"The Intolerance of Tolerance": Something I wish I could have written

A few days ago I posted about "Pride Month" and how disgusted a lot of us have become with having sexual deviancy shoved into our faces during the month of June.  That post came following another in which I addressed the matter of someone accusing me of "bigotry" because of my beliefs about homosexuality.

The entire situation can be summarized by this statement I heard a number of times from the opposition: "We will not tolerate intolerance!"

I've been familiar with Karl Popper's "paradox of intolerance" for quite awhile now, going back to a philosophy class that I took in college at Elon.  The gist of it is that a society must be intolerant of intolerance, or else there is no tolerance at all.  To a point, I can agree with that.

To a point, mind you.

But the reality has been for a very long time, that the "tolerant" have been abusing the paradox as a weapon against those who have even the slightest disagreement with them.  The so-called "tolerant" - who are almost invariably of the "left side" of the ideological spectrum - do not seem capable of consideration of the viewpoints of others.  They instead are locked inside a fragile bubble, an "echo chamber", of their beliefs.  Any contradicting statements to their tenets are a dire threat to them, and are to be destroyed with all due vehemence.

How is there any dialogue possible, with people who think and behave like that?

In my own case, I did not initiate attack on anyone.  I did however profess sincere opposition to the beliefs of those people about social matters.  Matters which have corrupted and are destroying long-established and respected social institutions.  There is no such of a thing as "gay marriage", I will always believe.  Per the characteristics of true marriage, such a thing is impossible.

However, expressing that is enough to get labeled "bigot" and "intolerant" by individuals who are far more closed-minded than they realize about themselves.  They cannot oblige a person even merely thinking such a notion.  Anyone who does, they believe, should be destroyed.  And they are such gleeful bearers of the pitchfork and torch.

George Orwell had a word for where this "intolerance of intolerance" would lead to.  That word is "thoughtcrime".  And that is what these policemen of allowable ideas have deviated into becoming: the watchful overlords of all concepts that a person might contain within the few square inches of his or her brain.

They come in many shapes and sizes: from the common "street thugs" that came to this blog over the course of the past week, to polished elites who occasionally descend from their towers to share their alleged "wisdom" on networks like CNN.  They share the same motivation: seek out and destroy dissidents.  They would have been excellent Stasi agents during the heyday of East Germany.  They possess a collective consciousness: dare defy one and they all come swarming in to counter-attack.

Such people are capable of "feeling".  They are incapable of thinking.  Especially for themselves.  And so it is that the merest slight against their common beliefs turns them into raging berserkers, fueled by the lust to destroy anyone who dares oppose their fragile ideology.

There is your true "intolerance", ladies and gentlemen.  There are your real bigots.

I decided to spend a few hours today investigating further the concepts of tolerance and intolerance.  And in doing so I came upon a fascinating essay from a few months ago by one Greg Koukl.  Writing for the website Stand to Reason, Koukl addresses the fallacies of "tolerating no intolerance" and in doing so provides a counter to the assumed absolutism of Popper's paradox.

Koukl's essay is "The Intolerance of Tolerance".  Here is an excerpt:

"Most of what passes for tolerance today is nothing more than intellectual cowardice, a fear of intelligent engagement. Those who brandish the word “intolerant” are unwilling to be challenged by other views, to grapple with contrary opinions, or even to consider them. It is easier to hurl an insult—“you intolerant bigot”—than to confront an idea and either refute it or be changed by it. In the postmodern era, “tolerance” has become intolerance."

That is one selection from the essay and I am delighted to have come across it this afternoon.  It's a bit long, but well worth your time if you ever, like me, are confronted with so-called "tolerance" often hiding behind anonymity.

Thank you, Mr. Koukl.  You have put it in better words than I would have ever come up with.  You make me wish now that I had majored in philosophy.

Read More

I'm not homophobic... I'm homo-nauseated

 "Pride Month" - that quasi-observed annual genuflection to sexual deviancy - seems less pronounced this year than it previously had been.  Many are saying it coincides with the changing political climate in this country.  That is certainly possible: Fewer Americans than ever before are supporting so-called “gay marriage”.

Even so, there are plenty enough adherents to the "Pride festivities" to be loud and they demand that you pay attention to them, damn it!  In a number of places "el-jee-bee-tee-cue" faithful have tried to run "pride flags" up the pole and over the proper banners of the United States and their respective jurisdictions.  Removing such flags never seems to fail to bring around the television news crews come to document the "hate" toward gay people.  A few nights ago the Los Angeles Dodgers had "Pride Month Night" and Blake Treinen refused to wear the team’s special cap for the occasion, which angered LGBT activists.   Some of the more “progressive” churches have unfurled the “Alphabet Mafia”’s spectrum of colors in their sanctuaries.
 
It is important to note that there are two general types of sexual minority in our culture.  The first kind is homosexual etc. but its members remain very quiet about it.  They tend to not be homosexuals who join any movement like “Pride”.  Such people are private, inward-focused.  There should be no issue with such people.  Even if there can be no support of their lifestyle, there can be respecting their privacy.  The two are not exclusive of each other.  I have a number of friends who are homosexual and bisexual.  They know where I stand in regards to how they live.  But they also know that I’m not going to think any less of them.  There is a mutual respect between they and I.  And that’s how it’s supposed to be.
 
The same cannot be said of the second type of sexual minority: the LGBT extremists.  The ones who demand that every person acquiesce to their radicalism and allow “gay rights”.  Which, there is no such thing.  Homosexuals and other sexual minorities have just as many rights as the average American enjoys.  They are instead demanding special rights, which would in truth make all rights unequal for everyone.
 
LGBT zealots are like fascists.  They will only accept total capitulation.  There is no deviation allowed from the tenets of their cult.  Theirs is an unholy war, a jihad, wrapped in the blasphemed colors of the rainbow, and they lust for nothing but completely falling down on our knees for them.  They will not abide any turning away from their religion.
 
How tolerant of them.  Or as one LGBT supporter put it, "We will not tolerate intolerance!"
 
I'm discovering that to defy the LGBT extremists is to invite scorn and hatred.  That doing so brings out what must be the most vulgar and vile aspects of the human condition.  Several days ago, on a Facebook group that I visit occasionally, an individual posted a “pride” graphic.  It was something that no doubt a lot of people didn’t care to see, particularly since it was on a Star Wars forum of all places.  And though I had a suspicion what would happen if I did it, I decided to interject something that might make people think.  So on the graphic’s post I made a comment with a mere four words:
 
“Pride goeth before destruction.”
 
It was like ringing the bell for Pavlov’s dogs, slobbering with hunger.  Immediately after quoting those words of scripture from the Book of Proverbs I was jumped-flunky on by LGBT wackos.  Four words, comprising eight syllables… and that was enough to trigger more unbridled hatred than I had seen on the Internet in quite awhile.
 
The original poster did not like it.  He began a campaign to “out” me.  He began following me around cyberspace, gleefully declaring me a homophobe, all because I cannot and will not condone the LGBT “lifestyle”.
 
I made a blog post calling out this person who has done his best to paint me as a "bigot”.  The last time I checked, that post has been seen a little less than a thousand times.  I have no idea how it got around so fast except that I responded to that nitwit on Facebook with it.  So far, 80-some comments have been left on the post.  A few are supportive of me but most of them not.  Not one of the negative comments has been anything but obscene to one degree or another.  Many of them seem preoccupied with whether or not I am a virgin.
 
When uttering four simple verses of scripture - "Pride goeth before destruction" – is enough to evoke such a reaction, there exists an irrational fear that is impossible to have meaningful dialogue with as decent human beings.
 
The masses comprising LBGT “Pride” be they homosexual and trans themselves, or their fellow travelers, are fixated on sex while ignorant of everything else in this world.  They worship the orgasm: sexual pleasure is the be-all and end-all of the human condition for them.  They cannot comprehend that there are people who are not thinking about sex constantly.  To tell them that one does not want sex all of the time is like trying to tell an alcoholic that one does not drink: the person can not believe that anyone would refrain from drinking.
 
There is no reasoning with such people.  It is like a black man circa 1880 trying to reason with the Klansmen who are about to lynch him.  In fact, that’s exactly what it’s like.
 
"But Chris, homosexuals can't change how they feel when they're attracted to people of the same sex!"
 
I never said that they could.
 
I have said this so many times that I'm practically blue in the face: I definitely, most certainly do believe that there exists a homosexual inclination.  The question is though: What does a person choose to do about that inclination?
 
As a Christian, I understand and accept that there exists temptation.  It can take many forms.  Some temptations are sexual.  Others are for substances like meth.  There are food temptations.  As a former mental health professional I have seen a bewildering variety of temptations, many of which might surprise and completely shock people.
 
It's not the inclination, the temptation that is wrong.  It is the acting upon it to satisfy the temptation.  Nobody… and I mean nobody… is forced by their own mind and body to have sex with anyone else.  I can't think of anything more ridiculous than the suggestion that anybody must absolutely express themselves sexually with another person.
 
The LGBT extremists however believe that human beings are base creatures without a moral core.  They expect that a person has no choice but to yield to his or her lusts.  And they absolutely hate it when it’s suggested that a person can opt out of surrendering to temptation.  They look at others and see them as scum, lower than animals.
 
I’ve been called homophobic.  Which is ridiculous.  "Homophobic" insinuates a dire fear of  same-sex relationships.  And that’s not me.
 
What I am… and I earnestly believe that the same goes for most people in this country… is that I’m homo-nauseated.
 
I’m sick to death of having “pride” shoved into my face.  I, and many other people, just don’t want to know what two men are doing with each other.  We are also tired of the Pride flag making its way onto seemingly every product conceivable (what next, Pride-kitty litter?).  I can’t remember there ever a heterosexual flag or there being a straight parade whose participants boast of sleeping with a stranger of the opposite gender.  Just so, I and a lot of other individuals don’t need obscene and grotesque thoughts of men having sex with one another playing across our gray matter.
 
Homosexuals?  Fine.  They can knock themselves out.  But it doesn't make them any more special or worth revering than anybody else.  “Pride” wants to be worshiped for their sexual preference: perhaps the least noble thing that a person should be remembered for.  Many of us would rather they quit bothering us and politely go away.  They aren't wanted and no amount of corporate advocacy (almost always done under threat) is going to change that.
 
Or perhaps “homophobic” is a word with meaning after all.  It can mean a fear of what the LGBT brigade can do to one if a person deviates from the pro-homosexual narrative.  It indicates a terror campaign on the part of the LGBT extremists: surrender your morals or be declared guilty of hate-mongering.  That is a homophobia that's the LGBT jihadis not only acknowledge, they actively encourage.

There is the real bigotry.  That is the true fascism.  And it’s time that normal people begin to defy and resist, and demand that the real hate-mongers leave us alone.

Read More

Coward Alert: "The SW Geek Hub" on Facebook

Hello SW Geek Hub.  I know you are reading this.  You and your droogs just can't quit me, can you?

Here is something new for you to ponder: "The Intolerance of Tolerance".  Maybe you should quit saying that other people are "bigots" and look at yourself.

New blog post: "I'm not homophobic... I'm homo-nauseated"

It seems, ladies and gentlemen, that your friend and humble narrator has picked up a cyber stalker.

"The SW Geek Hub" is someone on Facebook - who has a woeful case of arrested development it seems - who is obsessed with rooting out what he calls "bigotry".  This meaning that anyone who does not acquiesce and condone the homosexual/lesbian/bisexual "lifestyle" is a bigot to him.

"Bigot" must be the only substantive word that he can use.  He keeps trying to talk to me and "bigot" is the word that most circulates the little dark drain of his disturbed mind.

I know a real bigot when I see one.  And that is most certainly people like "SW Geek Hub".

I have learned a few things about "The SW Geek Hub".  He is in England, in the London vicinity.  He hates people older than he is.  He has visited this blog several times in the past number of days, looking for anything pertaining to homosexuality.  He may be LGBT himself.

(Seriously SW Geek Hub, I'm not your type.)

He is a fascist who is afraid to step out of line.  Maybe that explains why he is too intimidated to do anything about the country he lives in.  England is a place whose people are fast losing their rights of free speech and religion and the right to defend themselves.  The recent Henry Nowak case demonstrates that the people of  Britain are now at the mercy of a government that places their best interests behind those of invading "migrants".

"The SW Geek Hub" is losing his country but he won't do anything about it.  "I know my place guvnah!" he practically tells us.

"The SW Geek Hub" is also deathly afraid of showing his real name and his face.

He is a hit and run stalker.  He'll pop up, make his accusation of "bigotry", then refuse to be an adult and show the world who he really is.  Funny, that, considering that the vast majority of people on Facebook do show their names and faces.  I mean, it's in the name of the site: Facebook.

I doubt that "The SW Geek Hub" is very much a real Star Wars fan.  Finding and posting Star Wars memes is the limit of his activity.  He certainly can't discuss the saga to any great length.  Neither does he, I suspect, have anything like the experiences some of us have.  I've met a lot of people associated with the saga, including many actors and actresses from the original and prequel trilogies.  I've engaged in conversation with individuals like the conceptual artists who created the look of the Star Wars movies.  I even made a film that was watched by the people at Lucasfilm.

"SW Geek Hub" is nothing more than a glorified Reddit user.  A legend in his own mind.

He has no actual life, other than associating with some other lonesome souls down at the pub on trivia nights.  I suspect he will someday die, bitter and alone, with nobody remembering who he was other than some vague memory of a childish man who cried "bigot!" at anyone who dared hold a differing belief than what few he himself might have had.  He has no real family or friends.

Now you know what I know.  That there is a very deranged individual on the Internet who refuses to behave like a civilized adult and has for whatever reason chosen to follow me around like a child fixated on a shiny toy.

Come on, SW Geek Hub.  I'm calling you out.  Show us who you really are.  You seem hellbent on stalking me.  Here I am.

Stop being a coward and tell us who you are.

Edit 06/13/2026: Since first posting this some information has come into my awareness.  It seems that SW Geek Hub has quite a history of attacking people he doesn't like and declaring them to be bigots.  He's done it a LOT.  I'm far from the only one he has branded a bigot.  And in at least one case he threatened to "dox" someone who dared oppose his ideology.

So my estimation that he would cause harm to others if given the opportunity is a valid one.

Read More

LGBT Extremism: Not so much "pride" anymore

Have you noticed it also?

There doesn't seem to be the degree of "pride" that there has been in the previous few months of June.

"El-Jee-Bee-Tee-Cue Pride" has been a thing for the past number of decades among the extremists of that lifestyle.  And then following the first election of Donald Trump it found renewed life as supposed "opposition" to the administration.

Then Trump's first term ended.  And the real freak show that was the Biden years began.

Thankfully, most of the American people got fatigued by pretty much everything wacko liberal.  Enough to toss leftism out on its keister.  Right now the only vestige of power that it still has are in the out-of-control federal judges who are imperiling rule of law, sheerly out of a lust to "get Trump" by any means possible.

I was expecting that this June would witness a resurgence of "pride".  A counter-revolution to the "Make America Great Again" movement that propelled Trump to a second term in the White House.  The leftists were going to rally around the cause of LGBT again, regather their forces, throw in the reserves...

...but so far, nothing.

Oh, there have been a few adherents of LGBT ideology who have stuck with it.  A few nights ago I watched A Face in the Crowd, the 1957 movie that was Andy Griffith's first role.  By the end of the film Griffith's character, the "demagogue in denim" Lonesome Rhodes, has been destroyed by his own ego.  Mel Miller (played by Walter Matthau) tells Rhodes that he'll get another show, "but it won't be the same."  There will be a few people who will still watch him after he's ruined his seemingly invincible hold on the public.  But those will eventually disappear too.  And then there will be no one.

That's what the LGBT cause reminds me of.  Lonesome Rhodes.  Screaming in the night for some slight measure of legitimacy and respect.

I'll dare say that the days of LGBT's hold on the business world are over with.  Those active in the movement have had their time.  They've been weighted in the balances of corporate esteem and found wanting.  The court of public opinion is no longer in their favor.  No matter how much gay-friendly beer and "trans swimwear" they might boast of selling.

If only the LGBT extremists had kept low all this time.  They may not have become so reviled by the majority of the American people.

Especially by many of those who do identify as gay and lesbian.

Because it wasn't so long ago the LGBT community wanted to be left alone.  They wanted to live in quiet with others.

A lot of homosexuals and lesbians still prefer quiet.  I believe that there should be no grievance to be had with them, at all.  Many of us are sincerely convicted about their behavior being very wrong.  I'm certainly never going to endorse that lifestyle.  But such people as these particular homosexuals and lesbians respect my right to my beliefs and I respect their privacy.  There is a line that should never be crossed and so long as it isn't there can be peace.

But those aren't the ones involved with "LGBT Pride".

First the LGBT fringe was quiet.

Then they asked for "tolerance" and "acceptance".

Then they insisted that they be "loved" no matter what they were doing to destroy themselves.

And now it is "Pride" that DEMANDS SUBSERVIENCE.  It has come to be that we must all fall in line and surrender to the cause of LGBT or suffer "consequences" (they love to use that word).  That is what Pride has morphed into.

The "LGBT Pride" movement is not and never has been about peaceful "live and let live".  It has always been about coercion.  It is about forcing people against their conscience.  It is "capitulate to us or ELSE".  It is "obey or BE DESTROYED!"

The extremist LGBT movement is like most other things leftist.  A dark iron fist beneath a tattered velvet glove.  They are bullies hiding behind a rainbow flag (or purple and lavender flag, or whatever).

Too many of the LGBT extremists also want to pervert our children.  It's the only way they are going to perpetuate themselves, by making the most innocent among us like them.  They're the ones often called "the groomers".  And they are for all intents and purposes irredeemably evil.

There is nothing virtuous or noble to be "proud" about in homosexuality and its associated lifestyles.  It is a thing of destruction: of others, of culture, and inevitably of one's healthy mind and body.

But that is the choice of homosexuals and lesbians and bisexuals.  Don't get me started on transgenderism: as much an affront to nature and society as there is ever apt to be.

If someone wants to partake of a lifestyle that invites disease, madness and death, then there is little I could do to persuade them otherwise.  But do NOT assume that I or any other conscionable human being must be compliant and give our consent and blessing to such behavior.

Now, can there truly be "peaceful co-existence" between most people and those of the radical LGBT agenda?  It's very doubtful.  The LGBT zealots have to earn our respect.  And they aren't doing that.

Thugs and bullies never do.

But if this year is any indication, "LGBT Pride" is fast losing its luster.  The velvet glove is now shreds of remnant.  Extreme liberalism has been revealed for all to see as the brute power-at-all-costs that it really is, and people are wiser now.  If this past autumn's elections were any indication (and in a historic first, President Trump's approval ratings at this point in his term are higher than that of any other president at similar times) the LGBT movement no longer has any legitimacy.  It is being buoyed pretty much by left-leaning media: another institution that is losing its power.  When CNN's viewers are numbered in the hundreds of thousands while Joe Rogan's podcast gets an audience in the tens of millions, there has been a drastic shift away from the mainstream press's hold on the American people.

So if you are seeing "Pride" on display this month, and detest the wickedness that it stands for, take heart.  These are the last days of that movement as it has been defined in the past few decades.  At least until - hopefully a long time in the future - another leftist regime is installed and the LGBT extremists - who a lot of homosexuals want nothing to do with - come out of hiding once again.

Read More

The power of five words

It's ironic that this pertains to Elon University: the place where my real spiritual journey began while a student there almost thirty years ago.  At the time there was a considerable presence of evangelical Christians there.  There was InterVarsity Christian Fellowship and maybe a hundred people or more came together on Tuesday nights for that.  There were the small groups that met for Bible study and prayer throughout the campus during the week.  Associations like Baptist Student Union flourished.  And if you were a student who was looking for a place of earnest worship there was a church service called Elon Celebration that took place every Sunday morning at Whitley Auditorium.

It's been a long time since I've visited the Elon campus, but I've heard stories.  About how the Christian presence is gone.  Oh, there is some marginal representation, but nothing that gets official recognition from the administration.  For that to happen an organization has to agree to take stances that run fully counter to the traditional Judeo-Christian ethic.  The organizations have to be "affirming": code-talk for "you must be inclusive and endorse the homosexual lifestyle as being compatible with Christianity."

Which is something that no legitimate Christian could possibly ascribe to.

It's been that way at Elon for a long time.  The once-fertile ground for real vigor and diversity and conversation is now spent.  The weeds have chocked off the wheat from taking root.  Until now a school that had once been a place of vibrant exchange of ideas, where we could boldly share about our faiths with abandon, has become a den of radical thought that actively quashes traditional Christianity in every corner it is found on campus.

But I like to think that even in such places, God's word holds power.

Case in point: a little drama that has happened during the past few days on Facebook.  Elon News Network - the conglomeration of Elon's various media, like the newspaper The Pendulum that I wrote for while a student - posted something about a "pride event" honoring the school's commitment to apparently being first and foremost known for harboring fringe sexuality.

I saw the post and casually left a comment.  Five little words.  Verse 18 of chapter 16 of the Book of Proverbs, to be precise.  Here is what I shared:

"Pride goeth before the fall."

That's all that I did.  I merely quoted one of the smaller verses of scripture from the Bible.

That was probably forty hours ago, give or take.  And if I had known before that such a tiny verse would pack that much of a wallop, I would have employed it a long time ago.  As of this writing that verse has evoked almost a hundred comments, mostly from people who find it offensive.

Emboldened by the responses, I've shared other thoughts about the matter of "LGBTQwhatever pride".  Mainly, that it might be the most self-destructive behavior that a person can do to himself or herself.  The damage to mind, heart, soul and especially body are horrific.  As I have said at various times on the thread I have seen what that lifestyle does to men and women, whether as a healthcare professional or just someone trying to be a decent human being.  And it's something I never want to have to look at again.

The feedback generated would almost be hilarious, if it not for the fact that the people responding actually believe what they do.  One former classmate automatically posted that I'm a homophobe, racist, hate-spewing, etc.  He pretty much comes across as a parody of a parody of what a leftist homosexual whacko is supposed to be like.  Another person made a thinly-veiled threat of violence.

All of this and more, stemming from five words.

If only these people had any grasp whatsoever of the wisdom and validity of that verse.  They are demonstrating it well enough.

This past week at least two colleges went bankrupt and had to close down.  They were small-ish campuses, much like Elon.  They couldn't afford to remain in business as educational institutions.

Once upon a time, I wouldn't think that such a thing could possibly happen to my alma mater.  But that time is long past.  Elon has abandoned its intellectual and spiritual vibrancy and put something far more dark in its place.  There will come to be consequences of that.  Maybe not today or next year, but there will be a price to be paid for running off potential students whose consciences dictate that they cannot subscribe to a radical agenda.

My advice to any young Christian man or woman who is considering colleges: avoid Elon University.  And it absolutely breaks my heart to have to say that about a place that I made so many happy memories at.  You won't find your faith welcome there anymore.  You will be expected to yield your minds to fringe ideology.  It is the kind of place where any sincere faith in God will be sniffed out and put on display for public ridicule.

I only shared five words of scripture on a Facebook page.  Lord only knows what will happen when... not if, when... the spirit might move a sincere Christian to share more than that in a classroom discussion.

But as one who majored in history at Elon, and among other things represented the school at a national research conference, I have confidence.  The people who have been riled up against my quoting scripture aren't doing anything new.  Theirs is not "new wisdom" but old foolishness.  VERY old foolishness.  And the tide is turning against them.  This past election signified that.

They have a sick fantasy on their side.  I and enough others have reality.  I believe I know who will prevail.

Read More

Too Much Tolerance? Another op-ed piece from my college's newspaper

It's been a truly fascinating journey for me these past few months after finding an online archive of The Pendulum, Elon University's student newspaper.  I'm finding articles written by me that I had forgotten about.  I can really see the person I was then, and contrast him with the man who I am today.  There is a lot of growth there.  Some things changed in the intervening decades while others remained starkly the same.  I think my beliefs evolved, while staying true to the heart meat of my being.

So here's my essay from The Pendulum's October 1st, 1998 issue... gadzooks that was twenty-five whole years ago!  Well, this one calls for some background.  A year and a half before this was published Joycelyn Elders - the former surgeon general under President Clinton - visited Elon and spoke one night.  And I was a hot-blooded American youth "full of piss and vinegar" who was going to confront Elders on her radical stance on abortion and sexual policies.

Long story short: I did not comport myself as the Christian I had become five months earlier.  Instead of trying to change hearts I only made myself look very foolish.  Some fellow students liked that I had "taken her on."  But over the following weeks and months I came to realize how wrong I was in doing that.

I decided that I had to do something to try and make things right.  This essay was in part an attempt to do that.  Some people expressed appreciation for it.  Others ignored my apology and homed in on what I wrote about homosexuality.  Which wasn't the main focus of the article at all.

Well, anyway, here it is.  Click on the pic to embiggen it.

What do you folks think?

Read More

No, I do not "hate" anyone LGBT

Sigh...

I shouldn't have to make this post.  But as it seems how EVERYTHING today is supposed to be qualified, quantified, factionalized and most especially sexualized...

Contrary to what some have claimed, I do not now nor have I ever harbored any kind of hatred toward those who have chosen the homosexual lifestyle.  Or who are bisexual.  Or transsexual.  Or whatever.

As a Christian, I am called to not hate anybody.  I am in fact commanded to hate my own sin and my own fallen carnal nature, before I dare levy hatred toward another.  It is part and parcel to the "dying unto self" that those who follow Christ are told that they must do on a daily basis.

That does not mean however that I can or must acquiesce to any activity that is self-destructive.

And that, is what LGBT behavior is.

I've seen the damage and disease and ultimately death that is wrought by homosexuality.  Have looked at the photos of lacerated anal tissue.  Viewed images of penises wracked with things that no healthy male should have.  I have read the journal articles, about gay men and lesbians being far more prone to cancer than those who are not.  Human papillomavirus is a really nasty thing to subject one's genitalia to.  I have looked into the faces of people who have contracted full-blown AIDS, and those are eyes that I pray I never have to look into ever again.

Homosexuals have, on average, a lifespan twenty years shorter than that of heterosexuals.

Let that sink in.  A gay or lesbian person is likely to have two full decades shaven off their life expectancy, because of the all too physical consequences of homosexual behavior.

These are not things that can be "wished away" for sake of sexual license.  These are stone cold hard facts.  This is reality, that can NOT be escaped from because of one's "feelings" about the matter.

LGBTwhatever is incompatible with human design.  Its myriad of associated diseases and disorders attest to this.

How do I, as a person called by God Himself to love others, reconcile that love with the expectation that I am to celebrate a "lifestyle" that leads so very often to death?

I can not.  I can no more endorse the LGBT community than I can endorse cigarette smoking, or abusing crystal meth.  Because those are self-destructive behaviors also.

I can love homosexuals.  I can love lesbians. I can love bisexual individuals.  I can love transsexuals, though what they do to themselves is especially haunting.

But as a Christian (who fails and falls more often than not), as an objectivist who understands the concreteness of reality, as merely a human being trying to be decent... for those reasons and more, I can not love their kind of behavior.  Because when you scrape away everything else that's Chris Knight, you're left with someone who simply does not want to see anyone die.

No, "love is love" is not true.  There are many kinds of love.  There is philios: love of brothers and sisters.  There is the love of parents to children.  There is logos: the love of God.  And, yes, there is eros: love expressed sexually between man and woman.

What the LGBT community and its supporters demand we accept is not love at all.  It is lust.  And they want said lust to be without the burden of personal responsibility.  And THAT again is a denial of reality.

If you love a person... and I mean really love someone, you will NOT selfishly lead that person to demean themselves for your own desires, at risk of their health and even very life.

I love my friends.  There are men who are as close and dear to me as real brothers.  I love them and I would die for any of them.  But not for an instant have I been tempted to take it to an entirely different and inappropriate level.

Once upon a time, not very long ago, most men and women were capable of accepting that.  That love is a many dimension-ed notion and that each kind had its own unique place in the scheme of things.

We were a better people, then.  Not a perfect people.  But we were at least striving against the baser instincts of carnal nature.  And we accomplished great things because of it.

As a historian, I know also where unrestrained sexual pleasure leads a society to.  And that as much as anything else persuades me about the truly insidious nature of the LGBT lifestyle.

I could easily sit here all night, and rattle off a dozen reasons and more why I can not celebrate homosexuality and transgenderism.  Just as easily as I could tick off all the reasons why I must condemn it.

And I hope that my many friends who are LGBT will at last understand where I'm coming from.

Finally, know this: sex is a sacred, holy thing.  It is something that I believe should be celebrated within the boundaries of husband and wife.  In my sincere philosophy ALL sexual sin is equally abhorrent.  I can not disapprove of LGBT behavior any more than I can of sex outside of marriage.  That makes me come across as a prude, I know.  But there it is.  I have plenty of friends who do not agree with this.  And that is fine.  But so far as I know none of them have called me "hate-filled" or "polygamaphobe" because of it.

Sex is not a toy.  It's not something to be engaged in frivolously.  It is meant to be a sanctified act.  "The marriage bed is to be honored by all," scripture tells us.  If that was done more often, maybe we wouldn't have things like children without fathers, venereal disease and shortened lifespans.

That is all.

Read More

New post on Substack, about "groomers"

Still getting the hang of Substack, which may be a suitable repository for my more "political" essays.  This evening it's a post about the word "groomer", which has suddenly become quite unpopular on Reddit and other social media sites.  It is the belief of this blogger however that groomer is exactly the precise word to describe pedophiles who are determined to corrupt children...

My honeymoon with Twitter these past few months may soon be drawing to a close. In recent days the microblogging site has apparently cracked down on the use of the word “groomer”. Which has come to mean pedophiles brainwashing children into becoming potential targets for exploitation. Leftist activists claim that it’s a slur against homosexuals and transsexuals and should be banned as “hate speech”. Never mind that it can also mean things like dog groomer, “good grooming” etc.

It’s already verboten on Reddit: a site that for whatever reason I can’t remember looking at much less participated on. Maybe it had something to do with Reddit shutting down a subthingy in support of Donald Trump. So much for being a free and open forum of discussion and dialogue…

Back to grooming. I have no problem at all with using this word in referring to adults who introduce children - who are WAY too young for such concepts - to sexuality in general and the LGBTwhatever “lifestyle” in particular. Because “grooming” kids is exactly what is transpiring.

Mash down here for more.

Read More

So, about what happened in North Carolina yesterday...

Celebrating that one unaccountable man has redefined more than six thousand years of tradition from across the width and breadth of human society with one stroke of a single pen.

Seems more than a little ridiculous to me.  To say nothing of arrogant and presumptuous in the extreme.

I've seen a lot of hate and viciousness since yesterday afternoon.  Most of it seems to be coming from those who were most clamoring for "equality of love".  I can't understand that.  Or maybe I can and I don't care to articulate why... because what would be the point?

It's not same-gender marriage.  Same-gender marriage is a contradiction.  It's an oxymoron.  It is something so illogical that it cannot exist.  There will be consequences. Legal and otherwise.  Especially legal.  Ramifications for both "sides" of this debate.

Personally, I'm not worried at all about yesterday.  Marriage is something beyond human establishment.  It's untouchable.  Those people - and I'm referring to both parties involved in this - can scream that it's a mountain all they want.  Still doesn't change the fact that it's a pebble.

Bear in mind that at the time I was against Amendment One.  For various reasons I am still against it.  There are some things which are defined by something higher than man.  Whether that is God or immutable law, there are concepts which can neither be defined or redefined by legislation or activist judiciaries.  I couldn't support Amendment One because I knew something of the spirit of the men who were most pushing for it, and theirs was NOT borne out of respect for that higher concept of marriage.

And ironically, neither is what happened yesterday.  But where does this end?  Will polygamy be next?  Will corpses be given legal rights so that necrophilia is legitimized?

How far does this now go?

I'm looking at the LONG-term ramifications. And there will be consequences of this trend.

Some have asked by what right am I to dictate how two people are to love each other?  Well , I haven't conspired or ever attempted to tell anyone about what they express to another person.  I do have to sincerely wonder though about defining and re-defining something that is derived from law higher than man's.  Let's be honest: is what happened yesterday about marriage, or is it about coercing those who do not agree with it into endorsing something that they do not believe in?  There are some businesses which do not cater to same-sex marriages.  Some bakeries have refused to make wedding cakes for same-sex couples.  They have been "penalized" with fines and made to sit through "sensitivity" classes.  Are they to be forced to do so against their beliefs?  It is already happening.

If two people want to express their love for each other, fine.  Let them do it.  Knock themselves out.  But that doesn't mean that I or anyone else should be made to give it an official stamp of endorsement.  I didn't think that Amendment One needed to do that for traditional marriage and I don't think that one judge's decision "needed" to do that for "gay" marriage either.

I cannot reiterate nearly enough that marriage is something man can't define.  Our attempts to do that will only meet with disaster.  Perhaps not today, but eventually.

For what it's worth: I think a case can be made that Amendment One, and it's biggest proponents, paved the way for what happened yesterday.  It really was one of the worst-worded, worst-inspired amendments that I've ever seen (and I mean from a strictly legal perspective, not on whether one agreed with it or not).  The ones who were demanding it cared more for strutting their own egos than they were about anything else.  One cannot set out to do something with an impure motive.  Doing so will in time destroy that work.  And that is what happened here.  It became less about defending marriage and more about looking like players at the big table of politics.

There are many who would be wise to learn from this.

Read More

All I intend to say about A&E firing Phil Robertson...

A&E fired the star of not just its #1-rated series, but the top-rated series in the history of cable television.

That's not just shooting yourself in the foot; that's chainsawing your leg off at the hip.

This will go down as the stoopidest move in television programming history.  He could have been less crass about it, but Robertson said nothing any more offensive than the vast majority of other series.  Based on Robertson's comments, I'd say that he's expressing the heart of a true Christian: love God, and love each other.  When Phil Robertson said that he has no hate toward anyone else and that God created each of us equal and loves us in spite of how wayward we go from Him, I can't but trust his heart on the matter.

Let's say this for what it really is: Phil Robertson and the rest of his family on Duck Dynasty are coming under attack because they won't endorse the homosexual lifestyle.  This isn't about "intolerance" on Phil's part: if anything it's the people at GLAAD and the Human Rights Initiative that are being intolerant toward others.

This is about perhaps, at most, 3% of the population demanding that it's not enough that their lifestyle be accepted, but that it also must be admired.

Phil Robertson can't do that.  Neither can I.

Gay, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgenders are not a "persecuted" class of people.  They have no basis to claim being oppressed or attacked.  All they have in the public arena of ideas is proclaiming themselves to be victims demanding attention and sympathy.

Please, somebody tell me: how is one man shoving his penis up another man's anus an act requiring sympathy and compassion on my part?

Okay, maybe I could have been less crass there, too.  But ya gotta admit: Phil Robertson is only asking what has been on the minds of a vast number of people.  Certainly more than the number of militant homosexual lobbyists now crying for Robertson blood.

Read More

This is my Eagle Scout card

I received it during my Eagle Scout ceremony at Fairview Baptist Church in Reidsville, North Carolina on August 16th, 1992.

It immediately went into my wallet.

I have carried my Eagle Scout card with me ever since.  It has been with me through college, across the ocean, through some very dark times and into some very wonderful times.

I've never been without it.  I had long planned to someday be buried with it.

Moments ago I removed my Eagle Scout card from my wallet.  I do not plan to carry it with me ever again.

Within the past hour it has been announced that the National Council of the Boy Scouts of America has passed a resolution to allow openly homosexual members.

This is incompatible with the spirit and the meaning of the Scout Oath and the Scout Law.  The principles of Scouting are about being the best that God intends for us to be.  Strength of mind, strength of body and strength of character are inherently essential toward this.  And part of that means developing personal restraint.  God intended for us to control our own bodies.  Not for our bodies to control us.

The National Council of the Boy Scouts of America has demonstrated that it does not understand the meaning of either the Scout Oath or the Scout Law.

And so it is, with great sadness and a grieving heart, that I choose to no longer be associated or affiliated with the Boy Scouts of America.

Maybe someday I'll be able to pick up the card and carry it with me again.  I pray that day does come.

Read More

All I'm going to say about Jason "Look At Me I'm Gay" Collins

Jason Collins is no Jackie Robinson.

In 1947 there was an institutionalized discrimination against non-white athletes playing in major league sports.  Jackie Robinson broke through that barrier not because he happened to have been a black man but because he was very, very good at playing baseball.

In 2013 there is no institutionalized discrimination against gay athletes, lesbian athletes, bisexual athletes or transgender athletes.

So what does Jason Collins think he is proving by telling everyone "I'm gay"?

Does that make him a better basketball player?  I thought the whole point of sports as a multi-billion dollar commercial venture was to hire the best players possible, manage the team to the best of your ability and turn a profit by winning lots of games, selling lots of tickets and letting fans buy lots of over-priced beer.

So where does "I'm gay" figure into the scheme?

I've worked many jobs over the years.  Including alongside individuals who were gay or lesbian.  I respected them because of their talents and their abilities, and even sought to emulate their skills as professionals.  What they did on their own time wasn't my business and they had the maturity to not make it anyone's business either.

I used to work in a sandwich shop.  What would I have thought if one of my co-workers declared to everyone in the place "Look!  I'm gay!"?  Not much, truth be known.  Maybe it's just me but I've never been able to tell the difference between a straight sandwich and a gay sandwich.

Jason Collins however may have shot himself in the foot with this one.  He has put the emphasis on himself and his sexual orientation, not on his abilities as a player.  That has never been a good thing for the morale of a sports team.  If I were the owner of an NBA team, I would have to deem Collins a liability to my franchise.  If Collins goes no further with his career, he'll get lauded as a "sports pioneer".  If he decides he wants to keep playing professionally well... that's the thing, isn't it?  How many team owners are going to turn Collins down at the risk of being branded "homophobe" by the media?  Even if bringing him aboard solely because of his orientation means surrendering legitimately superior talent?

"Culturally progressive"?  Whatever.  But it sure as hell isn't good business.

It used to be that a person's merit and identity was base on his talents, his abilities, his beliefs and his virtues.  Today the notion of "identity" has become diminished to the point of meaningless.  Too many people want to feel significant and important because they feel entitled to it and not because they've earned it.  And there is no more cheap and gutteral way of demanding respect for that alleged identity than to say "I'm gay!  LOVE ME!"

Jason Collins and too many others want acceptance for their choice of lifestyle, not appreciation for their talents.  It's enough to make this writer wonder how much talent Mr. Collins must have, at all...

Read More

Bullying from Boy Scout big-wigs?! Executives manipulating data?! Gay policy under fire from on high?!

If true... IF this is at all true... this represents the most insane turn of events that I have ever seen coming out of the Boy Scouts of America in my thirty-some years affiliated with the organization.

The honor of a Boy Scout, painting by Norman Rockwell

First, I wish to direct your attention to an article by Austin Ruse on the website for Catholic publication Crisis Magazine.  Titled "Something Rotten in the Boy Scouts", Ruse raises a red flag about apparent manipulation of data at the Boy Scouts home office regarding the possible change of policy that would allow boys of homosexual orientation to have membership in the Boy Scouts.

Awright, let me be put it this way: the home office is ignoring the data from its own survey!  From the article:

There’s deception going on in the front office of the Boy Scouts. It includes deliberate misrepresentation of polling data, and threats to pack an upcoming meeting with anonymous and unqualified voters so that the Boy Scout policy on homosexuality gets forced on the majority of Scouts and parents who don’t want it.

The Boy Scouts are considering changing their policy of not allowing open homosexuality in either their Scout or leadership ranks. The policy has placed the Boy Scouts in the buzz saw of the zeitgeist and up until recently they have resisted. There are some weak-kneed leaders who want to throw over the policy and appear willing to violate the Scout Law to do it.

The Scout front office released the result of a national survey and “listening” process that purported to show that the Scouts—boys, parents, leaders and donors—favor a change in the policy. The Boy Scouts say the process reveals great changes in attitudes and that a majority of those at all levels of Scouting “tend to agree that youth should not be denied the benefits of Scouting.”

This was dutifully and even triumphantly reported in the mainstream press. The only problem is the news reports were wrong. And the news reports were wrong because the Boy Scouts misrepresented the results. One close observer of the Boy Scouts calls the poll “a pack of lies.”

The results of the BSA Membership Standards Survey:
A solid majority polled want NO change
to the current policy.

Do Scouting parents want to overhaul the policy and allow open homosexuality in the Scouts? The Executive Summary of the Poll says, “yes”, but the numbers say “no.” Fifty percent of Cub Scout parents support the current restrictive policy while 45% oppose it. A whopping 61% of Boy Scout parents support the current policy.

How did Boy Scout leadership get anywhere near the assertion that a majority of those in Scouting support homosexuality in Scouting? Part of what they did was what is known as a push-poll, a questionnaire designed not to elicit an accurate opinion but one designed to change opinions.

(snip)

What is going on here? Deception, that’s what. There is a small group on the Executive Committee of the Boy Scouts who want this policy to change. What they face is a membership that largely opposes the measure. So, they try to get their way by lying about a poll. But there is more deception than that...

The entire article cannot be recommended enough because Ruse's piece is by a wide margin among the best and most informative that I've found about the matter of homosexuality in the Boy Scouts.  Which, shouldn't be a matter at all.  The Boy Scouts are not meant to be a tool of politics.  Especially the politics of radical homosexuality.  The Girl Scouts of America let that happen to them and look at them now: a pitiful shadow of their former selves.  And one that has lost significant numbers of past and potential members to competing organizations for girls and young women.

But then comes this bit of information, which is even more full-tilt whacko.  A week ago I wrote about the Boy Scouts of America and how homosexuality is a concept which is in total conflict with the principles of the Scout Oath and the Scout Law.  In that post I mentioned OnMyHonor.net: a group of Scouts, Scouters and supporters who "are united in their support of Scouting's timeless values and their opposition to open homosexuality in the Scouts."  OnMyHonor.net has become a significant presence in this discussion, its leaders appearing on nationally televised news broadcasts in recent days.

So look at what was posted on the official OnMyHonor.net Facebook page a short while ago...

"Today, top BSA officals contacted OMH coalition partners to ask them to stand down! LOL. (not a joke)."

What the...?!?!? 

Is this right?  OnMyHonor.net has been told to cool it by the executives of the Boy Scouts of America's national office?

How the hell is what the BSA head office doing honorable?  HOW is it at all honest, "morally straight", or respecting the Scout Law?

It is not.  It is NOT!!

There is other information which in recent days I have been made aware of regarding next month's vote to keep or change the policy.  I haven't had enough corroboration about that information to confidently write about it but if there is any substance to those as well, in the mind of this blogger the executive are guilty of even more shameful acts, apparently for the cause of political correctness.

And if there is the least shred of truth to these assertions, if the Boy Scouts top executives are behaving in such a manner, then they should do the honorable thing and step down and leave the Boy Scouts of America.  They should make way for true leadership which is sincerely dedicated to the principles of Scouting which Lord Robert Baden-Powell knew were needed for young boys to become the responsible leaders that this world sorely needs.

Read More