’ve been taught is somehow Christianity is bad for our country. And that government can’t have anything to do with Christianity . . .”

You can read the whole thing. You will notice that when the Left mocks Justice Moore or other conservative Christians for saying such things, they almost never bother to say what exactly is wrong with believing the Bible. Nor does the Left find it necessary to prove what is wrong or harmful in understanding that our nation’s laws were founded in Christian moral belief. The Left believes in Equality with a capital “e” and Progress with a capital “p.” To the Left, it is sufficient condemnation of tradition to say that tradition belongs to the past; the past is always bad, because Progress has rendered it obsolete, the leftist must believe. And the Left furthermore holds to a dogmatic belief that Progress requires a forced march toward Equality, so that overturning tradition — or, as Justice Moore would say, destroying “the institution of God” — is always good, because this will help inaugurate the egalitarian Utopia.

The problem is that, for all the “success” of the devotees of Equality and Progress, it does not seem to me — nor to most other Americans — that our nation is actually being improved by the destruction of our Christian tradition. We keep being marched toward Utopia, but we have not yet arrived there, and many Americans are becoming suspicious that we are actually heading toward a destination that proverbially awaits those who travel a road paved with good intentions. By more than a 2-to-1 margin, Americans say we are headed in the wrong direction, and isn’t it possible that Justice Moore may be correct in his understanding of how we got ourselves onto this Highway to Hell?

“Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools . . .”

Declaring war against God, the Left also wages a War Against Human Nature, and Justice Moore’s comments about “teaching kids that they have the right to choose whether they are male or female” echoes points I make in Sex Trouble:

University faculty devoted to the study of “Gender Theory” reject the categories of masculinity and femininity. What most people understand as the natural traits and normal roles of the sexes are, according to the proponents of Gender Theory, an elaborate deception into which we have been brainwashed by the anti-female, anti-gay social system called heteronormative patriarchy. (page 15)

What has happened in the past four decades is that feminism has waged a war on human nature, and has striven (with remarkable success) to replace our normal understanding of Right and Wrong with a new system of values: Women, good; men, evil. (page 17)

Whenever we hear feminists condemn “patriarchy,” we understand that what they have in mind is not some kind of humanitarian democratic reform project. . . . Four decades have not changed the ideology of feminism as Andrea Dworkin described it in 1974: The family must be destroyed, along with normal sex roles — no more masculine men, no more feminine women. Feminism is “a plane­tary movement to restructure community forms and human consciousness,” as Dworkin said. (page 73)

When we understand this project as essentially destructive, we are entitled to ask what the radicals propose to build upon the bloody wreckage of our society and culture once they finish destroying it. Perhaps they will build a Temple of Ba’al.





 

Category: Gays, Sex Trouble

Comments

131 Responses to “Is Roy Moore Wrong? And If So, Why?”

  1. NeoWayland
    July 14th, 2015 @ 2:38 pm

    Simple questions.

    Why should any religion be enshrined in law? Raised above all others as THE Moral Standard?

    Perhaps more importantly, would you accept it if it were not your religion?

    Or at least something calling itself your religion.

  2. Evi L. Bloggerlady
    July 14th, 2015 @ 2:38 pm

    If it is wrong to be a Christian and believe that, then yeah, Judge Moore is wrong. Is it wrong to have the secular world view of Barack Obama, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Anthony Kennedy, etc., etc., who believe so long as their end is okay in their mind, it does not matter how you get there? We are a nation of laws or we are not.

  3. Matt_SE
    July 14th, 2015 @ 2:38 pm

    Moore is correct, although I would never couch my opposition in such religious terms. His arguments preach to the choir.
    Meanwhile, there are plenty of secular arguments to be made against the left, and they’re more likely to convert outsiders, IMO.
    One thing I applaud however, is Moore’s attitude: Enough already!
    The Constitution is not a suicide pact, and we are under no obligation to help the destruction of our society.
    Civil disobedience.

  4. Matt_SE
    July 14th, 2015 @ 2:43 pm

    Laws can be used against you. They are being used against you. Discernment is the key: “An unjust law is no law at all.” – MLK, paraphrasing Aquinas.
    MLK was a man who knew a thing or two about unjust laws, and more importantly, HOW TO FIGHT THEM.

  5. Matt_SE
    July 14th, 2015 @ 2:46 pm

    Not all religions are equal. Islam is a perverse death cult, no matter what the apologists say.
    You know they’re full of shit because they don’t want to discuss any of Islam’s tenets.
    This is of course, just hand-waving. It’s not meant to bring us any closer to the truth or understanding.

  6. NeoWayland
    July 14th, 2015 @ 3:02 pm

    Pardon, but that isn’t the question.

    Why should any religion be enshrined in law?

    Shouldn’t faith be between you and the Divine?

    Shouldn’t religion be your choice and not imposed on you by some government functionary?

    Coke may be less disagreeable than Pepsi, but I don’t want armed special agents making sure I drink it.

  7. Matt_SE
    July 14th, 2015 @ 3:17 pm

    The first response established that religions are not equal.
    The value comes (from a secular viewpoint) in how well they promote civic virtue. These are the values that promote civilized society, and eschew barbarism.
    Christianity does the former, Islam does the latter.

  8. DeadMessenger
    July 14th, 2015 @ 3:18 pm

    I agree with this, but I think that it goes deeper than simply Equality and Progress, and beyond a war on Christianity.

    I think it’s more accurate to say that our Constitution was based upon Natural Law, since a good many of the Founding Fathers were deists, others were Freemasons and so on, but I’d guess they all read Locke. And Socrates. Which is not to say that they didn’t have a background in Christianity. Probably everyone in those days did, by definition, given the roots of the American populace.

    According to Romans 2:14-15, everyone who ever lived has a conscience (it may not be functional, due to various factors; you could read more about this in my kind of lengthy article here: http://blogos.org/christianlifeandgrowth/rationalization-conscience.php), and our consciences would thus be a gatekeeper, if you will, of God’s moral laws, which is why Natural Law pretty much looks just like a secular version of God’s laws.

    Natural Law is teleological. All things have an ultimate purpose. Marriage and sex, for example, have an ultimate meaning purpose Natural Law (and God’s laws as well, obviously). Marriage is between one man and one woman. The marriage is the foundation of the family unit. Sex has meaning, for reproduction of course, but also to strengthen the marital bond (and inoculating it against adultery and divorce), thus strengthening the individual family unit, and ultimately, strengthening the entire community. And life itself has meaning.

    The nontelelogical opposite – I’ll call it Unnatural Law – is a reality in which nothing has any meaning beyond what an individual wills or desires it to have. Therefore, all things are acceptable under Unnatural Law.

    Years ago, some authority-abusing activist judges decided that life had no meaning by making abortion legal. The concept of abortion as baby murder turned out to be a hazy thing for some people. Not for me – I know that life begins at conception, but some were unclear about that. And not only did we in this country become baby murderers, we caused others to become baby murderers as well. And later, this will expand to include post-birth abortion. And then also, will come to include voluntary euthanasia, which will quickly become mandatory euthanasia. Because life has no meaning.

    Authority-abusing activist judges are at it again, completely redefining marriage under Unnatural Law. Marriage no longer has a purpose, again exposing the irrational nontelelogical reality that is desired by, apparently, many people in this country. Next, polygamy will be legal. Because under what grounds would it not be? And if reality is nontelelogical, as Liberals and Marxists, by their actions, tell us it is, then that will be followed by incestuous marriage, redefinition of consent laws to allow for pedophilia, bestiality as a lifestyle choice, and all sorts of foul and vile things. Because a sick, depraved person can think up all sorts of foul and vile things, and who cares, because they’re only things; they don’t have a purpose and are defined by the individual and all things are permissible, right?

    Second Thessalonians 2:11-12 says, “For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.”

    The perception of a nontelelogical reality in which everything is permissible, I believe, is the end times delusion that Paul speaks of. And because Paul also calls it “powerful”, this would mean that things are not going to get better in this country (or the world), that things are only going to get worse (substantially), especially continuing right through the entire Tribulation period, after Christians have been Raptured and their salt and light influence on the world is gone. Further, the Scripture tells us that the delusion is an act of God.

    In other words, there’s no healing our country at this point, let alone healing the world.

    And speaking of a nontelelogical reality, do you know how many Hillary campaign stickers I see on the backs of cars in my town, right alongside Obama-Biden stickers? And this is a conservative area of Florida.

  9. Quartermaster
    July 14th, 2015 @ 3:18 pm

    Neo is simply trolling again. Facts and philosophy don’t matter if they aren’t his facts or his philosophy.

  10. Queef McGee
    July 14th, 2015 @ 3:19 pm

    Christianity has nothing to do with promoting civilized society. Especially since the number of people identify themselves as Christians drops every year

    http://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/americas-changing-religious-landscape/

  11. Quartermaster
    July 14th, 2015 @ 3:22 pm

    You’ve missed Matt’s point. At the same time, however, as Christianity declines as the number of its adherents decline, the effect is dyscivic because the values that foster civic virtue decline among the population.

  12. Jason Lee
    July 14th, 2015 @ 3:23 pm

    Who’s talking about “enshrining” religion in law?

  13. Quartermaster
    July 14th, 2015 @ 3:25 pm

    Paul said that God would send a strong delusion on the people of earth. Many thought it was only after the Church had been removed that the delusion would come. It’s already here and we are seeing the people that have been the beneficiaries of western civilization go insane.
    When you forget God, that’s what happens.

  14. DeadMessenger
    July 14th, 2015 @ 3:30 pm

    I agree, though I think that there are no borders to this “everything is permissible” attitude. Muslim imams have long has this attitude about lots of things, except where it concerns women, Jews and Christians. Those guys chuck homosexuals off roofs with one breath, and in the next breath, go get themselves some Afghani dancing boy booty.

  15. Evi L. Bloggerlady
    July 14th, 2015 @ 3:31 pm

    I obviously get that Matt. We are having the constitution amended by a star chamber. We either have laws or we don’t. Laws that can be rewritten in this manner are no laws at all.

  16. Matt_SE
    July 14th, 2015 @ 3:37 pm

    Queef McGee is a stalker and troll who follows me to any site listed in my Disqus history.
    He’s not here to “get” my points.

  17. DeadMessenger
    July 14th, 2015 @ 3:38 pm

    Marcus Tullius Cicero said in De Legibus that “wicked and unjust statutes” are “anything but ‘laws'”, because “in the very definition of the term ‘law’ there inheres the idea and principle of choosing what is just and true.”

    Quoting Robert Reilly in Making Gay Okay: How Rationalizing Homosexual Behavior is Changing Everything:
    “In other words, positive law, that made by legislatures or rulers, is legitimate only to the extent to which is incorporates natural law, which is the objective source of the distinction between what is just and and what is unjust. A positive law made contrary to natural law would be, by definition, unjust.”

  18. Jason Lee
    July 14th, 2015 @ 3:39 pm

    Who’s talking about enshrining religion? Who’s talking about imposing religion?

  19. NeoWayland
    July 14th, 2015 @ 3:39 pm

    But it’s not about if religions are “equal” or not.

    It’s about if a single religion should be enshrined in law. And what happens if you are not a member of the religion that is made part of law.

    Should you be bound by a religion you are not a part of?

  20. Queef McGee
    July 14th, 2015 @ 3:41 pm

    Your points? The points that you repeat like a broken record? You don’t have points; you have a one-sided pit bull mentality that leaves no room for discussion. This doesn’t even take into account when you run around the internet trying to make a point about socialism where there was none.

    51,349 one sided “points”. Congrats, you’re a hero! Daddy Limbaugh is so proud of you. Hope you ordered all of his great merchandise!

  21. Matt_SE
    July 14th, 2015 @ 3:42 pm

    You didn’t say if one religion should be enshrined in law, you asked if any religion should be enshrined in law.
    …you even bolded it.

  22. NeoWayland
    July 14th, 2015 @ 3:42 pm

    You mean other than Roy Moore up there in the original post?

    You’re talking about overturning God’s natural order ….

    That’s certainly a religious point of view.

  23. Matt_SE
    July 14th, 2015 @ 3:43 pm

    …and yet, nondenominational.

  24. NeoWayland
    July 14th, 2015 @ 3:44 pm

    Hi there!

    I’m still waiting for facts. I’d settle for the answer to a question.

  25. Matt_SE
    July 14th, 2015 @ 3:46 pm

    “…you have a one-sided pit bull mentality that leaves no room for discussion.”
    Yes, I’m quite proud of that. Basically, I’m immune to leftist bullshit.

  26. NeoWayland
    July 14th, 2015 @ 3:46 pm

    Yep, I did. And for very good reason.

    I also said this:

    Perhaps more importantly, would you accept it if it were not your religion?

  27. Matt_SE
    July 14th, 2015 @ 3:50 pm

    If it were sufficiently similar and/or tolerant of other faiths, yes.
    For example, there haven’t been mobs of Christians burning down Synagogues in America since…well, ever.
    YET AGAIN, this is a point of marked difference from Islam.

  28. Queef McGee
    July 14th, 2015 @ 3:51 pm

    I understand that part but you’ve literally sent almost 48 messages a day for 1090 days. Don’t you think that’s a bit much?

  29. Matt_SE
    July 14th, 2015 @ 3:52 pm

    Oh, I thought you were making a blanket appeal to the rule of law. I hate it when the right does that.
    Sorry.

  30. Matt_SE
    July 14th, 2015 @ 3:53 pm

    No.

  31. Queef McGee
    July 14th, 2015 @ 3:54 pm

    Christians have burned a lot of black churches. Let me guess, they were Democrats at that time right?

  32. NeoWayland
    July 14th, 2015 @ 3:54 pm

    Nondenominational? Ah, I see.

    It’s only the Christians that need apply? You don’t need the Jews.

    I live next to the Navajo reservation. Will you exclude the Sky People?

    One of my neighbors three doors down is a Buddhist. Doesn’t she get a say?

    One of my companions is an atheist. She’s also one of the wisest women I know. Should she get a say?

    Why or why not?

  33. Queef McGee
    July 14th, 2015 @ 3:55 pm

    No, as in I swear I’m not insane or just no?

  34. kilo6
    July 14th, 2015 @ 4:00 pm

    Yes, 2 Thes 2:10 is a quite interesting passage to read these days (if you’re referencing the what’s typically quoted as “strong delusion” in KJV)
    and also the reference to not having love of Truth

  35. NeoWayland
    July 14th, 2015 @ 4:00 pm

    I’ve really tried to be polite on this board, but believe when I say I’ve seen more than enough Christian intolerance to last me several lifetimes. It’s not every Christian, but it is there. Nor are Christians alone in their intolerance.

    What I am trying to say is that by making religion a part of government you’re setting the grounds for much more intolerance.

    Even if you stuck to Christians, you’d be asking for trouble. Should Catholics have precedence over Baptists? What about the Mormons and the Methodists?

  36. Finrod Felagund
    July 14th, 2015 @ 4:25 pm

    And here’s someone that in the last eight hours has spouted off the following nonsense elsewhere:

    Steyn should stick to making bad Christmas albums!

    Have you bought your Limbaugh coffee mug lately?

    Thanks to our Republican friends who have let corporations run wild in this country since the 1960s.

    So you’re making Vietnam era analogies to keep up with that ultra-right wing profile and comments?

    Basically what you’re saying is that he’s not a KOCH Brother preferred pick?

    A black candidate means nothing when your party has done 0.0 to cater to anyone but old rich white guys who come from trust funds.

    HAHAH! Please explain to me how Bachman and Palin were competent!

  37. Finrod Felagund
    July 14th, 2015 @ 4:27 pm

    Go die in a fire, idiot leftist troll.

  38. Finrod Felagund
    July 14th, 2015 @ 4:28 pm

    Look, a lying leftist, but I repeat myself.

  39. Finrod Felagund
    July 14th, 2015 @ 4:31 pm

    If he’s following you on Disqus, you can remove him. If he keeps refollowing you, you can report him to Disqus as a spammer.

  40. Matt_SE
    July 14th, 2015 @ 4:34 pm

    I don’t mean following me like a follower. I mean, he’s looking at my Disqus history (which isn’t private), and follows me to the forums I post on. It’s creepy.

  41. Finrod Felagund
    July 14th, 2015 @ 4:35 pm

    Yeah, I had someone who was doing that to me. Got the bastard kicked off multiple sites he was following me around to, including here.

  42. Queef McGee
    July 14th, 2015 @ 4:37 pm

    You’re wishing death upon me because I don’t share your political ideals? At the very least, I’ve never wished death on anyone (because I’m not insane) especially not for their political views.

    Our forefathers would be ashamed of you. You can’t talk to your fellow countrymen without slinging a death threat? That’s what your party backs?

  43. Queef McGee
    July 14th, 2015 @ 4:39 pm

    Finrod, if I get kicked off for spamming you can bet 100% Matt_Se will be kicked off as well. He’s made 52,199 more comments than me.

    You want to me removed because I don’t share your political views? Disgusting!

  44. Queef McGee
    July 14th, 2015 @ 4:39 pm

    Let me guess, you couldn’t have a discussion with someone from other political view point?

  45. Queef McGee
    July 14th, 2015 @ 4:40 pm

    47+ messages a day for 1090 days straight isn’t creepy?

  46. RS
    July 14th, 2015 @ 4:41 pm

    I note how quickly certain occasional visitors appear to try to derail the discussion. Supporting marriage and the family by preserving a definition of the former institution which has existed for a long time is not “enshrining religion” in the law, even if religions accept that definition and support it. The progressive laser-like focus on human genitalia over the last 60 years have left a lot of unhappy people in its wake. Throwing ticker-tape parades and giving “courage” awards to those who are mentally imbalanced is not healthy for society in the long term. Or, more succinctly, Bruce Jenner was born with a penis. That fact remains true regardless of one’s teleological beliefs may be.

  47. Finrod Felagund
    July 14th, 2015 @ 4:43 pm

    You’re an idiot leftist troll that reduces the signal to noise level here. Begone, fool.

  48. Finrod Felagund
    July 14th, 2015 @ 4:44 pm

    Wombat, please take care of this fool for us?

  49. Finrod Felagund
    July 14th, 2015 @ 4:44 pm

    You’re going to burn eventually anyways, unless you accept Jesus. I’m just telling you to go there quicker.

  50. Queef McGee
    July 14th, 2015 @ 4:45 pm

    That’s not a response to anything I said. Thanks for the ad hominem attacks though. Yes you should expand your vocab by looking up ad hominem.

    Let me guess your next response:

    Go die in a fire, leftist troll?