Skip to main content

This Really Makes No Sense...Unless You Are a Fascist

Ahem. I don't even think that Obama is particularly unlikable as a guy, although I can sympathize with those who can no longer stomach his rank incuriousness and arrogance. But it's time to just say it: He doesn't believe in liberty. I am not one of those people who thinks he was born in a foreign country. I don't get angry when I see his face, although I mourn. It's just the plain fact that he doesn't recognize a difference between the State and everything else. He does not hold esteem for spheres of life that he cannot control or use.

That's the only conclusion that fits all the data. This is why the HHS mandate happened. This is why the health-care law is written the way it is, either to destroy the private market or to make it small enough to be bought off.

It's cool to be pro-gay sex these days, but he doesn't do it to seem open-minded. He does it because statists of a certain stripe know that families, communities, and churches are impossible to break. But aberrant sexual expressions of many kinds destroy all these things, at least in their vitality, and the State can take care of the rest.

It's time to ask forthrightly if we are living in a tyranny. What evidence would convince you? There are those who make a cottage industry of telling others to stop overreacting, and I'm sure they'll continue their mindless chatter. But sometimes, slippery slopes are real.

I don't like speaking this way. I liked Obama. I voted for him. I am the most optimistic person I know. I love our country. I love our institutions. But we've blown past "progressive, well-meaning dunderhead" into something else entirely. I'll be surprised if this second term ends as it should, with a peaceful transfer of power.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con

Just Sayin.' Again.

One interesting objection to this chart has been to say that one gets stuck in a "loop" that doesn't resolve. This is a thinly-veiled way of putting forward the argument that we don't need absolute certainty in religious dogma. But Fred Noltie already dealt with this in the comments on another post. And to the specific objector, no less. I'll be blunt: The only principled thing to do is put down your Bible, resign your pulpit, and lead tours in Europe. Because a man must be able to distinguish dogma from human opinion, and this epistemology doesn't allow us to do that. One of dogma's distinguishing characteristics is infallibility; another is certainty. Without this, essential characteristics of God Himself are put into question. If we say that the most important Person any person could know is God, and the content of that knowledge (doctrine) is the means by which we know Him, it must be certain. This Reformed argument that certainty is a dangerous or un