Tuesday, July 31, 2012

Chick-fil-A: Setting the record straight (added info)

The man said,
         “This is now bone of my bones,
         And flesh of my flesh;
         She shall be called Woman,
         Because she was taken out of Man.”

For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.
(Genesis 2:23-25, NASB)

Now I have to admit, I haven't tried to read a lot on the current lib/prog cause of the moment.  I've read some quotes from Dan Cathy (founder of Chick-fil-A) and browsed a few "how dare you" blog posts and I kinda wonder if the professionally offended class were waiting for a chance to pounce on the man who makes a damn fine chicken sandwich, treats his employees well, and (dare I say it?) trains them to be polite to their customers.

Yes, even insignificant me is watched on a semi-regular basis by some in the professionally offended class. So I am quite sure there are folks out there who think it is their job, their solemn responsibility to be on the look out for any utterance by someone who has yet to get the message. Ho Hum.

But there is one thing I would like to set the record straight on.  As far as I've read, Dan Cathy has nothing against marriage equality.  I'm pretty sure he doesn't support "marriage" equality, though.  That's a problem. Because our professionally offended class is very adept at wielding their Newspeak as an offensive weapon and those who walk into the arena unprepared are usually cowed (as we've seen so recently).

Two men can no more be married to each other than one of them can be married to his dog.  Two women can no more be married to each other than one of them can be married to her pet dolphin. Such things are metaphysical impossibilities akin to claiming to be a married bachelor or to have drawn a perfectly round square. They just do not exist in this world.  They don't exist in any world that is not imaginary.

Marriage is the publicly recognized union of man and woman.  Every single one of us has the equal right to marriage.  Sally Ride's right to marriage was no more infringed than my right to marriage because Clive Owen won't return my phone calls (OK, so I've never called him and he is married already, but you get the point, right?).  Depth of feeling does not create a right to anything, much less something as foundational to society as marriage.  Yes, marriage is limited by custom and reason in circumstances of age and consanguinity.  But again, those limitations apply to all equally.

Desire, deep emotion, years of building a life together - none of these create a right to marriage. Because that is not what marriage is.

So let's just drop the Newspeak, shall we?  You may win society's recognition of a fiction.  But that is not a victory.  It is a defeat for us all.  A defeat for our children's future and our very survival as a culture. It will be left for the children of marriage, the real thing, to pick up the pieces of the society you broke. There will be a few of these sterile "marriages" which can afford to purchase the manufacture of a child with the help of outside parties.  But they will remain few.  It will be the children of fertile marriages that rebuild the future.

I pray they are strong enough and faithful to do the hard work we will leave for them.


Thursday, July 26, 2012


After the recent unpleasantness, I've been thinking about one thing in particular.  It is an essay from Dale O'Leary on Feminism and the importance of forgiveness. Nearly twenty years ago, Dale recognized the problem in speaking to and with many feminists was their unforgiveness.  It is amazing how a bitter seed can grow into a cancer, affecting the hearing and the reading comprehension, and no amount of clarification, explanation or apology will ever be enough.  They will declare victory if you cave, but will be still more watchful for the next time you step a toe over the line.

With that in mind, read this from Dale O'Leary and see if it helps make sense of the recent brouhaha:

Before we begin to talk about feminism we need to lay afoundation of repentance. I have given many talks on the this subjectand no matter how careful I am, I find that when I am finished one ortwo women in the audience will be terribly offended by my talk. Theinteresting thing is that they are usually offended by something Ididn't say. I tried to explain the points that disturbed people morecarefully, but frankly to no avail.
Since you may face the same problem, let me explain what I thinkhappens. There has been injustice toward women by men. This should beno surprise to us. The book of Genesis tells us that the first fruitsof original sin were the disruption in the relationship between menand women.
The question is not: Have women suffered? We all agree theyhave. The question is: Why and what should we do about it? To agreethat women have suffered does not force one to agree with thefeminist analysis of what causes that suffering and what should bedone about it. The problem is that suffering creates bitterness andenvy. And feminism breeds in bitterness and envy. This is why when wechallenge feminist analysis of causes and solutions some women reactdefensively, feeling that we are denying our suffering.
Unless each of you repents personally of the sins of envy andresentment, I can tell you quite frankly that you will not be able tohear what I am saying.
Scripture says "Envy thou not the oppressor", (Prov. 3:31). Envy is a serious sin because when we envy we question the perfect wisdom of God's plan for our lives; we think that He denied us some good towhich we are entitled, particularly if we, as women, envy men, or say, heaven forbid, "I wish that I had been born a man." God made us male and female. To be displeased with His decision, challenges God's goodness. Therefore, if you have ever said, "I wish I were a man" repent of it and ask God for the grace to accept the gift of your womanhood.
Second, we must repent of all bitterness, resentment andunforgiveness. We must forgive everyone who has injured us in anyway. There are no exceptions. Every time we recite the rosary, sixtimes we say, "Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those whotrespass against us". These are not idle words, If we don't notforgive, we are asking God to hold our sins. Jesus said, when hetaught the Lord's prayer, "If you do not forgive others, neither willyour heavenly father, forgive you."
People have strange ideas about forgiveness. Forgiveness doesn'tmean that you have not been harmed; on the contrary, it means theexact opposite, it acknowledges the reality of the harm. Forgivenessis isn't letting the other person off, its letting yourself off.Resentment is re-feeling. You are continually refeeling the hurt.
There are no exceptions, no hurts that can't be forgiven. If youare as innocent as Jesus, if the nails are still in your hands, ifyour persecutors are still standing around jeering at you, you muststill say "Father forgive them."
Read the rest of it here.

And to learn a piece of 2nd wave feminist history and how it helps religious feminists be so successful when they get their high dudgeon on, read this from me, written about two years ago.

Addendum: Another essay that is helps fill out the picture is The Women's Movement by Joan Didion .

Monday, July 23, 2012

Well, there went that weekend

At this point I don't know when my review of Father Hunger will get written. As for the weekend, well, insomnia and Dog the Destroyer prevented me from being able to get comfortable with a book long enough to read more than three paragraphs without nodding off.  I'm still catching up on the laundry - she managed to mix up large piles of clean and dirty laundry in an effort to get to a window to watch for my return. That will teach me to leave my bedroom door open. That is probably just as well since I suspect a few days of calm after the latest tempest stirred up by the Mistress of Scoundrels won't hurt. 

Speaking of whom, I was going to attempt to ask nicely and politely if she might do me a teensy favor.  Since I am prevented from making comments on her blog (unless I resort to the sort of subterfuge that I discovered works this weekend), I thought it odd that she had allowed  folks to discuss my commenting status a while back.  But I decided against it.  Turns out the Mistress is good for one thing - generating blog traffic.

Speaking further, this time about blog traffic, does anyone know if another tempest is brewing?  This one would be related to Denver Seminary.  I've had over a dozen page views (in the last several days) of the posts dealing with their foolishness in not checking out a pagan women's center before they decided to promote it as a "ministry".

I have one question for the Mistress of Scoundrels: If you keep blocking folks who won't bow to your superior compassion and understanding, who will be left to have all those better conversations with? Turns out even respectful disagreement isn't allowed. Shall I take up a collection to replace what will surely be soon worn out?  Yes, I make reference to your pouting chair.

Victimhood is the first refuge of the scoundrel. (Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford)

Monday, July 2, 2012

It has come to my attention

Greg Boyd has a new website.  In an introductory post he proclaims his gladness at the death of Christendom.  I'm sure he'd be equally glad to not be living in an Islamicized Europe in the next generation.  But I digress ...

On his new website, Re|Knew, he has posted some (all?) of his old blog posts.  These include his essay, The Case for Women in Ministry.  It is an essay I responded to with a post of my own, The Case Against Boyd .  I know, I know, it's a pretty pretentious title and the post could do with some editing. But honestly, this guy is supposed to be a sometime college perfesser and this is the best he can come up with?  A post full of fallacies and historical revisionism?

Silly me.  One browse around the new website and I know nothing has changed in that respect.

It does, however, leave me wondering if those who fall for the fallacies and heresies of religious feminism, when the feminists present such a weak case in their own defense -- were they just looking for an excuse, any excuse, to buy what the serpent was selling?