Womanhood: Denied

Tell President Obama: Respect my voice! (click link)

-SBA List

Gay Marriage and Homosexuality

Homosexuality is a hot topic that was bound to make it onto this cultural values blog at some point.
The Catholic Church’s position on homosexuality (which I support) is not popular in Madison, where I live. Madison is a very liberal– no, radical place. Home of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, and numerous other radical groups.

I have delayed discussing homosexuality on my blog in the past.  Primarily because I would rather focus on the “wooden beam in my own eye” before pointing out “the splinter in my brother’s eye.” Matthew 7:3   In other words, I am in no rush to discuss the sins of others.  I am also no expert on this subject.

Why do you notice the splinter in your brother’s eye, but do not perceive the wooden beam in your own eye?
How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove that splinter from your eye,’ while the wooden beam is in your eye?
You hypocrite, remove the wooden beam from your eye first; then you will see clearly to remove the splinter from your brother’s eye. – Matthew 7:3  

 However, recent events in the news have brought the subject of homosexuality to the forefront of public discussion again, and perhaps it is time for me to weigh in with some thoughts.  I will defer to experts on the subject and provide some useful references below for those who are interested in understanding why the preservation of traditional morality and of traditional marriage is so important to so many Americans.

Recent events:

Vice President Biden announced five days ago that he was ‘absolutely comfortable” with homosexual marriage, thus putting President Obama on the spot regarding Obama’s position on homosexuality.

Obama "evolving"

Most recently, President Obama had said that his position on homosexual marriage , although he was opposed a few years ago, is “evolving.”  So now President Obama was placed on the hot seat regarding this issue.
Three days ago, North Carolina approved and amendment banning gay marriage, and banning same-sex civil unions as well.

Yesterday, President Obama announced his personal support of gay marriage, after statements in the past opposing gay marriage.  He attributed this change to his “evolving stance” on gay marriage.

The other two Presidential candidates (Mitt Romney and Ron Paul), mirroring the values of the majority of Americans, still stick to the traditional definition of marriage as one man- one woman.  And no, the Republican primary is not yet over!  (Updated post coming soon.)

.

.

.

.

Where Does America Stand on Gay Marriage?

Some data indicates majority support of gay marriage

.

Gallup results indicate that half of Americans support legal gay marriage.
The results seem to be hovering right around 50/50, within the margin of error, within the last two years.

CNN polls indicate that a slight majority of Americans support gay marriage (50% support, 48% oppose).

.

Some data indicates majority opposition to gay marriage

North Carolina’s passage of a state constitutional amendment legally preventing gay matrimony yesterday makes North Carolina the 30^th state to implement a ban on same-sex marriage.  30 States out of 50 is 60%.  This implies that 60% of America opposes gay marriage.

Also, Public Policy Polls (PPP)  indicate a significant majority of Americans opposing gay marriage:

Americans within pretty much every demographic group continue to oppose gay marriage. Whites are against it 58/34, Hispanics 57/27, and African Americans 52/34. Women oppose it 55/35 and men do 59/31. Voters under 30 do 52/44, ones between 30 and 45 do 51/37, ones between 46 and 65 do 59/29 and those over 65 do 61/31. 

PPP continues by discussing the disparity between their results and the results of other polls:

Obviously these poll results are very different from a CNN poll earlier this week that showed Americans moving in support of gay marriage, but disparities between live interviewer and the automated polling we do on this issue are not a new thing. Last fall our polling in Maine showed an anti-gay marriage measure passing by 4 points while live interviewer polls by Democracy Corps and Pan Atlantic SMS showed it failing by 9 and 11 points respectively. The measure did end up passing by a margin of 5.5 points.

Why the disparity between automated and live interviewer polls on gay marriage? Americans are still biased against gay people…but some of them know that’s wrong and they shouldn’t be. Because of that they’re more likely to tell their true feelings on an automated poll where there’s no social anxiety concern than to a live interviewer who they may be worried about the reaction of. — PPP

Bottom line:

Without a national election on this issue, it is impossible to say whether the majority of Americans support or oppose gay marriage, because polling results are so mixed on this issue.

The only certain conclusion so far is that in 30 states, the majority of Americans oppose gay marriage.

• When different polling techniques are used (automated versus human interview), different results are obtained.

• When pre-election poll results are compared with actual election results, disparities surface.

• So election results become impossible to predict

.

Why the Disparity Between Polls and Election Results on Gay Marriage?

The PPP poll cited above proposes one reason for disparity between polls:

Americans are still biased against gay people…but some of them know that’s wrong and they shouldn’t be. Because of that they’re more likely to tell their true feelings on an automated poll where there’s no social anxiety concern than to a live interviewer who they may be worried about the reaction of.

I would propose a very different reason for disparity between polls, based on my own philosophy, which is probably not too unusual in America today:

I live in a very radical place (Madison, WI), where conservative thinkers are ridiculed, and it is politically incorrect to think or say anything conservative.  A number of places in America have become that way. 

Based on my local political activism, I have even received threatening phone calls in my home, from local small-time politicians calling me names!
Naturally, I have become cautious about baring my soul to random strangers who telephone my home.  Guess what?  I never participate in any poll.  During this election season, Gallup has already telephoned me twice, and I declined to participate.

When radicals create a hostile atmosphere in which people are ridiculed, shouted at, and horns are blown in their ears for voicing conservative opinions, guess what?  They hesitate to express conservative opinions.   Particularly to strangers.

But when they enter a polling booth, where we presume (hopefully correctly) that our vote is protected and is private, and where expressing our opinion will have an important repercussion on the future of our nation, we vote our conscience.

So PPP and I agree that people may either not participate, or not be honest in polls, depending on the reaction they expect to get from those administering the poll.  We might disagree about the reasons why people withhold their true beliefs, but we agree that people do not always reveal their true opinions.

Result of Not Divulging Beliefs in a Poll

If even one out of 10 conservatives has my philosophy of not participating in random polls, and approximately 60% of America is conservative, then 6% of  people polled would be conservatives who refused to participate and were not counted in the survey.

You would have to add 6% conservative votes to the results of a poll to make it accurate. When Gallup says that Americans are 50/50 on gay marriage, you would have to say no, Americans must be 56/44 opposing gay marriage, because of the conservatives who hang up on Gallup like I did.

This is precisely what we see in the disparate data quoted above.  When PPP uses automated polls  which are less personal than Gallup’s human interviewers, they come closer to the conservative result.  Conservatives may feel less threatened by an automated computer survey, and less likely to feel labeled by radical activists on some list of “bigots” who need to be targeted with Alinsky tactics.

Angry phone calls from liberal activists

In elections, unlike in telephone polls, complete anonymity (we hope) is guaranteed.  Then, for elections, watch out, the conservatives will come out in full force, as they did in North Carolina three days ago on the marriage amendment.

The reason conservatives refrain from advertising their opinions in advance of an election is not because they know that’s wrong, as PPP would like to suggest.  It’s precisely because they know that it’s right. They know that their opponents use dirty tactics, and thus it is foolish to advertise plans when you are fighting a cultural (or any) war.  Incidentally, PPP’s suggestion that people alter their poll responses because they know that opposing gay marriage is wrong betrays PPP’s bias:  the polling agency, PPP, is not neutral, but has attached moral judgment to the poll they are administering.  What would any good scientist say about introducing that bias into a scientific study?  PPP is not being professional in administering the poll.  What results would they see if they utilized unbiased personnel in their polling? A further increase in conservativism?

Long-Range Results of Not Divulging Beliefs in Polls

When conservatives keep their opinions to themselves quietly, when they avoid participating in polls, avoid displaying yard signs, avoid big and noisy demonstrations and avoid political conversations socially, a false impression is often created.  The false impression is that nobody thinks conservative thoughts or has conservative opinions.

Liberals are liberal with their complaints, liberal with their exaggerations, liberal with their demonstrations, and liberal with their demands. They are even liberal with their methods, adopting more and more extreme methods to demand what they want, until some are honking vuvuzelas in opponents’ ears.

Madison, WI Union protests

The media, dominated by liberals, furthers this impression by promulgating liberal ideas and ridiculing conservative ideas.

This silence of conservatives leads people to believe that the majority opinion is a liberal one, and that the conservative philosophy has either become a minority philosophy, or is near extinction.  However, as we can see from the marriage amendment votes in 30 states, conservatism is quite alive and kicking.

Now that We’ve Discussed What Americans Think-
What About Experts, Like Religious Leaders?

One Religious Leader in Madison Stuck to His Guns in Support of Traditional Marriage for over 50 years

Rev. Pritchard in discussion with Madison's Roman Catholic Bishop Robert C. Morlino

Last month, an article on Rev. Pritchard of Madison, WI brought up the subject of gay marriage, and I put together my thoughts, which are quoted below.

The Wisconsin State Journal (WSJ, March 31, 2012) ran an article about Rev. Pritchard, who was a well-known and respected Madison religious leader for decades, and who is now 98 years old.  He was pastor of Westminster Presbyterian Church in Madison for 21 years, until his removal by the denomination’s governing body over dissension among members over his leadership style (could this have been related to his conservative philosophy in Madison?).  He then continued as pastor of Heritage Congregational Church for another 18 years until 1984.  Rev. Pritchard decried X-rated bookstores, massage parlors, and nude dancing.  Throughout his entire ministry in liberal Madison, Rev. Pritchard opposed same-sex marriage, and opposed pornography.  Unusual for a religious leader in Madison, WI.  Now, Rev. Pritchard, at 98 years, still preaches and teaches bible studies.

Accusations of Bigotry and Hatefulness

Pritchard still remains staunchly opposed to same-sex marriage, and in the online discussion following the WSJ article, one reader was prompted to attack him:

This man is a bigot and a hateful person.  Age has not modified his grotesque distortion of Christ’s teachings.  

My instinct was to defend this gentle teacher who had spent his whole life serving the spiritual needs of Madisonians with conviction.  A 98-year-old man  who said that he “tried to convey his love for all of humanity, even when he disagreed with a particular view or lifestyle; “I never wanted to be mean,”  did not deserve the bigotry and hate label that liberals dispense so freely.

In Defense of Rev. Pritchard and other Religious Leaders

My online response to the angry reader has stood unchallenged now for over a month

Seamus-

Disagreement with you does not define bigotry and hatefulness.

I do not know Rev. Pritchard, but if he’s anything like all the other Rev.s I know, he does not hate anybody. He simply recognizes the dangers of the gay lifestyle for individuals and for society.

The vast majority of the world’s religions, and the vast majority of the world’s people, believe that the gay lifestyle is unhealthy for the individual and for society.

This is not bigotry, this is scientific fact. Look at the Center for Disease Control website.

The part that many fail to realize is that the “religious” people who oppose the gay lifestyle also oppose the promiscuous heterosexual lifestyle, and that they have no problem whatsoever with chaste homosexuals, same as no problem with chaste heterosexuals. To call us hateful because we disapprove of dangerous disease-spreading behavior is barking up the wrong tree.

Note also, that we simply disapprove. We do nothing about it, just disapprove.  Where does anybody get the idea that they should be able to control what we approve/disapprove of? As they would say in the playground; “You’re not the boss of me.”

Regarding Christ’s approval/disapproval of the gay lifestyle, you will also find the majority of religious

Christ was not a "feel-good" kind of guy

experts agree that Christ would not encourage the promiscuity/party animal atmosphere of the gay lifestyle. 

People need to differentiate between homosexuality, which is harmless, and the gay lifestyle, which implies a party animal atmosphere. The party animal atmosphere is damaging in either context; homosexual or heterosexual.

Basically, those who indulge in the party lifestyle are saying “I indulge in excess, I spread illness, I destroy my family and my relationships, and you all pay for the damages.”

What society can survive with that?

BTW, we “religious” people also disapprove of other excessive behaviors, too — overeating, excessive drinking, driving too fast, and many other forms of excess. 

Irresponsible sexual excess, heterosexual or homosexual, belongs in the same category, and any society that publicly condones these is headed for trouble. 

That’s the other important distinction: there is a difference between tolerating people’s mistakes, and publicly celebrating and encouraging those mistakes.  I am overweight; people tolerate me, but they don’t have to approve, facilitate or celebrate my weight problem. The gay lifestyle falls into the same category.  Religious people are happy to tolerate gays just as gays tolerate fat people.  Just don’t try to force us to approve. 

Religious Leaders Across the United States

Cardinal Dolan

The Catholic Church opposes gay marriage, as do numerous Churches and Church leaders.  One comprehensive statement summarizing these beliefs and explaining the rationale behind these beliefs is the Manhattan Declaration.

The Manhattan Declaration is a declaration on justice and the common good, designed to protect and defend vital institutions of civil society, beginning with the family – defending human life, marriage, and religious liberty.
Short Version of the Manhattan Declaration
Full Text of the Manhattan Declaration

The Manhattan Declaration

The Manhattan Declaration has been signed by 250  Religious & Organizational Leaders, as well as by 526,871 others, including me.

Signatories include over 57 Catholic Bishops, including Cardinal Dolan, as well as numerous other religious leaders – Baptists, Anglicans, Evangelicals, Presbyterians, Orthodox, Calvinists, Methodists, The Salvation Army, Hispanic Christian Leadership, Coalition of African-American Pastors, and National Religious Broadcasters, to name a few groups.
List of Religious Leaders signing the Declaration
Sign the declaration yourself

Resources on Marriage

The Manhattan Declaration, probably the largest collection of Christian leaders and experts from across the board in America, has provided a variety of useful references for those who are interested in understanding why the preservation of traditional morality and of traditional marriage is so important to so many Americans:
Manhattan Declaration Responds as President Affirms Same-Sex Marriage:
10 links on Marriage from the Manhattan Declaration:

-       What is Marriage?
-       by Sherif Girgis, Robert George, and Ryan T. Anderson
-       http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1722155

-       Why I’m Optimistic About Natural Marriage
-       by Andrew Walker
-       http://www.mereorthodoxy.com/why-im-optimistic-about-natural-marriage/

-       Why Is Marriage Important? (video)
-       by John Piper
-       http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nd3AmKexugM

-       Who Needs Marriage?
-       by Chuck Colson
-       http://www.breakpoint.org/the-center/columns/colson-files/17606-who-needs-marriage

-       Marriage in Society: The Generation Clash (pps. 47-57)
-       by Matthew Lee Anderson
-       http://issuu.com/thecity/docs/thecitywinter2009/47?mode=embed&layout=http://skin.issuu.com/v/light/layout.xml&showFlipBtn=true

-       What Would Bonhoeffer Do?
-       by Eric Metaxas
-       http://www.breakpoint.org/the-center/columns/call-response/15129-metaxas-what-would-bonhoeffer-do

-       Dennis Prager Debates Perez Hilton on Same-Sex Marriage (Warning: YouTube contains objectionable content)
-       http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTE9zWaQc_Y

-       Religion, Reason, and Same-Sex Marriage
-       by Matthew J. Franck
-       http://www.firstthings.com/article/2011/05/religion-reason-and-same-sex-marriage

-       A Marriage in Full
-       by Gary A. Anderson
-       http://www.firstthings.com/article/2008/04/003-a-marriage-in-full-3   

-       On Marriage and the Moral Limits of Human Sexuality
-       by Metropolitan Jonah
-       http://orthocath.wordpress.com/2011/08/01/metropolitan-jonah-on-marriage-and-the-moral-limits-of-human-sexuality/

Reactions to President Obama’s Announcement of his Support for Gay Marriage

Americans React

One of the most noteworthy reactions to President Obama’s announcement of his support for gay marriage is, ironically, a  poll result.
The Rasmussen Poll results dominate the Drudge Report Headline today:

Backlash
Poll: Obama Trails Romney 7%
Drudge Report

Obama 43%, Romney 50%.
If one dared to add 6% for conservatives who don’t participate in polls (as discussed above), that would make Obama 37%, Romney 56%.  Of course, that is just my speculation.

Either way, a catastrophic backlash against Obama, almost overnight.

Religious Leaders React

President Obama with Rev. Joel Hunter

President Obama’s spiritual advisor, the Rev. Joel Hunter,  expressed “disappointment” with Obama’s gay marriage endorsement.

Cardinal Dolan, President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, called President Obama’s remarks on marriage “deeply saddening.”

The Manhattan Declaration, a group of prominent Christian clergy, ministry leaders, and scholars, expressed their disappointment.

Billy Graham commented:

Watching the moral decline of our country causes me great concern. I believe the home and marriage is the foundation of our society and must be protected.

At 93, I never thought we would have to debate the definition of marriage,” says Mr. Graham in a full-page ad scheduled to run in 14 North Carolina newspapers. “The Bible is clear—God’s definition of marriage is between a man and a woman. 

Pope Benedict did not comment directly, but two months ago he decried the “powerful gay marriage lobby in the United States.

Some Headlines in the Media

Conservative news sources would be expected to criticize President Obama’s new position on gay marriage.  But this time, even the liberal-dominated mass media took a significantly more cautious tone:

• The Washington Post stated that Obama’s position on gay marriage is just one more attempt to manipulate the gay vote, and that he had to be prodded into it by Biden.
• CNN implied that Obama made his gay marriage announcement based on opinion polls, not on his moral convictions.
• Associated Press ran an article on the world’s disappointment with Obama’s presidency. Obama’s support of gay marriage was not the focus of the article, but was mentioned.
• msnbc headline: Obama who? Gay marriage foes seek to extend gains.

Conservative Sources:

• Fox News: House panel votes to ban same-sex marriages on US military bases. 
  “On the same day that President Barack Obama declared his support for same-sex marriage, the House Armed Services Committee backed measures prohibiting the practice on U.S. military bases….”
•  Weekly Standard, in a article entitled ‘On By Behalf,’  challenged the President’s “evolution,” calling his account not credible, and accusing him of manipulating the military for political purposes.

Summarizing So Far

So we’ve covered President Obama’s opinion on gay marriage, what America thinks, religious leaders’ opinions, and some media response to President Obama’s announcement of his personal feelings on gay marriage.

Now we can ask why do gays want marriage?
and
Why do conservatives oppose gay marriage?
But we define marriage first.

.

Defining Marriage

According to Merriam-Webster, marriage is “the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law.”  The use of the words “husband and wife”, implies mutual rights of sexual intimacy, life in common, and an enduring union.  The union is expected to produce children, and generally does, even in 2012, after the advent of chemical contraception.  Men and women want children, they are biologically designed and equipped to have children, and people usually get the most satisfaction in life from a rewarding family life, more so than from material possessions. It is the normal function of a man and woman to raise a family, as intended by nature (i.e. God, it’s designer).

Society grants a special status, to a husband and wife, with special privileges, in marriage.  This is because marriage is “sacred,” both in the religious, and in the secular sense.  Marriage is “sacred” in the religious sense, because a man and a woman cooperate with God in the creation of future human beings.  Love is an essential component of that cooperation, and an essential element of what children learn, living in a nuclear family.

Marriage is “sacred” in the secular sense, because a man and a woman create the future members of the human race.  The resulting “family” is the most successful unit for providing free and sacrificial love and labor, which perpetuates the human race, at no cost to the government.  No other type of family unit has been as successful as the one-man, one-woman with children model which has dominated society for millennia.

Just as soldiers get special status and special privileges for courageous patriotic behavior, like receiving the purple heart, and just like those who go beyond the call of duty in service to their nation get knighted by the Queen, so also, parents get special status and special privileges for the function they perform in forming the future citizens of the world.  The work of producing and molding future citizens is hard, the work is essential, and society is grateful to those who perform it.

Why do Gays Want Marriage?

First of all, many gays do not want marriage.  There is dissension within the gay community on the desirability of marriage.
But for those gays who do want marriage, let us continue the discussion…

• Gays are not biologically equipped to have children with each other, so this could not be the primary motivation for gay marriage.
• Feelings might be one motivation — the desire to express some specially tender feelings towards a person, to underscore the special nature of the relationship.
• Acceptance could be another motivation– the desire to have society give an official stamp of approval to their chosen lifestyle.
• Yet another motivation might be the financial benefits of marriage, such as entitlement to health insurance or to tax breaks.

Much as these feelings and wishes are understandable, not all feelings and wishes are officially granted by government.  Examining the four points above,

• Gay marriage does not help to produce children and future citizens.
• Underscoring the special nature of a relationship by calling it a marriage has never been done for any other group, so this would be an unusual precedent which would open the door for further variations on the definition of a marriage.  There is no mechanism for best friends, cousins, kindred spirits, or close colleagues to enter into “marriages” with special benefits, so it is not clear why persons of the same sex should be granted the right to call their relationship a “marriage” when it does not fulfill major aspects of the definition of marriage. There is the likelihood that other variations on marriage would soon be demanded by other groups.
• Acceptance is not something that can be regulated by law or demanded.  Demanding that religious America approve of the gay lifestyle is just as nonsensical as demanding that radicals approve of conservatism.  You cannot legislate what people think or believe.  A minority especially, is in no position to demand the approval of the majority.
• The practical and financial benefits of marriage should not offered to people who are not likely to produce future citizens. To use the common divisive liberal economic terms, Gays are most often not in the 99%, but in the 1%, so why do they need an extra break?  People who both work and have no children are often rolling in cash.  Their cash is being used to augment their personal lifestyle, not to raise future citizens, as the cash of couples with children is being used.

Why do Conservatives Oppose Gay Marriage?

Conservatives oppose gay marriage for several reasons.

• The short answer is that homosexual relationships are morally wrong, something that all major religions have taught for thousands of years.  Before somebody starts trashing religion as ignorant and dictatorial, let’s remind ourselves that 80% of America is religious.  Americans follow not a blind, ignorant brand of religion, but a well-educated, thinking brand of religion which realizes that the God Who exists is brilliant and is loving.  We realize that His mandates are not made to bind us, and to interfere with our pleasure, but to guide us for our own safety, towards a healthier and more stable life and society.
• Another reason conservatives oppose gay marriage is that a sexual relationship between members of the same sex is counter-intuitive, and unappealing to most people.  It is contrary to common sense, and to biology. You cannot legislate what people feel, any more than you can legislate whether they like broccoli.  Trying to force the majority of a population to act contrary to their common sense is an unrealistic demand.
• One of the most important reasons for opposing gay marriage is that children need both a mother and a father in the home for normal, undamaged development.   The best environment for the raising of children is the home of a married husband and wife:
• 
  In every area of life, cognitive, emotional, social, developmental … at every phase of the life cycle … social evidence shows that there are measurable effects when children lack either a mother or a father. … The evidence is overwhelming. Mountains of evidence, collected over decades, show that children need both mothers and fathers.” – Jeffrey Satinover, M. D., Princeton University psychiatrist and member of the Department of Politics
  Satinover argues that children need both a male and a female parent.  He does not believe that homosexuals make bad parents—he says that being raised by a pair of homosexuals, one male and one female, would not be damaging to a child.  But the absence of one gender, either father or mother is damaging.
  Satinover states that when two homosexuals of one gender try to adopt a child, they are neglecting the needs of the child, they are putting themselves and their own comfort before that of the child, and are rendering themselves unfit as parents by that action.
  

• Another reason to oppose gay activists is that they often go way beyond asking for tolerance.  Today, they demand the teaching of their agenda to all children.  In 2011, California mandated a pro-gay curriculum in the schools, with no option for parent opt-out.
  Gays don’t want conservatives teaching  traditional Judeo-Christian morality in schools, but they want the right to teach their own their brand of sexuality to the all children without exemption. There’s a pretty big double standard here.
  Videos of teaching homosexuality to third graders from It’s Elementary, a pro-gay film showing the pro-gay curriculum in elementary schools in Massachusettees, New York and elsewhere.
  Video of pro-homosexual presentation in a high school, where the speaker embarks on a vulgarity-laced rant against the Bible and its teachings on homosexuality, compelling 100 students to walk out, some of them in tears.  Who is bullying who?
  The latest legislation, California Senate Bill 1172, would make it a crime to counsel children not to be homosexual.  Passing on the Judeo-Christian values of 80% of America to our children would be illegal.  Not just for therapists, psychologists, and  counselors, but also for parents.
  This bears repetition: a crime for parents to counsel their children under 18 not to be homosexual.
  

  Illegal for parents to teach Judeo-Christian morality to their children?

  Are gays still wondering why conservatives oppose gay marriage?
  I would oppose Haagen Dazs ice cream if it was being shoved down my throat!

• Gay activism often offends people’s sensitivities.  Heterosexual, family-oriented, and religious parades never feature provocative costumes, floats, and dancers with an overt public in-your-face sexuality.  Gay parades do feature such attractions.  The vast majority of Americans do not approve of the early sexualization of children.  Sexuality is best left in the bedroom, and not on public display in front of children, who do not yet have the level of hormonal development to understand what is going on, nor the level of maturity to engage themselves in responsible sexual behavior.  Gays have no right to engage in such public exhibitions in front of the majority of Americans, who find them morally offensive.
  How can we publicly steer children toward sexual activity at early ages, when they are not mature enough to vote, to drive, or to drink alcohol?  The early sexualization of children is dangerous, and gay activists have no right to hold children hostage in this struggle.
• Unfortunately, the gay lifestyle is statistically associated with a very high frequency with a hedonistic promiscuity, which leads to the spread of life-threatening infections, and to the misery of the entire gay community and of those who love them.

Promoting the ideal

Society usually promotes the ideal:
We promote hard work, success, physical fitness, education, a healthy lifestyle, fidelity in marriage, and fiscal responsibility. We also promote marriage.

Nobody measures up in all areas, we all have our weak points.  But we don’t celebrate our weak points, or demand that others compensate for our weak points.  If I am overweight, I do not demand that children in school are encouraged to become overweight.  Nor do I demand that you or the government (less directly, you) pay for my Haagen Dazs ice cream or for the second airline seat (God forbid) I should ever need!

So, too with homosexuality.
Homosexuals suffer a malfunction that does not equip them to participate in the biological production of a family, or in the participation in a marriage.  Just like I cannot participate in the Olympics with my weight problem.  Or I cannot become an airplane pilot with my imperfect vision.

Homosexuals should accept this limitation humbly and gracefully, and find happiness within that limitation, just as all handicapped people learn to live with their limitations.
Homosexuals have no right to demand that the rest of society pretend that they are normal, or to demand that we teach all our children that homosexuality is a desirable condition, or to demand the privilege of participating in marriage, for which they are not qualified.

Homosexuals should not adopt children, and if they already have children, they should make every attempt to find a living situation where relatives of the opposite sex are available to serve as role models for their children.
Above all, they should live a chaste life style as an example to their children, as widows and widowers have done throughout the ages.

Bottom line

Here’s the bottom line:

Homosexuals, who constitute only about 1.7% of the United States population, cannot expect to dictate the morality and beliefs of 80% of (Christian) America, nor to reverse the moral standards that have been with us for millennia.

The initial desire of homosexuals to be tolerated like the rest of us (all imperfect) humans, like the fat, the lame (I fractured a bone in my foot last month!), and the old, was a reasonable goal.

But that goal has long ago been accomplished.  The people I know do not think worse of homosexuals than they do of the fat, the lame, or the old (that’s me).

But gay activists have gone too far.  Their demand that their handicap would be defined as the ideal and granted privileges, and that their (minority) definition of morality would be enforced on the entire population of the United States by law, casting all who practice Judeo-Christian values as criminals, is not going to fly.

Gay activists are in for some opposition now.
It has nothing to do with hate, or with homophobia, or with intolerance.
It has to do with our own freedom of religion and of thought, and our freedom to teach our values to our children.
In the U.S., you can’t shove anything down people’s throats by force– not even Haagen Dazs ice cream.  No matter how great the LGBT community thinks their lifestyle is, they cannot force it on everyone else, with or without the support of President Obama.  They are the 1.7%

The more they push, the more their moderate supporters will notice their radical agenda, and will abandon them.

The No Religious Freedom Mandate

and

The President Can Issue Unilateral Mandates Mandate

and

The Let’s Sneak Abortion into ObamaCare While Nobody’s Looking Mandate

Timothy Cardinal Dolan of New York, President of the USCCB

The recent conflict, which erupted between President Obama and the Catholic Church in March 2012, over Obama’s insertion of a “Contraceptive Mandate” into ObamaCare, has raised a number of important questions.

We will explore below, how this actually represented an attempt by the Obama administration to sneak in control measures over the American population into previously passed legislation, while using the age-old distraction tactics practiced by movie villains and by villains in real life.

Background

• When in previous American history has a President included new mandates (dictates, as in dictatorship) into legislation that has already been passed?

• When in previous American history has an administration required all Americans to purchase a product, which is controlled by the federal government?

• When in previous American history has a President violated, by issuing his own mandate, the mandate of the First Amendment which states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. ?

What does the Obama Administration Want?

The Obama Administration clearly wants a federal health care system, ObamaCare.
They also clearly support abortion.
They have a record of promoting gay “rights,” for example in the military.
Clearly, the Obama Administration has a radical liberal agenda.

But there’s an obstacle.
It’s called democracy.
America is mostly conservative (Gallup 2012: 40% Conservative, 30% moderate, and 21% liberal).  Gallup: Conservatives Remain the Largest Ideological Group in U.S.
So voting, or democracy, will not work in furthering the Obama administration’s radical agenda.

However, establishing the right of a President to mandate stuff would work much better.  That way, you don’t have to mess with getting the people’s approval.

So President Obama wants to exert more control over American citizens.
He wants to establish the right to issue mandates unopposed.
He wants to issue mandates favoring his favorite causes; government health care, abortion and gay “rights” are included.
Who stands in his way?
Christians.  (80% of America)
Which Christian denomination has the most members in the U.S.?
Catholics.
Which Chirstian denomination has the biggest national organization/communication network in place?
Catholics.

So What’s the Battle Plan?

If you could issue a mandate, while creating a diversion so nobody notices it, and weaken your biggest opponent in the process, wouldn’t that be a brilliant plan?
Yes, and that is exactly what the Obama administration has attempted.

You issue a mandate that forces U.S. Citizens to do something.

Pick something that would weaken your biggest opponent; something that will weaken Catholics.
Something that will either make them surrender their beliefs to comply, or close most of their largest institutions if they cannot comply .
AND, find something on which the Church is divided, so there is confusion in the ranks when the attack occurs.
Yes, we have it!
Require that the Catholic Church pays for Contraception.
What a brilliant plan; that covers all the bases.

For good measure, make sure you catch them unprepared.
Invite them into the White House, assure them that their rights and liberties are foremost in your agenda, and send them home satisfied that they do not have to prepare for a fight.  That way, when your announcement comes, it will be a surprise attack and they will not be prepared.

The Distraction Tactics

• By introducing contraception, you divert discussion to an inflammatory side issue.

• By attacking conservative political pundits who discuss the issue publicly, you distract the American public from the real issues: Presidential proclamations (mandates) and violations of religious freedom.

How Obama Implemented the Plan

This is exactly what happened.

President Obama invited the President of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) to the White House, assured USCCB President/now Cardinal Dolan that he will respect the rights of Catholic institutions, and invited President Dolan to relay the message to all the other bishops.  The Wall Street Journal interview in which Cardinal Dolan describes the November 2011 Oval Office meeting included the following excerpt:

“I [Cardinal Dolan] said, ‘I’ve heard you say, first of all, that you have immense regard for the work of the Catholic Church in the United States in health care, education and charity. . . . I have heard you say that you are not going to let the administration do anything to impede that work and . . . that you take the protection of the rights of conscience with the utmost seriousness. . . . Does that accurately sum up our conversation?’ [Mr. Obama] said, ‘You bet it does.’”

The archbishop asked for permission to relay the message to the other bishops. “You don’t have my permission, you’ve got my request,” the president replied.

Cardinal Dolan

Then the axe fell at the end of January, when President Obama declared that the contraception mandates would remain in place and no religious exemptions would be granted to the Catholic Church.

Details of the deception can be found in the Wall Street Journal Interview and in the FOX video Interview of Cardinal Dolan.  Of course, the Cardinal refrains from calling the President a liar and shows utmost respect for the office of the Presidency.  But the interviews expose the facts, which we can evaluate ourselves and determine whether intentional deception was part of the plan.

Imagine inviting the head of the Catholic Church to the Oval Office 3 months in advance of issuing the Contraception Mandate, and assuring him, and inviting him to inform all United States Bishops that President Obama is very serious about the protection of the rights of conscience of Catholics, then issuing mandates violating those rights.  That took some premeditated planning.

A Double Standard

The Amish have an exemption to ObamaCare

Religious exemptions have been granted to various groups on various issues at President Obama’s discretion; exemptions to Native Americans to kill eagles for religious ceremonies (for which the U.S. government facilitates and stores feathers and eagle body parts at taxpayer expense), as well as exemptions for Amish (as well as Muslims and Christian Scientists) from ObamaCare

Further Villainy

After Cardinal Dolan and the Catholic Bishops stood up to the President’s Contraceptive Mandate, President Obama pretended to compromise, by requiring the insurance company to pay for the free contraceptives, and claiming that the Catholic Institutions will not have to pay for the free contraceptives (and abortifacients and sterilizations) which violate the moral beliefs of Catholics. (See how abortion got snuck in there, oh, so subtly!)

"We Inside Yet?"

• Never mind that most Catholic Institutions are self-insured or employ Catholic insurance companies, so Catholics are still being forced to pay for immoral services.

• Never mind that Obama did not even speak with the head of the US Catholic Church, Cardinal Dolan, before making this final pronouncement.

• Never mind that President Obama has surrounded himself with “Catholics” in name only in an effort to legitimize his proclamations (Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Kathleen Sebelius and Sister Carol Keehan, who have all publicly opposed the Catholic Church’s teachings and policies and are better described as dissidents, not Catholics).

President Obama has challenged the chain of command in the Catholic Church, by choosing to communicate with hand-picked dissidents, then pretending that his has Catholic support.  Separation of Church and State?  Obama reorganized the chain of command in the Catholic Church!

Summarizing the Attack.

O.K.
So the President managed to issue his dictatorial command.
He managed to dictate what the Catholic Church must do against their conscience.
With a double standard that was not applied to Native Americans or to Amish.

He also managed to divert the issue from Presidential dictatorial powers and from violation of freedom of religion by the President to national discussion of a topic that is controversial in the United States; a topic on which more Americans are likely to agree with the President, but which actually has nothing to do with the dictatorial and freedom of religion issues at hand.

The final blow was to attack a popular national conservative spokesman, Rush Limbaugh, when he ridiculed the need for exaggerated quantities of birth control on college campuses.  This attack has now morphed into a serious attempt by the left to get Rush Limbaugh’s voice off the airwaves.  Wouldn’t that be nice for the President?  What about freedom of the press?  Hey, the White House can blast the first amendment simultaneously  on TWO counts; religious freedom and freedom of speech!

More discussion of the national liberal attack on Rush Limbaugh at Knights in Shining Armor.

The Main Point Was Almost Lost

Lost Point

Meanwhile, the main point was almost lost.

The President of the United States has issued a proclamation in opposition to his previous promises to Congress (promising Stupak that abortion would not be included in ObamaCare, and that an Executive Order would be issued to that effect).

• A proclamation opposed by 72% of the American people, who oppose the federal funding of abortion.

• A proclamation that controls what the largest Church in the US (28% of U.S. citizens belong) must do against it’s conscience.

• A proclamation, which has the potential to shut down all Catholic religious service institutions in the US within 2 years (with penalties for non-compliance).

• A proclamation which would cost the United States $100 Billion if Catholic Hospitals were to close.

Americans are not Stupid

President Obama overstepped his authority, and miscalculated on several fronts.
He miscalculated the courage of the American Bishops.
He miscalculated the gullibility of the American people.
He miscalculated the cost of his bluff.

The American Bishops did not back down, but dug in, in defense of religious freedom in America.  Jews and Baptists and many others have joined them.  Obama has singlehandedly managed to achieve a unification of Judeo-Christian believers, which we have struggled to accomplish with decades of ecumenical efforts.  Now, Rabbis stand up before Senate panels and defend the religious freedom of Catholics.

The American people are jumping ship as well.  The Wall Street Journal indicates that Obama has gone too far for most moderates who supported him in the last election.  His dictatorial disregard for the religious freedom of Catholics, combined with his cavalier delusional palling around with Russians in front of hot mics in defiance of his electorate, followed by jocular references to the embarrassing mic incident, have been just too much.  Peggy Noonan writes, in an article entitled Not-So-Smooth Operator -  -  “the level of dislike for the president has ratched up sharply the past few months… and it’s his fault, too.”

The cost of Obama’s bluff can also be calculated in dollar terms; some estimate $100 billion costs to the US associated with the closing of Catholic hospitals; others estimate  higher.  The Fiscal Times writes : “it would create a disaster for the delivery of health care in the country, and rapidly escalate the public costs of health care.

So, Catholics vs. Obamacare is NOT About Birth Control

There is also the cost of reigniting the cultural wars.
John Leo of The Fiscal Times writes:

The mainstream press keeps telling us that the struggle of Catholics vs. ObamaCare is about birth control.  This is partly ineptitude, partly an effort to depict the controversy as irrelevant, since Catholics use contraceptives at almost the same rate as the general population.  And, consciously or not, this ordinary bit of journalistic malpractice pins an anti-contraceptive label on Republicans in an election year.

Leo also discusses Jean Bethke Elshtain’s theories on  establishment pressure, called “liberal monism:”
Liberal monism refers to the fact that those who talk the most about diversity and pluralism are often the most willing to mandate that all private and religious institutions conform to one ideological framework, theirs.

Why Would an American President Intentionally Sow Division in the Nation?

Some shocking new theories are surfacing to explain President Obama’s agenda.
Obama does not seem to adhere to the American Dream of our Founding Fathers.
He does not seem to adhere to the Dream of Martin Luther King, Jr., of a society which does not judge by the color of the skin but by the content of the character, and in which the sons of former slaves and slave-owners can sit down together at a table of brotherhood.

Dinesh D’Souza, the President of the King’s College in New York, an Indian born in Mumbai who came to America and profited from the American Dream, proposes a theory that Barak Obama does not adhere to the American Dream, nor to Martin Luther King Jr.’s Dream,  and not even to American liberalism, which seeks to take money from rich Americans and redistribute to poorer Americans, but adheres instead to a concept many Americans are not familiar with, anti-colonialism.

Anti-colonialism is an angry attitude found in some places across the globe, in which America’s success is viewed not as a product of America’s moral and religious hard work ethic, but as a product of imperial exploitation of other nations.  An exploitation by America which needs to be reversed and to be “atoned for” at any cost. An attitude fueled more frequently by envy, than by fact.  A philosophy that seeks to take America down a few pegs, not build her up.

An anti-colonial President would not have America’s best interests at heart, but would be more devoted to taking America down a few pegs.  A President who would serve as Judge, Jury and Executioner of the American people.  A President who would gladly violate his oath of office to defend the Constitution, because he has “higher” loyalties.  A president who is a traitor.  A President who does not adhere to an absolute morality.  A President who believes that the ends justify the means, and any means toward humbling America is justifiable.

Whether there is any truth to D’Souza’s theories about Barak Obama’s destructive agenda for our nation, we can examine for ourselves by reading Obama’s autobiography, Dreams From My Father, and by watching D’Souza’s movie, 2016, produced by the producer of Schindler’s List, Jurassic Park and Brave Heart, and which will be released in June, 2012.  The trailer for the movie, followed by a 12-minute background presentation by Dinesh D’Souza has been viewed by almost 1 million people on You Tube already.

Time will tell, and President Obama’s actions will tell, whether there can be even a shred of truth in D’Souza’s claims.

The Triple Mandate

Speculations on Barak Obama’s motivations for Issuing what is now commonly known as the Contraception Mandate aside, it is important to realize that whatever the motivations, the contraception mandate is actually a triple mandate, and is much more important than simply a contraception mandate.

Obama’s Mandate is actually the:
No Religious Freedom Mandate
and
The President Can Issue Unilateral Mandates Mandate
and
The Let’s Sneak Abortion into ObamaCare While Nobody’s Looking Mandate

This Mandate Cannot Stand

Whether this Triple Mandate is taken down by the Supreme Court decision to be released in June on the Constitutionality of ObamaCare, or whether this mandate is considered separately by the Supreme Court under religious freedom violation considerations, or whether the November 2012 election removes President Obama from office and replaces him with someone who will steer us in a different direction, the Triple Mandate cannot stand.

If it does, we are in the U.S.S.R. We have opened the doors wide for communism under which the State has most power,  in the place of democracy, under which the individual has most power:
The government will tax and hold all the money.
The government will decide who can have money and how much and when.
The government will decide who can have health care and who cannot.
There will be little free enterprise.There will be lots of black market.
There will be little religious freedom.
Churches will be marginalized.
Religion will be eliminated from education
Conservative thought will be declared bigoted and illegal.
Mandating (dictating) will determine what we can and cannot do.
Mothers will probably be required to work outside the home.
Children will probably be required to attend school, like in Germany today.
Schools will probably be required to teach mandatory radical liberalism.
Home schooling will probably be outlawed.
Children will probably be encouraged/required to report on parents who stray from the compulsory New Order.

Ridiculous?

It’s happened more than once during the past 100 years.
My parents lived through it.
Pope Benedict lived through it.
My grandparents were sent to Siberia for 20 years under the USSR.

People can recognize the signs, and the Contraception Mandate is certainly a big one.

What makes you think that the US is immune to despots who want to eliminate democracy and freedom, and who want to control our nation, instead of being accountable to it’s people, as the Constitution was designed to ensure?

Could the fact that 47% of America already pays no federal tax and many live off government handouts, be part of a devious plan calculated purposely to ensure the dependence (and the votes) of numerous people on radical government

Next Step

Obama has already taken the next step today.

Remember the division of powers in the U.S. Constitution which sets up a system of “checks and balances,” and prevents one branch of the government from exercising too much power?  The balance between the Executive Branch, the Legislature and the Judiciary that we all learned about in grammar school?

Previoiusly, Obama, the Executive, commandeered the Legislature’s approval for ObamaCare in 2009 by lying to Stupak and “stealing” the votes of the legislature with false promises.

Today Obama called the Supreme Court “unelected,” and warned them against striking down the health law.  This constitutes an attempt to control the Judiciary.

Evidently, what we now have is   Obama: Executive, Legislature and Judiciary, Rolled Into One.

The Founding Fathers must be rolling in their graves.

The Solution:

Read
Pray
Vote

.

A Society Built on Illusion Cannot Stand…

.

Sharing a find…
Quoting from Salvo Magazine- The Illusionist, by Robin Phillips:

The ancient Greeks had a school of philosophers known as the Sophists, who took pride in their ability to prove impossible things. Some sophists even hired themselves out at public events, where audiences could watch spellbound as they proceeded to prove propositions that were obviously false.

The sophist philosopher Gorgias (4th century b.c.) invented an ingenuous argument to prove that: nothing exists; and even if something exists, nothing can be known about it; and even if something exists and something can be known about it, such knowledge cannot be communicated to others; and even if something exists, can be known about, and can be communicated about, no incentive exists to communicate anything about it to others.

It would be nice if such sophistry had been limited to ancient Greeks. However, the 20th century saw a thinker whose nonsense rivaled and even surpassed anything produced by the sophists. His name was Herbert Marcuse (1898–1979), the guru of the 1960s counterculture.

.

The article continues, exposing the fallacies underlying the contradictory secular culture of 2012 brilliantly.
Robin Phillips clarifies the connection between the sexual revolution and Marxism, points out the roots  of liberal media bias, and explains the trend of silencing opponents through diagnosis rather than through dialogue.  Phillips has written an analysis of our present societal predicament which amuses, informs, and intrigues.

Finish reading the article here.
Then subscribe here.
Promise, I am not related to them, I don’t own stock, and I am not getting paid!

I was positively delighted to discover this article, to subscribe to Salvo magazine, and to learn of the existence of the Fellowship of St. James, an alliance of authors, professors, clergy members, lay men and women, and writers—from various Christian denominations—who promote orthodox Christianity, the natural law, and traditional Christian morality. Editor: James M. Kushiner.

Salvo magazine’s stated goals:

Blasting holes in scientific naturalism, marveling at the intricate design of the universe, and promoting life in a culture of death;

Critiquing art, music, film, television, and literature, interrupting mass media influence, and questioning the sanity of our consumerist lifestyle;

Countering destructive ideologies, replacing revisionist fictions with undeniable facts, and paring away political correctness;

Debunking the cultural myths that have undercut human dignity, all but destroyed the notions of virtue and morality, and slowly eroded our appetite for transcendence;

Recovering the one worldview that actually works.

What a refreshing new form of journalism!
Guess what everybody’s getting from me for their next birthday?
A subscription.

Background

Not unexpectedly, there has been some discussion regarding the modification of Madison’s previous Sex Ed bill, the “Healthy Youth Act” (HYA), which was passed before Wisconsin’s transition of power (to Republican) in January 2011.

The “Healthy Youth Act” required that all Sex Ed programs state-wide teach the proper use of contraceptives and barrier methods (i.e. demonstrate condom use in the classroom).  It also failed to provide abstinence training to pupils.  In other words, it favored the more liberal approach, “let’s give up and assume that all kids have sex, and let’s try to equip them with the knowledge on how to reduce the risks.”  Planned Parenthood was selected to create the new Sex Ed program.

Two thirds of America favors abstinence until marriage, so it is not unexpected that when Republicans came into power, some modifications were proposed to the previous bill.  In the absence of abstinence training, if schools provided instruction on the “proper use of contraceptives and barrier methods,” it was feared that the take-home message could easily be the condoning  of promiscuity and early sexual experimentation. continue reading…

.

What is Truth?

Does Truth Matter?

.

Scala Sancta, the Holy Steps

The Scala Sancta (the Holy Steps)

Last Saturday I had the incredible privilege of climbing the Scala Sancta in Rome reverently on my knees, and of standing near the place Christ must have stood when Pontius Pilate first asked Christ “What is truth?,”[1] then solemnly declined to condemn Him, ceremonially washing his hands of guilt[2].

Feeling that same floor under my feet, kneeling on those steps where the Passion of Christ occurred, and contemplating how St. Helena, the mother of the Emperor Constantine, located Pontius Pilate’s Praetorium steps and transferred them from Jerusalem to Rome, I was filled with an even deeper sense of connection to the reality of our Christian beliefs, and of the importance of acknowledging the conversation that took place on those steps, located now at one of the holiest places in the world.  “Non est in toto sanctior orbe locus;” There is not in the whole world a more holy place.

.

Truth

What is Truth?

Truth does exist, truth does matter, and even our world’s great secular leaders, including Pontius Pilate, Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, instinctively cared about and respected truth, not to mention every parent who instinctively insists on truth from their children.  Christ willingly DIED for truth, because truth is so important.

Truth is most often defined as the state of being in accord with fact or reality.  It is clear to most of us that humans, while young, must learn certain facts or realities about life in order to negotiate the world safely and effectively, and in order to become functional adults who are responsible for the perpetuation of our society. continue reading…

A Bad Samaritan?

How many unwed pregnant mothers has Annie Laurie Gaylor helped?

Just a Few of the Many Mothers and Babies Saved by CareNet

.Most recently, Gaylor condemns the good Samaritan Care Net, which does help unwed pregnant mothers– a need Gaylor herself apparently does not realize is important in our society.

.

Gaylor and the FFRF (Freedom From Religion Foundation) not only abandon unwed mothers, but want the government to take sides on the abortion question– THEIR side.  And Isthmus is facilitating.

Isthmus just featured Gaylor’s (and FFRF’s) opposition to a Wisconsin government website listing of the Christian pregnancy care center (Care Net) under family resources.

In the article, Isthmus quotes Gaylor extensively, yet fails to cover the opposing view.  Isthmus also facilitates Gaylor’s misportrayal of the faith based Care Net as incompetent and unsafe, without any facts to support this claim.

Bucky Badger leads Hundreds of Care Net Supporters in Walk for Life

Care Net is actually very competent, very safe, and is supported by numerous groups in Madison, including religious ones.  It is one of Madison’s proudest inter-faith endeavors, with a proud history of helping unfortunate women to take charge of rebuilding their lives.  Our family has been involved in fundraising for CareNet over the years, and participating organizations have included numerous area Christian churches (including our Catholic church), the Princeton Club, Oscar Mayer, the Mallards, Relevant Radio Madison, Bucky Badger and Oremus Catholic Rock, to name just a few.

America is split on the issue of abortion– is abortion a fundamental women’s right, or is it the murder of a human being? The truth cannot be both ways. Although Supreme Court Justices may have ruled for abortion, our society is still strongly divided, and the laws are not even consistant.  A murderer who kills a pregnant woman is legally guilty of two murders, yet if that woman were on her way to Planned Parenthood for an abortion, apparently for her, this would not constitute murder at present. continue reading…

Vuvuzela

.

The Isthmus cover of  May 13, 2011 (paper issue) very appropriately illustrates the lead story, The New Activists, with the image of a man blowing a vuvuzela, the Wisconsin State Capitol in the background.  The vuvuzela is a long plastic African horn that has become famous for disrupting the Soccer World Cup games in South Africa and for driving players and fans mad. The behavior of Madison’s new activists WAS loud and obnoxious in recent months, and many DID bring vuvuzelas to disrupt and to inspire fear with their noise:

Vuvuzelas at World Cup

.

.

“Fans and competitors from outside South Africa often complain that today’s vuvuzela doesn’t inspire fear or amazement, just irritation, and that its sound is a loud, unwelcome and unpleasant distraction.” -ABC news

.

Less appropriately, the article INSIDE the Isthmus fails to mention the noise, disruption and unruliness of the new activists participating in the demonstrations against Governor Walker at the Madison Capitol in recent months.  Neither vuvuzelas, drums, whistles, megaphones, nor angry chants and rude posters, all of which were ubiquitous during the downtown demonstrations, are mentioned in the Isthmus article.   The Isthmus article focuses instead on describing four interesting individuals, their use of music, T-shirts, social media (twitter), and business groups, in implementing their protests.

Well, maybe four people did do that. 

Angry Liberals at Wisconsin Capitol

.

The new, much more aggressive and uncivilized behavior of the “new activists,” not discussed by  Isthmus, IS discussed at Clashes between Liberals and Conservatives – Washington, United Nations, Madison — Common denominator?

These tactics are called Alinsky tactics, previously known as “dirty fighting.”  Drowning out and ridiculing the opposition are common, as well as demonizing opponents, backtracking on promises, outright lying, death threats, and property damage.

Wisconsin Capitol Protesters

Now that conservatives have been voted into office in Wisconsin, liberals seem more willing to use any means whatsoever to further their agenda against the wishes of the majority, to stymie the progress of democratic rule.  This is where the REAL story is found, and Isthmus should write about THAT.

With the “new activists,” ridicule is the primary weapon, and conservative values are the primary target.

.

More You Tube examples of liberals using Alinsky tactics in Madison:

Man screaming repeatedly at Sarah Palin

Liberal crowd doing their best to drown out 14 year old speaker

Leftists booing Star spangled Banner

Man cursing at 14 year old speaker

Alinsky tactics used by President Obama:

Even our President is adopting these techniques – watch President Obama  ridiculing the Mexican border security issue, where numerous people on both sides have lost their lives:

Message for Isthmus

Hey, Isthmus — some news for you — the “new activists,” at every level, from citizen on the street to President, are using a great deal more than just music, T-shirts, twitter, and business groups to promote their agenda– they are violating all previous rules of civilized behavior and decency and are using Alinsky tactics which include ridicule, lying, and death threats.  This is not activism, this is terrorism.

.

It is with hesitation that I embark on discussing the behavior of liberals, particularly in reference to recent labor disputes at the Wisconsin State Capitol, which is located 3 miles from my home and 3 blocks from my parish Church.   Most often I try to avoid criticizing the behavior of others, keeping in mind the Biblical counsel:

How can you say to your brother, ‘Brother, let me remove that splinter in your eye,’ when you do not even notice the wooden beam in your own eye? You hypocrite! Remove the wooden beam from your eye first; then you will see clearly to remove the splinter in your brother’s eye.   – Luke 6:42

But events at the Wisconsin State Capitol in recent weeks have culminated in a situation that commands some discussion.  The pursuit and cornering of conservative Senator Grothman by 200 aggressive liberals, ultimately requiring his rescue by firefighters, was broadcast on FOX news, but was glossed over by most liberal media last week:

.

This shocking event, which included shouting, intimidation, chanting “shame,” bleeped vulgar

No violence? Hmmm...

expletives, drum beating and blowing of whistles, reflected the general uncivilized aggressive attitudes displayed by demonstrators at the Wisconsin State Capitol during the past 3 weeks.  It is a situation that could easily have caused injury and/or heart attack to the elderly Senator, and is at very least shameful in the lack of respect with which an elected representative of the people of the United States was treated by an angry liberal mob.

This shocking treatment of Senator Grotham by liberals illustrates quite a double standard, particularly when compared with the criticism conservatives suffered recently from liberal media regarding the use of crosshair imagery during the last election, particularly after the shooting of Representative Giffords, and at least while liberal media still thought that the shooter could be tied to conservatives.

The ultimate question with which I struggled for 3 weeks before writing this post, and with which all conservatives in America must struggle, is how does a reserved conservative like me, who tries to live by the golden rule (do unto others as you would have them do unto you) and by the rule of forbearance (assume the best imaginable explanation for another’s behavior), how do we deal with vocal and liberal opponents who do not feel constrained by the same behavioral guidelines that we respect and revere?

How do you win a battle against opponents who use aggressive tactics which you consider immoral and which you yourself refuse to use?  Should we remain the silent majority?

So far this past month, liberal supporters of Wisconsin unions have broken a number of rules and regulations which are generally essential for the orderly operation of society, and which have never been observed in conservative demonstrations such as those involving the Tea Party or Pro-Life:

• 14 legislators have left the State of Wisconsin so that police could not force them to attend State legislature voting sessions that they are legally obliged to attend.  These senators are sabotaging democracy and showing no respect for the people’s choices during the November 2010 election.  They are advocating rule not by the majority, but by the loudest and the most aggressive.
• Thousands of Madison teachers have not only gone on strike, depriving children of education, and have lied fraudulently about their motives, claiming to be sick.  They are teaching our children to lie.
• UW Madison doctors have appeared downtown handing out sick notes to demonstrators, a clear violation of medical ethics and a willful deception and cheating of the taxpayers by medical doctors.  They are also teaching our children to lie.
• Thousands of demonstrators have refused to leave the State Capitol at closing time, sleeping inside the Capitol and making it impossible for maintenance staff to do their work.  Maintenance staff have indicated their fear of the crowds, not feeling safe in doing their work.
• Police unions, whose jobs were unaffected by the proposed budget cuts, sympathized with the teachers unions, and stopped ticketing vehicles which were illegally parked downtown, as well as refusing to protect legislators like Senator Grothman from aggressive crowds.  Liberal media gleefully claimed “peaceful demonstrators” and “no arrests” each day, when in actual fact Madison’s police appeared to be on strike were not performing all their duties.
• Over the course of the 3 week demonstration, some claim that the demonstrators caused $7.5 million damage to the stately Madison Capitol building
  

  Wisconsin State Capitol Building

  which was constructed of 43 types of stone from six countries and eight states around 1910.  The $7.5 million damage is larger than the original cost of the erecting the Capitol in 1910 ($7.25 million).

• The Capitol building, probably for the first time in its 100-year history, began to stink.
• Demonstrators have been imported into Madison by unions all over the U.S., from as far away as California.  President Obama has also sent supporters and has voiced support for the unions, despite the fact that the President’s own federal workers do not enjoy the luxurious privileges the Wisconsin unions are trying to maintain for themselves. Wisconsin taxpayers are now the victims of the entire nation’s belligerent union hierarchy.
• Homeless people have abandoned local Church shelters in favor of  living in the Capitol building, where free pizza is provided by out-of-state union bosses.
• Union demonstrators have abandoned all rules of professionalism and civility.  Posters and
  

  Sign with crosshairs over Governer Walker's face

  chants reflect violence, hate and vulgarity, totally eclipsing the “crosshairs” controversy following the shooting of Representative Giffords this January.  Signs have routinely compared Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker to Hitler, Benito Mussolini and Hosni Mubarak and showed the Wisconsin governor with a cross-hairs rifle sight over his face .  Fourteen of the “100 best posters at the Wisconsin Capitol” are too vulgar to show on this website  . One sign reads “Hey, Walker, WI Ranger, who’s gonna wipe yer ___ when U have a stroke???”

• Live ammunition was found stashed outside the Wisconsin State Capitol by police.
• Residents and groups surrounding the Madison Capitol building have suffered poor treatment from demonstrators.  Our Holy Redeemer Catholic Church, part of Madison’s downtown Catholic Cathedral Parish, has struggled to keep parking open for Church members.  When approached by Church staff with requests not to use our parking lot, demonstrators use vulgarity and tell Church staff to “get a life.”   Police do not help either, they have stopped ticketing downtown.
• Demonstrators have not been acting like teachers, but more like angry mobsters.
• Demonstrators, as well as the liberal media,  have misrepresented the issues, exaggerating and misquoting the Governor’s terms and failing to explain the rationale behind both points of view—pro-union and pro-balanced budget.  Truth seems to have no role in this debate, and liberal media does not seem interested in discussion. Some representative photos from Vicki McKenna.
• While 60,000 liberals skipped work, demonstrated and trashed the Wisconsin Capitol, 126,000 conservatives signed an online “Stand with Walker” petition, went to work, took care of their children who were abandoned by teachers, and prepared to pay for the damage the demonstrating minority was causing.   Incidentally, there are only about 100,000 union members in Wisconsin, in contrast to the 5,000,000 taxpayers who do not have union benefits and are paying their bills.

It is an established fact that some demographic differences exist between liberals and conservatives.    The differences are primarily philosophical, NOT racial or ethnic, as liberal media would imply:

- Wikipedia

The increased Church attendance and respect for marriage indicated above in conservatives reflects their willingness to conform to the Judeo-Christian values

Ten Commandments

encompassed by the Ten Commandments, on which our systems of law have historically been based.   It is easy to see the projection of this voluntary self-restraint onto acceptable codes of public behavior, which translate into the peaceful and dignified political gatherings and respect for public property characteristic of Tea Party and Pro-Life gatherings nationwide – particularly in the January 2011 March for Life in Washington DC (just 2 weeks prior to the union demonstrations at the Wisconsin State Capitol), where 400,000 people gathered peacefully to show their support for Life, but which Madison’s liberal media did not mention at all.

This past month, the converse, a distinct LACK of voluntary self-restraint, lack of peaceful and dignified protests and lack of respect for public property, has been observed in downtown Madison during the union protests.

These recent events in Madison are by no means unique.  In my 20+ years living as a conservative in liberal Madison, I have personally witnessed numerous times a dramatic difference in the demeanor of liberals and of conservatives in the public square.

Vigil for Life, Fewb 2010

One year ago at a Pro-Life rally in February of 2010, I observed over 1,000 reserved, well-dressed and well-behaved pro-lifers at Madison’s Library Mall standing in the winter cold,  listening quietly to pro-life speakers (which included Senator Grotham), while 20 -30 liberal student radicals, rallying to the campus-wide spam invitation issued by student socialists, yelled, chanted, attempted to disrupt speeches, performed lascivious strip-tease in a nearby raised platform in front of children, and were finally restrained and led off by police. Madison’s liberal media did an abysmal job of reporting this event, failing to report the difference in numbers at this event (1,000 versus 25), and failing to report the difference in demeanor of the two groups.  To read the brief Madison newspaper report, it would seem that opposing groups of similar size confronted each other briefly downtown.

This 40:1 ratio of civilized well-behaved citizens to loud disruptors at the Pro-Life rally above is similar to the 50:1 ratio of Wisconsin citizens who work and pay the bills to protesting union workers at the Wisconsin State Capitol last month (5 million to 100,000).  Yet again, the minority is attempting to control the majority by intimidation.

Another recent contrast in the demeanor of liberals and conservatives is illustrated by my blog post on the Madison pro-marriage rally of  Aug 1, 2010 .   During the pro-marriage rally, Catholic Bishop of Madison led conservative attendees in praying the “Our Father,” while hundreds of liberals surrounded them yelling and chanting, disrupting the prayer and attempting to approach the podium where the Bishop was standing, again restrained by police.

I refrain from using the political labels Democrat or Republican intentionally.  I include myself among numerous conservative independents who have never belonged to one political party, and whose beliefs are not in line with one party platform.  However, I must say that in recent years I am finding myself (steered by my Pro-Life views) most often in sympathy with the Republican Party.

.

In addition, the uncivilized and inconsiderate behavior of liberal Democrats in recent years, observed in numerous situations similar to those described here, has struck me as threatening democracy and attempting to replace democracy with mob rule.  No society can function like this.   Any rational person must ask—why did the Republicans NOT walk out of Congress and the Senate when ObamaCare was on the table, but the Democrats DID walk out when they did not like the legislation being discussed in Wisconsin?  How can democracy function when minority legislators hijack the democratic process by refusing to follow the rules?

.

The seeming readiness of liberals to break ALL rules – State Capitol visiting hour rules, legislative rules, teachers sick leave rules, medical ethics rules, rules of cleanliness, rules of polite and respectful discourse, rules of civilized language and behavior in front of children, rules regarding use of live ammunition, and common sense rules about public behavior – the breaking of all these rules makes discussion impossible.  The demonstrators do not appear at all interested in discussion of the common good.  They only seem interested in keeping their comfortable privileges by any means necessary, be that bullying, trashing Wisconsin’s State Capitol, or mob rule.

This is not the America we love and that our military risks their lives to protect.

It is time for the silent majority to become even MORE active than they were in November 2010.

.

Wisconsin State Journal:

.

10,000 protesting budget cuts today (Madison)

.

.

March for Money

10,000 marchers

front page

.

.

.

400,000 protesting abortion a few weeks ago (Washington, D.C.)

.

.

.

March for Life

400,000 marchers

no mention

.

.

.

.

.