Advertisement

At the Intersection of Faith and Culture

At the Intersection of Faith and Culture

“Gay Marriage:” Courtesy of Republicans

posted by Jack Kerwick

The issue of so-called “same-sex marriage” will soon come before the Supreme Court.  I am no betting man, but if I was, I would gamble every dime to my name that before long, “gay marriage” will be the law of the land.  I would further bet that those right-leaning politicians and their allies within the “alternative” media who have insisted upon preserving the heterosexual character of marriage will succumb to a deafening silence not long after that.

In the annals of the human race, it is not often that we witness the particularities of time and culture giving way to a consensus on a moral issue.  Yet whether understood as an historical institution or as a spiritual and moral ideal, there is no group of people the world over that has failed to recognize marriage for the intrinsically heterosexual union that it is.

Advertisement

But alas, leave it to our generation to see to it that this state of affairs doesn’t last.  The problem is that it will indeed succeed at detonating “the general bank…of nations and of ages,” as Burke famously described the wisdom of “the species.”  

It isn’t just that leftist activists and the Democratic Party are resolved to make their dream of “same-sex marriage” a reality.  More importantly—and more tellingly—it is that the proponents of traditional marriage have no one who is willing to fight on their behalf.

As the base of the GOP reevaluates its party in the wake of the losses it suffered last month, it is imperative that among the realizations at which Republican voters arrive is the realization that Republican rhetoric on this issue is just that.   

Advertisement

To this some may object that, in fact, Republicans have done more than talk.  After all, Republicans have advocated a constitutional amendment expressly defining marriage as the union between a man and a woman, right?  What about that?  This question is best met by another: Yes, what about that?  We no longer hear about this proposal to amend the Constitution because it was never, and was never meant to be, anything but a gimmick, albeit one with strategic value.

Republicans have always known that their amendment proposal had zero chance of gaining any traction, much less achieving passage.  But in advancing it, they could temporally appease their base while eluding the real work necessary to stop “gay marriage.”

Advertisement

While it controlled both chambers of Congress and the presidency, the GOP most certainly could have done much in this arena.  

According to Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over all those cases, and only those cases, for which Congress makes allowances.  The provision states that the Court’s authority is “under such regulations as the Congress shall make.”  Translation: If a Republican-dominated Congress didn’t want for liberal judges to declare a constitutional right to “gay marriage” (or abortion, or suicide, or interspecies loving, etc.), then it would have needed to have done nothing other than invoke this Constitutional provision.  As the late Sam Francis remarked: “With a stroke of the congressional pen, ‘judicial activism’ could be ended [.]”

Advertisement

But it isn’t just that Republican politicians have failed to resist the imposition upon the country of “gay marriage.” They have actually encouraged it.

Republicans routinely express support for “civil unions” for homosexuals.  However, when marriage is considered just one more type of secular association—as it must be so considered from the perspective of our secular government—then in what, pray tell, could the difference between a marriage and a civil union be said to consist?  From talk radio show hosts to Beltway politicians, Republican critics of “gay marriage” are at pains to reassure gays that all of the benefits that they would reap from marriage are just as surely secured to them by way of civil unions. The only difference between these two contracts, such Republicans explain, is the name.

Advertisement

But what’s in a name?  If the difference between a civil union and a marriage is only nominal, then there is no real difference at all.

In the very near future, homosexuals will have found themselves a constitutional right to marry other homosexuals.  When this happens, the country can thank not just the left-wing activists who fought tirelessly for it.

It can thank Republicans as well.      

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisement

A “War on Christmas?”

posted by Jack Kerwick

Christmas is a holiday that most Americans associate with all manner of symbols, from candy canes to crosses, decorated trees to dangling lights, snowfall to Santa Claus.  It is next to impossible for us to imagine Christmas without also thinking about some combination or other of these signs.

Sadly, it has also become impossible for those of us in contemporary America to think about Christmas without thinking about “the war” that various media outlets assure us is being steadily waged against it.

About this “War on Christmas,” this Christian and veteran lover of Christmas has more than one thought to share.

First, for certain, our world consists of a not insignificant number of anti-Christian zealots who are determined to eradicate from the public life of American and Western culture every last vestige of Christianity.

Advertisement

Second, it is indeed Christianity, and this religion alone, that is the object of the secularist’s wrath.  We must guard against being fooled by his talk of the generic “religion:” there is a reason why we never hear about the War on Hanukah or the War on Ramadan.

Third, the assault against Christianity is part of a much larger cultural trajectory, an ever growing propensity of Western peoples to visit transformative change upon their civilization generally, and its apex—America—specifically. 

For the better part of the last two millennia, not only has Christianity been the faith of the West; as Belloc observed, the two had fused into one. What this means, though, is that if the West is to be transformed, then Christianity—the blood that has flowed through its veins, the spirit that has propelled its imagination to heretofore undreamt of heights—must die.  Either it must, like the dinosaur, go away outright or, what is more feasible, render itself into an instrument that can readily be enlisted in the service of cultural transformation.

Advertisement

Either way, whether its enemies are consciously aware of this or not, it is nothing less than the death of Christianity for which they call.

Still, while there is no small measure of anti-Christian animus in the world, talk of “the War on Christmas” is nothing more or less than the stuff of media sensationalism. But that which serves the interests of journalists, pundits, and their employers need not necessarily serve the interests of Christians.

Besides it being simply false, there are at least two other reasons—one practical, the other historical—why Christians should object to the annual hype about a “war” on Christmas.

For one, Christmas is the time that Christians prepare for the advent of Christ, the Prince of Peace.  Yet if they are forever being pressured at just this time to view themselves as combatants in an interminable war in defense of their faith, the peace of mind for which they strive during the Christmas season promises to be elusive.

Advertisement

Attacks on Christmas and Christianity are discouraging, but thinking that there is an all out war on them is enough to rob Christians of “the good cheer” that Eddie Pola and George Wyle implore all of us to exhibit in their famous Christmas carol, “It’s The Most Wonderful Time of the Year.” 

Second, the notion that there is a “War on Christmas” is offensive from an historical perspective.  Since its emergence, Christianity has all too regularly had war—real, bloody, war—waged upon it.  Not infrequently, though, it has been one brand of Christianity that has come under attack by the champions of another.  The most ardent of our secularist contemporaries no less than their Christian counterparts can only recoil in horror upon hearing of how Christians of yesteryear were treated at times and places by other Christians.   

Advertisement

And as for Christmas, if the prevalence of “Happy Holidays” is the sign of a war, then what must we think of the seventeenth century ban on public Christmas celebrations that the Puritans imposed for roughly two decades?  Again, in the 1600’s, the spectacle to which we bear witness is that of Christians appropriating measures of which Bill O’Reilly’s “Secular Progressives” could scarcely conceive.

Not at any time has Christianity been without its share of hostile critics. Nor will there be any time in the future when things will be otherwise.  But the penchant for construing every instance of hostility as a shot fired in an endless war not only blinds one to history.  It is the surest way to preclude the peace of mind the Christ promised.   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisement

Brent Bozell’s Belated Revelation: GOP, Friend of Big Government

posted by Jack Kerwick

“The Republican Party is no longer the party of limited government, with limited spending and limited taxes.  It is now officially exactly right behind the Democrats—on everything. It is time for conservatives to start looking for a new home.  There’s precious little left for us here.”

Thus spoke Brent Bozell, founder of the Media Research Center and long-time movement conservative.

Although Bozell deserves two thumbs up for his remarks, it is still worth noting that his epiphany is a little late in the coming: if it was ever really the party of limited government, it has been eons since the GOP ceased being so.

Ron Paul labored indefatigably for decades to call his fellow partisans to their senses, but the self-avowed champions of “limited government” in Washington and “conservative” talk radio ridiculed and derided him.  Just as he spotted the recession of ’08 long before it exploded and at a time when his competitors in the presidential primaries insisted that the economy was strong, so too did Paul recognize the identity-crisis in the Republican Party—the chasm between its rhetoric and its policies—years before it dawned upon the likes of Bozell. 

Advertisement

It is crucial to bear in mind that it isn’t because Paul is so prescient that he has been ahead of the curve on this score.  Rather, it is because Republicans have been so blind that accounts for why it has taken some of them this long to appreciate Paul’s insights.

The sources of this blindness are probably many.  Doubtless, one of them just may be the glare from the contrast between what Republicans espouse with their lips and the policies for which they advocate.

To hear Bozell and others in the conservative movement, one could be forgiven for thinking that the Grand Old Party is just now beginning to retreat from its pledge to promote “limited government.” But we needn’t go all that far back in time to see that this simply isn’t so.

Advertisement

In fact, we needn’t go all that far back to realize that the very same voices on the right who have been screaming (rightly, I might add) from the rooftops over obscene levels of government spending and the like for the last four years uttered scarcely a peep over the same during the preceding eight.

Let us not forget that for six years—from 2000 to 2006—Republicans controlled both chambers of Congress and the presidency.  For six years prior to this, the Republicans dominated Congress.  This period supplied a golden opportunity for the party of limited government to practice what it preached while definitively establishing once and for all to the country the intellectual and moral superiority of its ideas over those of its rivals.

Advertisement

Sadly, but perhaps not surprisingly, none of this happened.  Instead, Republicans definitively established that all of their talk of “limited government” was just that. 

That is, they established to the satisfaction of both their opponents as well as a not inconsiderable number of their constituents that they were just as committed to Big Government as were their nemeses. That ever fewer Republicans have showed up at the polls in the last two presidential election cycles proves that long before Bozell had his revelation, Republican voters on the ground got the message loudly and clearly.

But how could anyone not have seen this?

The scope and size of the federal government expanded exponentially while in the care of Republicans under Bush II. Not since Lyndon B. Johnson’s “Great Society” had the federal government figured so powerfully in American life.  The only difference is that spending under Bush II was even greater than that which occurred under Johnson.

Advertisement

Bush II and his Republicans launched two woefully unpopular, drawn out wars.  In prosecuting them, he assumed unto the executive branch heretofore unseen powers—like the ominously named “Patriot Act,” say—that has left legions of patriots shivering.  This is bad enough in itself, but to compound the problem, it erects a dangerous precedent for future presidents to appropriate those very same powers for all manner of evil.

Of course, there is a host of other resolutely anti-conservative policies for which Bush II and his Congress successfully fought.  To briefly touch upon only a few, there was: No Child Left Behind (the now nearly universally despised law that increased the federal government’s role in education); the Home Ownership Society (which facilitated the explosion of the housing bubble and the onslaught of the recession of ’08); Medicare “Part D” (the exorbitantly expensive prescription drug entitlement of ’03); and federal funding for embryonic stem cell research (an unprecedented step that only retarded any progress that the pro-life movement could be said to have made).  

Bozell is right that “conservatives should start looking for a new home.” Yet he fails to see that this is a search that should have begun a long time ago.

Advertisement

Racial Warfare

posted by Jack Kerwick

The conventional wisdom notwithstanding, if Republicans are to stand a chance of winning any more national elections, it is not to Hispanics to whom they must turn.

As some of us have been arguing for quite some time, their salvation is to be found in whites of the working and middle classes. 

By speaking to issues like so-called “affirmative action,” racially-charged policies that have proven to be to the detriment of just such whites, Republicans can promote the individualism for which they claim to stand while simultaneously relating to whites who would otherwise view them—as over six million whites who stayed home on Election Day viewed Mitt Romney—as hopelessly “out of touch.”

Even more importantly, Republicans—and all decent people—should labor to abolish “affirmative action” and the like because, hyperbole aside, all such policies are the instruments by which racial warfare is waged.

Advertisement

Whether your average American, black, white, or other, recognizes it or not, there is indeed a cold racial war of a sort transpiring in America.  Evidence of the war, however, is not to be sought in mere interracial hostilities or distrust.  That, say, individual blacks and whites dislike one another or even openly fight with one another does not a war make. Nor even would large-scale interracial conflict suffice to establish that there is a racial war in the sense in which I mean it.

Rather, that it is without exaggeration that we can speak of a racial war in America is born out by the fact that the federal government systematically—through policies like “affirmative action”—promotes the interests, or what are claimed to be in the interest, of various non-white groups at the cost of undercutting the interests of whites.

Advertisement

Yet in siding with some citizens over and against others, the government abandons its role as a neutral arbiter of conflicts in favor of assuming the role of participant in those conflicts.  What this in turn means is that if it was ever a reality, the peace for the sake of which the government exists to guarantee is no more.

But as the great philosopher Thomas Hobbes observed way back in the seventeenth century, the only alternative to peace is war.

In his quest to supply an account of the authority of government, Hobbes invoked the philosophically distinguished concept of “the state of nature.”  The latter refers to life prior to the formation of government.  And for Hobbes, such life is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short,” for in the absence of government, the absence of a commonly recognized authority to determine the conditions of just conduct, each person possesses absolute sovereignty over his life.  However, this unconditional right on the part of each person to do whatever he thinks needs to be done to preserve his existence casts each in a perpetual contest for survival with all others.

Advertisement

The state of nature, that is, is a war of all against all.  Hobbes writes that when “men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war; and such a war, as is of every man, against every man.”  It isn’t that men are always literally at each other’s throats where there is no “common power to keep them all in awe.”  But war “consisteth not in battle only, or act of fighting; but in a tract of time, wherein the will to contend by battle is sufficiently known [.]”

To end this war, each person consents to give up his absolute right to everything on the condition that every other person makes the same concession. The only way for this to occur, though, is for the parties to this “covenant” to give rise to a “common power”—government, or “the Sovereign,” as Hobbes refers to it—that will secure peace by functioning as a kind of umpire or referee.  The Sovereign is the custodian of law and, hence, an impartial adjudicator of all conflicts that arise with respect to it.

Advertisement

Once the Sovereign relinquishes its role, though, then the state of nature—the state of war—resumes.

It is my contention that there is a racial war only in the sense that our government has abdicated the neutrality and impartiality that it is supposed to maintain in regard to the citizenry over which it presides.  Insofar as our government shows partiality toward Americans of one race and against those of another—regardless of the races in question—it in effect prosecutes a kind of racial war.

This is why it is imperative that policies like “affirmative action” and the like be abolished.

And this is why it is imperative that Republicans, and all who are concerned with justice and peace, work toward that end.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Previous Posts

Trump and the GOP's Election Cycle Talking Points
During every presidential election cycle, both Democratic and Republican talking heads trot out the same tired conventionalities that they predictably use to promote their preferred candidates and undermine those whom they dislike. Given the ...

posted 10:40:33pm Sep. 03, 2015 | read full post »

Thinking Seriously About the Virginia Murders
On the morning of August 26, Vester Lee Flanagan, a former employee of WBDJ, shot and murdered WBDJ TV’s Alison Parker and Adam Ward on live television. He shot a third person, Vicki Gardner, who Parker was interviewing. Fortunately, the ...

posted 10:12:39am Aug. 28, 2015 | read full post »

Trump Is No Conservative, But Neither Is...Chris Christie!
Donald Trump hasn’t the most conservative of track records. His opponents in the GOP presidential field and in segments of the so-called “conservative media” have sought to discredit Trump on this score. But they are dishonest, for ...

posted 8:51:39am Aug. 25, 2015 | read full post »

Trump Is No Conservative, But Neither Is...John Kasich!
Donald Trump may not be a conservative. His Republican opponents, both his rivals in the presidential primary contest as well as their apologists in the media, are laboring tirelessly to discredit their party’s front runner on this ...

posted 10:23:39pm Aug. 22, 2015 | read full post »

Trump is No Conservative But Neither Is...Carly Fiorina!
As I argued a few weeks ago, there are reasons for doubting Donald Trump’s conservative bona fides. But those of his critics at Fox News and in some quarters of “conservative” talk radio who level this charge against him are disingenuous, ...

posted 11:44:43pm Aug. 20, 2015 | read full post »

Advertisement


Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.