America’s Chief Export: Immorality

Immoralityby Matt Barber   12/17/13
Why are Americans so peeved? Is it Obamacare? Well, partly – and in a big way. One wonders, in fact, if that sign language interpreter at the Mandela funeral moonlighted as the lead IT consultant for Healthcare.gov.

But it’s much more than just Obamacare. How do we explain America’s red-level economic and socio-political misery index?

Is it rising unemployment, or the shrinking economy?

Is it explosive debt and deficits, or pervasive government eavesdropping?

Is it the atrophy of individual liberty, or an unprecedented trampling of the First, Second, Fourth and nearly every other amendment to the U.S. Constitution?

Finally, is it the systematic assault on natural marriage and family, or government sanctioning of mass infanticide?

Yes.

It’s all of these things and more.

Still, these things are only symptomatic of a far greater problem. There remains a broader explanation, a definitive catalyst, for this, the domestic winter of our discontent – and, as so often happens, a mere 14 words from the Holy Scriptures better elucidates that catalyst than ream upon ream of opinion page copy. The words are these: “When the righteous thrive, the people rejoice; when the wicked rule, the people groan” (Proverbs 29:2).

America groans because the wicked rule.

Indeed, under this president, America’s chief export has become immorality. Sexual deviancy, murder of the unborn, redistribution of wealth and other evils have been sanitized and propagandized as “basic human rights.”

Thus, when this arrogant man stands before the U.N. and decries those nations that refuse to embrace his special brand of pagan relativism, we shouldn’t be surprised if those nations push back.

And so they push back.

To be sure, in addition to triggering our own spike in angst, Obama’s fevered push to “call evil good and good evil,” is likewise responsible for America’s snowballing marginalization across the globe.

Under the tragic leadership of this “selfie”-centered narcissist, the United States, while never perfect, now looks less like Reagan’s “shining city on a hill” and more like the biblical Whore of Babylon. A nation that once stood alone as the world’s moral guidepost now leads the contemptible charge to infect our privileged planet with its own viral iniquities.

And so the world pushes back.

For instance, there has been, of late, great weeping and gnashing of teeth among mainstream media – and other circles of intolerant “tolerance” – over successful efforts by several foreign governments to stem the tide of “LGBT” propaganda within their own sovereign borders.

RussiaIndiaCroatiaPeruJamaica and even Australia, for instance, along with other nations, are now moving to inoculate themselves from the fast-metastasizing cancer of sexual relativism.

Having witnessed, from afar, the poisonous results of such propaganda here in the U.S. (the hyper-sexualization of children, the deconstruction of natural marriage and family, the rampant spread of sexually transmitted disease, religious persecution and the like), there seems an emerging global recognition that the radical “LGBT” agenda – a pet cause of Obama’s – is not about securing “human rights,” but, rather, is about promulgating moral wrongs.

The world is finding that forcing others to “tolerate” – indeed, to celebrate – unfettered licentiousness, under penalty of law, is as harmful to society as is said licentiousness to those who practice it.

The world has looked to America’s moral leadership and found it wanting. The climate under Obama has gotten so bad, in fact, that Russian leader Vladimir Putin feels emboldened to claim for Russia the mantle of world moral leader – a proud distinction hitherto held by the good ol’ USA.

The Daily Mail reports that, in his state of the nation address, “Putin sought to cast Russia as the moral arbiter of the world on Thursday, as he hit out at America’s ‘non-traditional values’ and its influence across the world.”

Russia has barred “LGBT” and other sexual anarchist propaganda.

“Mr Putin defended his government’s increasingly conservative values,” continued the report, “and decried the ‘review of norms of morality’ in the West and elsewhere.

“‘This destruction of traditional values from above not only entails negative consequences for society, but is also inherently anti-democratic because it is based on an abstract notion and runs counter to the will of the majority of people,’ Mr Putin said, adding there could be no benefit for society for treating ‘good and evil’ equally.”

How sad that the leader of an atheist government, in a country where tens of millions have died under Marxism – another of Obama’s pet causes – could out-Christian our once-Christian nation.

Meanwhile, the tiny nation of Jamaica is among hundreds more that are likewise feeling the squeeze from both the Obama administration and allied “LGBT” pressure groups. They’re pushing for unrestrained sexual license in that Caribbean state as well.

According to a Jamaican newspaper, The Gleaner, Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans for Truth about Homosexuality, recently spoke at a pro-family conference there. LaBarbera “encouraged Jamaicans to be grounded in their Christian beliefs and not to be lured by other countries in repealing the buggery (sodomy) law.”

“The United States has no business lecturing anybody about sexual morality,” he observed. “America has rampant abortions, rampant promiscuity, and I stand wholeheartedly with Jamaicans and encourage you all to hold to your beliefs,” he said.

“The moral clarity of my kind, pro-family hosts was refreshing, and something we in the United States need to learn from and take heart from,” said LaBarbera upon his return. “I told them, The United States government has nothing to teach you about sexual morality, but you have much to teach us!”

“We are all watching Jamaica to see what happens,” he concluded, “and I believe if Jamaica can stand up and not bow to the pressure, you can be an example to the world. There is no need to follow anybody,” LaBarbera encouraged.

Indeed, there is certainly no need to follow America. Not on this. Fewer nations are buying what we’re selling. They’ve placed an embargo on our chief export.

While America may be lost (though I pray not), it would seem that her traditional values – values still shared by many, if not most, of the American people – are, nonetheless, gaining momentum abroad.

And that is encouraging.

Now let’s pray those values come full circle. • (1811 views)

Share
This entry was posted in Politics and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to America’s Chief Export: Immorality

  1. Timothy Lane says:

    Actually, this export of immorality began under Clinton (naturally),as I recall. And it certainly helped inspire the hostility of radical Islam.

    • faba calculo says:

      For instance? I mean, what did Clinton overtly seek to encourage in other countries along these lines? I recall no such examples, not that that’s particularly telling.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        I think it was mainly pushing the pro-abortion agenda (and mostly by Slick Hilly), but you understand that the details are hard to recall 13 years after Slick Willie left office.

        • faba calculo says:

          Absolutely. I had the opportunity to reread “For A Breath, I Tarry” by Roger Zelazny a couple of days ago. This is a short story I’d read back around the time of the slickster’s last days in office, and I was appalled not only by how much I’d forgotten, but even more so by how much I’d “remembered” that wasn’t true at all. Time does dull the memory. And in more ways than one.

          That said, without examples of how Clinton not only supported abortion “rights” but sought to export them as well, the assertion that he started it seems pretty weak.

  2. faba calculo says:

    Sometimes I wonder if it’s possible for many conservatives, especially many Christian conservatives to be at all consistent in their principles when the rights of gays are involved.

    Here I’m not talking about the right to gay marriage, the right to civil unions, or the right to employment anti-discrimination laws. I’m simply talking about the right to not be locked up for engaging in consensual gay intercourse.

    There has been much gnashing of teeth here and elsewhere on the web over the killing of whites and official encouragement over such by black leaders in South Africa. And rightly so. The incitement to racial violence is a tremendous evil with devastating, long-term consequences to boot.

    But if we see comparable (or even worse) happening in other countries with gays, can we muster up even a respectable fraction of that same indignation, or will be sit on the sidelines like mutes? Or, worse yet, will we obliquely applaud?

    There is nothing commendable in Jamaica’s decision to keep homosexuality illegal. It can’t even be praised on the grounds of biblical fidelity, as it applies only to men. But, oh boy, does it ever apply to them: the crime of buggery is punishable by a prison sentence of up to 10 years, with or without hard labor being applied as well. We conservatives can rail on for hours about one cake baker in Colorado being fined for refusing to supply a cake for a gay promise ceremony, but let gays be threatened with extensive prison sentences for the “crime” of consensual anal sex, can we bring ourselves to raise so much as a peep?

    Similarly, let Nelson Mandela join in in a single round of “Kill the Boar” and he is quite rightly condemned. Double so, as he was a leader and was therefore both responsible to reinforce the good in society as well as obligated to be aware of his ability to foster the bad in society by even a small sign of encouragement. I know of no counter example in Jamaica where a leader has encouraged anti-gay violence, but the reggae industry and at least some in the Rastafarian religion there have engaged in inordinate homophobia in their lyrics (see: http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1182991,00.html).

    Whatever else Jamaican has to teach us, one thing is that homophobia is more than just an empty left-wing accusation.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      I oppose anti-sodomy laws (th0ugh I consider such laws unconstitutional and would support laws against public displays), but they’re hardly the same concern to me (particularly in foreign countries) that more serious forms of oppression, But your argument that the Jamaican law isn’t even Biblical because it only applies to male homosexuals may be wrong. I read a piece in the Curious Journal a few years ago which pointed out that the Bible’s condemnation of homosexuality doesn’t apply to lesbians (unless one interprets it very broadly, I suppose, much as Orthodox Jews interpret the commandment not to cook animals in their mother’s milk).

      • faba calculo says:

        You’re forgetting Paul’s condemnation in Romans, which specifically addressed both male and female homosexuality.

        But, in terms of more serious and less serious forms of oppression, which is the more severe form: fining a man for refusing to sell one of his for-sale cakes to a gay promise ceremony or imprisoning someone for engaging in consensual anal sex? To my way of thinking (and, I’d like to think, any fair-minded man’s way of doing so), the latter is FAR worse.

        • NAHALKIDES NAHALKIDES says:

          I’d have to take the reverse view, I’m afraid (although I don’t favor anti-sodomy laws): fining a man for refusing to sell a wedding cake is more serious because it logically implies that the government has total control over a man’s business, which gives it total control over his life. An anti-sodomy law doesn’t imply total control over all of the citizen’s sex life, and is besides very hard to enforce – how would the police ever be able to prove sodomy? But any low-level bureaucrat can waltz into a man’s place of business and harass him without mercy once the unlimited power to regulate is understood to exist.

          • faba calculo says:

            It might be hard to enforce sodomy laws, but when each case you do manage to enforce sends someone up the river for up to ten years, possible with hard labor tacked on, I just gotta think that it’s going to take A LOT of cakes to add up to that much harm.

            Nevertheless, I am very gratified that you and Timothy have come forward to be against sodomy laws.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          You’re comparing foreign laws which are their business, not ours, with US laws which are a legitimate concern. In any case, laws banning sexual immorality aren’t as bad as those requiring (more or less) moral approval of it.

          • faba calculo says:

            But the cake law is a Colorado law, so, by this argument, unless you live in Colorado…

            But this argument is hardly bearing on my question, even if we do accept its logic, as it asked merely to compare forms of oppression without reference to location. I wasn’t asking which was the more oppressive country, but which FORM of oppression should be regarded as the more severe.

            • Timothy Lane says:

              Most states have similar laws, and some cities as well (Louisville may), and the logic would be the same. Then, too, I’m simply more concerned about what happens to Americans than what happens to Jamaicans. This doesn’t keep me from being disgusted by the more extreme penalties (such as the Islamist love of stoning sexual criminals, which receives too little criticism from liberals who claim to be concerned about such things).

              • faba calculo says:

                I’ve no problem with anyone being MORE concerned about what happens to Americans than those of other countries. I’m more concerned ab0ut what happens to people here than I am what happens to them in South Africa. But that doesn’t mean my concern for them is zeroed out or in any way inappropriate.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Whatever else Jamaican has to teach us, one thing is that homophobia is more than just an empty left-wing accusation.

      I think we should be homophobic. For those who are “really” gay (or just choose that way of life), we should not go all Medieval on their ass. A certain amount of tolerance is the American Way, no matter how absolutely stupid someone is being.

      But in every area of life there should be a bias toward encouraging men and women not to “experiment,” not to listen to the LGBT-XYZ alphabet-soup nuthouse crowd, not to treat homosexuality as just as normal as baseball, hotdogs, apple pie, and Chevrolet.

      It is better to engage in heterosexual behavior than homosexual behavior. And we should be straight about that, no pun intended. Thus we should all be a little homophobic. That is, we should have some kind of cultural or psychological pressure away from it.

      What the LGBT-XYZ alphabet-soup crowd wants is the opposite. They want every situation to have a pro-gay bias. And that’s just nuts. And they are nuts.

      I do think a certain amount a people are born as queer as a three dollar bill. But I think much more of this homo stuff is culture-based than most want to admit. That is, the homosexuality agenda has little to do with tolerating those few people who really are as queer as a three dollar bill. Instead, it has everything to do with trying to promote homosexuality. There’s a distinct difference between tolerance and promotion.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        This seems reasonable, provided the encouragement is gentle. Perhaps all we need is getting rid of all the encouragements in the other direction (such as anti-discrimination protection). The fact remains that homosexuality is an abnormality, if a fairly common one compared to, say, having 4 toes on each foot (to cite my own case).

        • faba calculo says:

          Well, much of the encouragement, such as the Things Get Better campaign, are pretty much covered by the First Amendment.

          As for the labor/housing discrimination laws, they should all probably go, at least for small businesses and owner-occupied dwellings.

      • faba calculo says:

        But the government of Jamaica isn’t necessarily leaving it at that, and far too many in the reggae / Rastafarian / general Jamaican society certainly aren’t. If you want to wrinkle your nose and cross the street when you see two women holding hands a kissing in public, fine. But arrest and imprisonment / singing songs with phrases like “”When you hear a lesbian getting raped/ It’s not our fault … Two women in bed/ That’s two Sodomites who should be dead” I think a very important line is being crossed, and it’s the same one Mandela crossed in singing “Shoot the Boers” (or what it “Kill the Boers”?), especially in countries where there is already a huge amount of violence (Jamaica’s murder rate is about a third higher than South Africa’s).

        I suppose such things are, at least somewhat, the eye of beholder, but I don’t think that acknowledging any well-documented dangers of male gay sex over straight sex. From what I’ve read, there is a very significant life expectancy reduction from practicing male homosexuality. But trying to warn people away from it with evidence is a far cry from attempting to deter them with a baseball bat or gun.

        And if such things are worth condemning in South Africa against whites, they’re worth condemning in Jamaica against gays.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          You understand that I don’t pay a lot of attention to politics in Jamaica, don’t you? Your examples certain sound rather bad, though it’s not clear how much of that is government policy and how much unfortunate citizen attitudes.

          • faba calculo says:

            To be quite frank, I don’t follow it either. Had it not been for this article, it’s links, the Wikipedia article on this topic, and some of its links, I’d know nothing of it.

            But, this article did bring up the topic, and in a way that seemed to defend Jamaica’s laws rather than neutrally commenting on them, leading to my response.

  3. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    I just want to thank Matt for allowing me to publish this. I’ve already heard privately from one reader who said this is a truly great opinion piece.

  4. Ron says:

    Thanks all, for your contributions. I learned a lot.

    I’m with Faba on this issue. He outlined the case for legal tolerance well.

    Punishing people for consensual “crimes” has a similar history to punishing them for “natal” crimes (ie. being born Black, or Jewish).

    It’s hard to build a moral case while supporting (by remaining quiet), obvious draconian measures that most westerners would categorically reject.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *