Rightwing Film Geek

The Coming Dictatorship of Relativism

From the soft tyranny to the north aka, the Soviet Socialist Republic of Canuckistan, the fine and distinguished gentleman Bob Ferguson calls for the state to make Catholicism illegal and/or determine Catholic doctrine. You think I’m exaggerating? Here are the money quotes (and the audio link for the knee-jerk “it’s a pro-life site he’s linking to” reaction):

Catholicism should be illegal:

Then it would be illegal to require a particular marital status as a condition of employment or to exclude women from the priesthood.

The state should decide Catholic teaching:

Of course the Vatican wouldn’t like the changes, but they would come to accept them in time as a fact of life in Canada. Indeed I suspect many clergy would welcome the external pressure.

Religion, after all, is SO dangerous. Particularly when people, like, believe it.

Religion is important in our lives, but it can become a danger to society when people claim that the unalterable will of God is the basis for their opinions and actions.

I understand that this is just a Canadian Broadcasting Corporation commentary, not a government official or policy. But it nevertheless chilling as an indication of where the intellectual center of gravity is in a country that many American liberals admire, some more than their own (Michael Moore, the “Queer as Folk” writers). The very softness of speech, the reassuring “not a frothing nut” tone also invites it to be taken seriously. The CBC led into the piece with blandly favorable introductory chatter provided here on the CBC’s transcript, which also has the address, for those without audio. Best I can tell, Ferguson is not a regular CBC commentator, but since CBC is state-run and Canada has some pretty draconian “hate speech” laws, the fact this was considered fit to run constitutes at least some amount of government endorsement — as legitimate opinion, within the bounds of acceptable discourse.

Since Canada already has taken, under the guise of the state’s hate speech laws and various profession-regulating bodies, to legal punishment and marginalization of Christians (and liberal favorite Sweden is even jailing ministers), it’s impossible not to see a double standard at work here and get, if not a whiff of the ovens, at least the clean-scrubbed smell of Soviet psychiatry wards.

August 2, 2005 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Coming Dictatorship of Relativism, Part 2

California’s highest court rules that a country club that offers discounts and privileges to spouses of members must do the same for unmarried couples, including same-sex pairings. In a spectacularly … um … interesting quote, the justices say: “A business that extends benefits to spouses it denies to registered domestic partners engages in impermissible marital status discrimination.” But all laws that treat married couples as a class discriminate (that’s kind of their point). And then there’s this:

“The Legislature has made it abundantly clear than an important goal of the Domestic Partner Act is to create substantial legal equality between domestic partners and spouses,” Justice Carlos Moreno wrote for a five-judge majority. “We interpret this language to mean that there shall be no discrimination in the treatment of registered domestic partners and spouses.”

Since California also has a law that defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman, it’s hard how this construal of a domestic-partners law, plus the casual invocation of “marital status discrimination,” doesn’t make California’s marriage-definition law an effective nullity and that the justices have de facto created homosexual “marriage” in everything but name, the M-word. After all, any difference drawn between married couples and domestic partners is, on its face, discrimination — i.e., unequal treatment.

One law professor, Gerald Uelmen of Santa Clara, opined to the LA Times that the case might undermine the homosexual “marriage” case currently before the California justices because it effectively grants to domestic partners all the incidents of marriage, meaning that homosexuals would not be being discriminated against. I wish I had that kind of faith in the neutral application of legal principle. “The gays are the Good Guys” is the real legal principle being upheld here and throughout the Legal Class and their representatives in the Judicial Oligarchy. If someone were to make Uelmen’s argument, it’d be swept aside as “separate is inherently unequal” or with some argument to the effect that this proves the distinction between “married” and “domestic partner” is an irrational classification to begin with and so ordering homosexual “marriage” (the legal name for this doctrine is “Heads I win, tails you lose”).

The cases prove that “liberals are tolerant” is, to use the technical term, a pile of crap. The fantasy that a society can run on “you leave me alone if I leave you alone” is … simply … descriptively inaccurate. False. All societies must have religions (the question being merely “dedicated to which god?”) and what we’re seeing in these unravelings of liberal “tolerance” in re homosexuality is the playing out of this universal truth (if I were a cynic or a conspiratorialist, I would say it always was a bait-and-switch scheme). Liberals have a vision of Good and Evil, a set of morals consequent upon them, and wish to remake all societies in that image, circumstances permitting. And those whose religions are different have to be (varyingly) marginalized, persecuted or (as Bette Midler put it in THE STEPWORD WIVES remake) “re-educated.”

August 2, 2005 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Just for you, Donna

Which theologian are you?

You scored as Anselm. Anselm is the outstanding theologian of the medieval period. He sees man’s primary problem as having failed to render unto God what we owe him, so God becomes man in Christ and gives God what he is due. You should read ‘Cur Deus Homo?’

Karl Barth
Jonathan Edwards
John Calvin
Paul Tillich
Charles Finney
Friedrich Schleiermacher
Martin Luther
Jürgen Moltmann

Which theologian are you?
created with QuizFarm.com

Here’s another of those fun personality tests that was initially posted by Barbara Nicolosi where I took the test first (and must have given a couple of slightly different answers from what I’m about to post because the results I posted in her comment field aren’t exactly the same as what I’m about to post here — they’re a little less polar there). I suspect I gave slightly different answers for some questions about which I am somewhat indifferent (“The best way of expressing our love and unity with God is by music”), sloppily worded (“When Jesus said his blood was spilled for ‘many’, he meant ‘all’ “) or think a false dichotomy (“Good preaching is more important than good theology”)

No surprise that Anselm and Augustine are out front, and while I knew I would score highly with the Calvinists Barth and … uh … Calvin, the fact that Barth is tied with Augustine was a bit disconcerting. I’ve never read anything by Barth firsthand (I don’t even own a copy of CHURCH DOGMATICS, or even a full volume of Calvin himself for that matter, and I’m told Barth’s magnum opus is strictly for professionals and stylistic masochists) while St. Augustine is a man I walk with every day. I was also surprised how much lower I scored for Martin Luther, though I suspect strongly disagreeing with “the papacy is a tool of the devil” will do that. And I’m disappointed that I didn’t score lower for Jurgen Moltmann.

August 2, 2005 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment