Most Americans don’t consider themselves to be sexually cruel people, preferring to describe themselves both sexually liberated and sexually non-discriminatory. But this highly-esteemed self-assessment falls short when we consider that we would otherwise ban many sexual behaviors, if not for their association with sexuality. For instance, consider that in each pair of the following equally-offensive scenarios, one behavior is legally permitted and the other prohibited.
1) Breaching a business contract you made with a neighbor, or 2) leaving a woman to whom you legally promised eternal fidelity
1) Accepting money in exchange for a car, taking parts out of it, and then holding the other person to the agreement; or 2) promising sexual faithfulness to a man, and then sleeping with a hundred men around the town (more…)
The other day, I had the privilege of watching the television while a smarmy Muslim condescendingly downplayed the significance of the 9/11 mosque controversy. His argument consisted of something along the lines of “Is this what our national dialogue has been reduced to?” As though almost to say that Americans were too culturally insensitive and bigoted to allow the building of a mosque which would overlook Ground Zero. And to be sure, most people who support the building of the mosque adopt this pompous position, pretending that if we truly are tolerant and accepting of other cultures, we should be able to accept the building of an Islamic temple over a building ruined by an Islamically-motivated mass-murder. Surely, they argue, we are beyond squabblings and sensitivities, and we should be able to just accept cohabitation with other cultures.
It is this attitude which precisely highlights the problem with the doctrine of tolerance. While those who accept a multicultural postmodern perspective agree that acceptance must hypothetically occur amongst all in a racially diverse and religiously pluralistic society, the logical mechanics of tolerance suggest that the direction of tolerance can only exist toward one group in any clash of cultures. (more…)
Editor’s note: this video was instrumental in explaining the historical foundation for western social liberalism to me, and I highly recommend it to anyone who is interested in being ahead of the thinking curve. Covers subjects ranging from drug use to homosexual behavior, and why they–according to the foundational principles of genuine social liberalism–should be regulated. Also: covers double standards of legal protection, explaining how children do not have the same protection from harm which our law affords adults. Don’t miss this!
If you’ve ever been cornered by a member of the gay mafia, you know that their arguments in defense of gay advocacy aren’t exactly genius. But unfortunately, while most conservatives deeply know that gay advocacy envelops itself in non-logic, most of us don’t know how to counter effectively. As such, for all those culture warriors out there who are tired of being beaten over the head with stupid, here are the eight dumbest and most widely accepted arguments of the gay “rights” movement, and the counter-arguments necessary to defeat them.
1) “We just want to be able to get married!”
Bizarrely enough, while most espousing gay advocacy claim that marriage isn’t an option for homosexuals, the truth is that it is. If marriage is truly what gay advocates claim it is (to them, a declaration of lifetime devotion between two lovers), the miracle of reading shows that states can’t actually prosecute homosexual devotion. In real life, the movement for gay marriage only exists to force entire states of people who don’t like gay marriage to recognize and support it. (more…)
These days, it’s common to hear someone say that the territory of the United States had been stolen from native Americans and Mexicans, and that illegal immigration–regardless of our opinion of it–is simply a reclamation of lost territory. Fortunately, this kind of territorial originalism falls apart on its own, usually after anyone begins asking questions about the concept of territory. For instance:
Who were the original native Americans, and where did they reside?
Were they culturally homogeneous?
Were there conquerors among them, or did every single native American people simply reside in their original location? (more…)
While many would be comfortable defining the act of stealing as taking something which belongs to another person without permission, few today would have a clear answer as to whether the state should have a right to do the same to advance the public good. Unfortunately, their lack of clarity isn’t irrational: our readiness to embrace a total secularism necessitates that many important concepts about thievery, justice, and liberty be left behind as well.
As such, it’s safe to say that while definitions of governmental thievery vary wildly in modern America, our founding fathers had a remarkably clear idea of what rights were. We know this because they penned the Declaration of Independence, plainly stating that humans had very defined, theologically-based boundaries within which they were to be self-governed. As an example: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”(more…)
To a lot of people, the idea of an angry God taking total justice into His own hands doesn’t make a lot of sense. And generally, the intellectual errors fall into one of either two camps. They either consider God’s anger toward sin to be slightly pompous and irrational, since we visibly perceive wrongdoings to be against people, and not necessarily against God Himself; or they take an entirely subjective perspective, thinking that the “big” sins we abhor are the only ones that matter, and that God is somehow keeping a tally in which the person overwhelmingly falls on the “good” side since they don’t commit too many big sins. The problems with both philosophies are immense, however, and show a complete misunderstanding of God’s existence. (more…)