Let Them Eat Cake

TieredCakeby Deana Chadwell4/10/15
Cake hasn’t been an historical pivot point since Marie Antoinette made that famous dietary suggestion, but it seems to be back. Christians who earn their livings in any way associated with wedding cakes face extinction; the gay-marriage brigade is out to make an example of them and liberal judges are likely to assist.

Much of human history has been fraught with a tension between the power of man (i.e. government) and the power of God (i.e. religion). In the early centuries of the nation of Israel the power stood on the side of religion – the Jews had no king, only judges and the Mosaic Law. But during much of the past that tug-of-war has leaned to the side of government; the king determined the religion or, like in the case of the Romans, was the religion. Now and then the two powers attempted equality – ask Thomas à Beckett how that worked out. Starting, however, with the writing of the American Constitution humanity set out on a super-human balancing act – rendering unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s and unto God that which is God’s.

So, which is which? If we assume that God is really God Almighty, Creator of the Universe, then we know that He is the ultimate authority and the 1st Amendment makes sense.  No mere human government should intercede between a man and his relationship with God. We may owe taxes to Caesar, but we owe God our very existence.

If we assume that God is merely a human construct, a fairytale, a hobby conjured up by those who need something to do on Sunday mornings, then the religion clause is totally absurd and government becomes the only authority and the only source of blessing. Therefore, we owe everything to Caesar.

And, paradoxically, the only way a person can be free to assume the latter is if the former is true. If there is no God, there is no free will with which to deny His existence. If there is no God, there is no power to curb the behavior of government and one’s government can demand that you bow down to whatever it conjures up – lately it seems to be rainbow-tinted cakes.

Our forefathers attempted to create this razor balance with the 1st Amendment, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech… “ It is a line drawn in pages of history – man’s first attempt to keep government out of our relationship with our Creator. It does not prohibit our Creator from having influence on our government. These wise men of the past recognized God’s superiority in this age-old power struggle.

Note that the amendment addresses limitations on Congress, not on the citizenry, not on religious leaders, not on what people can and cannot believe. “Congress shall make no law…”  It does not prohibit the free exercise of religion in governmental places, nor does it affect the exercise of public affairs in religious places. It is a restriction on the activities of the government regarding the religious beliefs of private citizens.

If a group of Christians choose to walk into the Capitol Rotunda and sing, “Blessed assurance, Jesus is mine. Oh what a foretaste of glory divine..” they should, by dint of the 1st Amendment, be able to do so. That does not constitute Congress making a law to establish a religion; Congress did nothing to produce such a concert, and no law was instituted. Might a passing atheist or Muslim be offended? Possibly, but the 1st Amendment, because it is a limitation on the activities of Congress, and not of private individuals, has no bearing on that at all.

May the pastor of a church, a rabbi in a synagogue, or an imam in a mosque be allowed to discuss political/governmental affairs from their pulpits? Again: the restrictions of the 1st Amendment are placed on the government, not on the private citizen. Nor are those restrictions connected to specific locals. A citizen of this country, according to this amendment, should be allowed to civilly express his beliefs, political or religious, anywhere without Congressional interference.

If government authorities attempt to put a stop to such a display of Christian devotion, is that Congress “prohibiting the free exercise thereof?” Certainly looks like it.  Here we get into the troublesome difference between laws, duly passed by Congress and signed by the president, and regulations produced by some nameless and unaccountable bureaucrat. A choir, such as mentioned above, may be ushered out of the Capitol by some official at the behest of some misinformed bureaucratic malcontent, but any actual law passed by Congress prohibiting religious expression on public property would have to butt its head against the wall of the 1st Amendment.

So should a private citizen desire to apply his religious principles in his daily experience, should he want to express his religious positions in his public dealings, should he feel his conscience would be seared by participation in activities frowned upon by his religious understandings, can the government constitutionally prohibit any of these things? No.

But what about civil rights? The 1964 Civil Rights Acts prevents laws that discriminate against anyone on the basis of “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” The cake activists evidently base their objections on the idea that a Christian baker’s refusal to bake wedding cake for gay nuptials is discrimination as described in this legislation. They equate being gay with being black, assuming that their minority station in our society automatically awards them these legal protections. But the law protects on the basis of race, color, and/or national origin – not a cake issue. It covers discrimination according to sex. Perhaps that needs clarifying; it’s not concerned with whom one has sex.  Lastly it protects against religious prejudice,  but here it is the bakers whose religious freedom is being trampled.

So, if a person is gay and wants cake, he’s just out of luck? No. No one has refused anyone anything because of his (or her) sexual proclivities. What people have refused to aid and abet is gay marriage. Are Americans free to disapprove of this concept? Are we free to be concerned about the general societal effect? Are we free to believe that God disapproves?

If we go back to the 1st Amendment, that freedom is guaranteed – provided the judiciary pays attention to the Constitution. The freedom to have political and religious opinions is the reason people risked everything to come here – and now cake takes precedence? Really?

But what about the freedom to “love whomever you want to love?” Does one baker refusing to bake a cake interfere with that? Of course not. If a cake can ruin a marriage, it had little chance of being fun until death-do-us-part.

Look back at the dichotomy at the beginning – government vs. God. Can God bless a same sex marriage? Don’t answer until you recall that God is more about grace than about morals; He knows we are lousy at obedience; He sent His son to rectify that problem. Can government bless a gay marriage? All it can do is abuse those who don’t approve, and no one has ever been blessed by someone else’s misery. Cake was a poor substitute for the starving Parisians who didn’t even have bread, and now it’s a silly stand-in for the glorious approval of God.

Deana Chadwell blogs at ASingleWindow.com.
About Author Author Archive Email • (2568 views)

Deana Chadwell

About Deana Chadwell

I have spent my life teaching young people how to read and write and appreciate the wonder of words. I have worked with high school students and currently teach writing at Pacific Bible College in southern Oregon. I have spent more than forty years studying the Bible, theology, and apologetics and that finds its way into my writing whether I'm blogging about my experiences or my opinions. I have two and a half moldering novels, stacks of essays, hundreds of poems, some which have won state and national prizes. All that writing -- and more keeps popping up -- needs a home with a big plate glass window; it needs air; it needs a conversation. I am also an artist who works with cloth, yarn, beads, gourds, polymer clay, paint, and photography. And I make soap.
This entry was posted in Essays. Bookmark the permalink.

29 Responses to Let Them Eat Cake

  1. Timothy Lane says:

    One thing to point out here is that there is a major difference between forbidding certain activities (which might happen to be parts of religious rituals) and requiring others (which might be forbidden for various churches). The current disputes are over forcing religious people to do things that they believe violate their consciences.

  2. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    If we assume that God is merely a human construct, a fairytale, a hobby conjured up by those who need something to do on Sunday mornings, then the religion clause is totally absurd and government becomes the only authority and the only source of blessing

    You must be related to John Lennox. That was very clear. 😀

    What you said would be shocking, even laughable, to the secular mindset. (I have some reservations as well, but another time and another place.) I know many good people — quite intelligent people — who would say, “Who is God to tell me what to do?”

    And they have a point in regards to other people telling other people, in the name of God, what they are supposed to do. I don’t want to live in a theocracy any more than you do (although I think I missed my calling as a monk). No society can be a religious one and function well without adherence to the Third Commandment. It’s too tempting to use the prestige of God for one’s own narrow desires.

    But these same people (see James’ article and read between the lines or at least understand how California got to where it is now) will almost without question obey a Leftist/liberal government.

    This is why, quite rightly, many conservatives point out that Leftist governments simply substitute man for God. And a harsh god this is. And a very jealous one. And however one wants to view this complicated affair, it is to my mind at least about this one crucial distinction: Where shall the receptacle for man’s conscience reside? Shall it reside in the state or in something more private and personal?

    This is the true impetus behind the push to marginalize and eliminate the role of private religion. The state is indeed a zealous god. And it’s an inherently corrupt god, for although politics and political systems are necessary, they are but a necessary evil. Government is the difference between the comfortable, artful, and beautiful bench you have out in the yard in front of the roses . . . and the hard, ugly, grey slab of cement you find in a typical park. The public sphere is inherently a depersonalized one, often of base interests, so that even things such as park benches must necessarily be made to withstand a nuclear attack.

    Politics, much like acid, defaces everything it touches. If the reigns of power are held by relatively just men and women, it functions well enough. Nor does it have to be perfect, for the opposite — anarchy and lawlessness — are so awful that we gladly accept even badly-run governments.

    But when government takes over the role of moral arbiter as well as mere administrator, the morals themselves turn into a hard, ugly, gray park bench that is built not for beauty but for hard and coarse use.

    But our course is now set. The younger generations (and their parents) trust in government. Re-strike the coins so that they now read “In Government We Trust.” That’s not a parody. That’s the reality. We are a people hollowed out by secularism. You might not notice it unless you’re amongst the savvy. The rot is often covered in many ways, if only by calling the “bad” good and the “good” bad. But the cult of Leftism learned long ago to put on its good face by emulating Fantasy Island: “Smiles, smiles everyone.” If you just believe hard enough, you can have it all and never have to make a hard choice. And if it isn’t working, pretend it is anyway.

    This society is nicely set up now for true authoritarians who could make Obama look like a piker. And there are a few here who truly understand the mean and ugly spirit being inculcated into people, quite despite the “Smiles, smiles, everyone” outer appearance. I hope somebody writes something on this. (Glenn!!!) Everywhere I look now I see the dumb stare of brute animals. And I wonder who they will turn on if the batteries for their gadgets ever permanently run out.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Ah, those smiling liberals. Mark Hanna, a consultant who frequently shows up as a liberal counterpoint on FNC, is great at lying with a big smile. And every time he shows up, I think of Shakespeare’s “A man may smile, and smile, and be a villain.” (It helps that this was the source of the title of a great Nero Wolfe book.)

      • Oh yes, Timothy — I always want to wipe that pompous, condescending grin right off his face. He, like our president is either totally delusional or totally evil. Perhaps there’s not much difference.

        • Jerry Richardson says:


          I’ve been derelict in getting to your excellent article. Mea culpa.

          I was grabbed by one of your statements:

          …either totally delusional or totally evil. Perhaps there’s not much difference.
          —Deana Chadwell

          I’d like to see you flesh this out a bit. What popped into my mind was the situation in the New Testament when Jesus told evil-spirits to depart a seemingly “delusional” man and take up residence in a herd of pigs. They did and the pigs became delusional and ran over a cliff.

          Maybe “delusional” and “evil” are closer than our modern psychology believes?


      “Where shall the receptacle for man’s conscience reside? Shall it reside in the state or in something more private and personal?”

      You said a lot with those few words, Brad – enough to warrant a follow-up essay at least. We see in these last few years a much more aggressive Left, simultaneously attacking religious institutions and religious freedom, the latter of which should properly be understood as part of a broader freedom of conscience. And it is freedom of conscience that the Left truly longs to destroy, its hatred of religious institutions being perhaps more tactical – the state must allow no other gods than itself.

      Hence not only are abortion and same-sex “marriage” to be legal (helped along by judicial activism when necessary), but no one will be permitted to question their morality or propriety. We will be taxed to finance abortions, making us complicit in them, and if the moral assumptions behind Obamacare remain unquestioned, someday doctors will be forced to perform them, much as today bakers are to be forced to cater gay “weddings”. It is not enough for the Left that abortion and SSM be the law of the land; former dissenters such as we Conservatives must be forced to admit we love them and call them good.

      Perhaps it could be stated more simply. Our Fathers believed that the state would be informed by a morality that existed independent of that state; the Left intends the state to be the ultimate arbiter of morality (an orthodoxy that is to be accepted without question). Once that has been accomplished, absolute power is the necessary and immediate consequence.

  3. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    But what about the freedom to “love whomever you want to love?”

    The case against same-sex marriage is inherently complex, and rightfully so. Try to build, say, a bridge without complexity and you’ll have something that can’t bear the weight of one donkey, although a rush to simplicity might have us stacking up bricks any which way, thinking that as long as we have enough of them, it will work.

    Same-sex marriage is about many things. But ultimately I can’t help thinking it’s like (sorry for the analogy) licking the frosting off the cake. Yes, little Johnny “likes” cotton candy at the circus. But he’ll be very sick if he makes a steady diet of it. Yes, little Bradley “likes” hiking and biking, but he’d become a physical wreck if he did nothing else.

    We live in the age of amusement. Part of this is due simply to the success of our societies. And our societies are now so specialized. Products are marketed to fulfill every satisfaction, no matter how esoteric or small that market.

    And via this we’ve become niche people as well. No longer are we given a classical education rich with depth, context, facts, and meaning. Your average college graduate is a dumb as a brick compared to earlier generations. He is shallow although he thinks himself amongst the most enlightened.

    In this consumerized, niche mindset, it of course makes sense to take one attribute (love, or just sexual attraction) and make it a niche product. There is a market for “gay marriage” in the sense that you could always find a niche. But it will never be anything but a gimmick product…one by Ronco, one would presume. Homosexuals, by and large, aren’t actually looking to get married, and finding a few exceptions hardly proves the rule. But find a niche, fill a niche. Every taste must be catered to, every desire fulfilled. It is the consumer mindset.

    But the new rule is to take things out of their context and ram them home until they become destructively absurd. (You could just say I defined the libertarian creed.)

    Real marriage is about more than sex. More than love. More than children. More than a partnership. More than mutual economic dependence. It’s even more than about two fleshes becoming one. But it is at least all those things, in concert. If you pull any one element out (say, sexual attraction) and make it the basis of marriage, it won’t be marriage but anything in Orwellian name. It will be a shallow niche product of ever-changing and short-term consumer democratic tastes.

    If there is any good to come out of the superficiality, chaos, and nihilism of the Left it is to reinforce in the minds of those who have not joined these Vulgarians how important substantiality is. Thinking even mildly complex thoughts seems beyond the ability of John Q. Public at the moment. He is not inherently dumb. He is made dumb by the dumb doctrines of the Left. One hopes he will read this and consider.

  4. Brad — I love this site because the conversation is so stimulating. I really like your analysis of both gay and straight marriage. Never thought of the gay marriage thing quite that way — and it makes complete sense. That explains all the fuss about cake.

    I also like a little flattery now and then — I adore John Lennox. Guess I need to work on my British accent. 🙂

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Deana, all I can say is thanks for continuing to share your articles with us. This site’s format is a challenge. How do you get quality writing from people and yet not pay? Well, you can always find enough big egos out there (including mine) who, when given a blank slate, will use it. But you simply share quality and I’m thankful for that…although I’m going to try to push all of you to broaden your scope. I thought one of your finest articles was a sort of travelogue one you did when driving through remote parts of Oregon. Annie’s hilarious sensitive plant article is another good example of what this format can do. It doesn’t all have to be about tongue-lashing Obama, as much as that scoundrel does deserve it.

      I think regarding the homosexual marriage thing, much of it has to do with the Left ramming their morals down our throats. I’m hopefully the last person who will become a useful idiot. Behind the “Smiles, everyone, smiles” of Ricardo Montalban there are some very hateful people. Unwritten yet is I think is the story of the legions of people who have been made extremely angry, bitter, and hateful by Leftism. God help us if that force is ever further unleashed than it already is.

      That said, Left or Right, Republican or Democrat, cat or dog (yes! they are catered to as well), we live in a consumer culture. “I buy therefore I am” is the watchword. And it’s the morality of the market for many people to the exclusion of all else. If someone wants something, who am I to say they can’t have it? And to the extent that the market caters to that, fine. At least in a market, one has to pay for what one wants.

      But this mindset is inflamed by government which has catered to this mindset. There is no “no” in the lexicon of government…often among conservatives as well. Now people have come to expect stuff that they haven’t paid for. We’ve lost the moral argument, from top to bottom, on the idea of saying “no,” of limits, of having to make choices.

      And that has opened the flood gates as much as anything on homosexual marriage, in my opinion. Who can say “no” to another when they themselves are obsessing on trying to satisfying every little craving?

  5. Rosalys says:

    “Can God bless a same sex marriage?”

    Since the act of homosexuality is called an abomination and was immediately punishable by death in the OT, I don’t see how that question can be answered by anything other than a resounding, “No!”

    “Don’t answer until you recall that God is more about grace than about morals; He sent His son to rectify that problem.”

    Yer gittin’ a little squishy here, Deana!

    All sin is punishable by death – even eating a piece of fruit from the wrong tree. To keep them from eating from the tree of life, lest they live forever, was why our first parents were kicked out of Eden. All sin being punishable by death, Christ the sinless One, died in our stead so that we would not have to die eternally. God is ever gracious to forgive where there is repentance; and God is ever patient to withhold judgement for a time, allowing for the working of repentance in one’s life. One struggling with a proclivity toward homosexuality, who is repentant, but never-the-less falls, can always repent and be made whole again – even seventy times seven times; God is patience, grace, and love itself. But to get so-called married, that would be a willful act and hardly a repentant one. To suggest that God could bless such a union makes him a PC god of malleable rules.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Yer gittin’ a little squishy here, Deana!

      Hahaha. I think Deana is the last one who will ever get squishy. But there’s squishy and then there’s squishy.

      I had a somewhat interesting conversation with a pastor yesterday. I was lamenting the squishiness of many churches while acknowledging that people have been so infantalized, so expectant of never encountering a harsh word, that I honestly have no idea how any pastor can actually do a proper job.

      The people have become squishy and I think the pastors inherently follow. This can’t be helped because it’s generally market forces that seem to be driving churches as much as they might say the “Holy Spirit” led them here or there. I think few of them are ready to get in front of their congregation and tell them “Stop committing acts of sodomy. Do not dispose of the unborn as if they were old newspapers. Socialism is a societal ill, so stop voting for politicians who endlessly offer ‘free stuff.’ Caring for the environment can be a fine thing, but it’s been taken to an anti-human level of destructive zealousness.”

      And on and on. And I told him that something like this would be my sermon if I was a pastor. But I’m not in the trenches. In the trenches you have to be more touchy-feely to deal with today’s baby narcissists. It’s all “Jesus loves you, I love you” and very little “Go and sin no more.” Maybe this is why I don’t go to church. I would prefer to go to a church that was honest, not one that catered to my conceits and emotional fragility.

      Anyway, this pastor seems to be doing a credible job, although it’s easy to rationalize not confronting sin by saying that the message of Jesus is love and acceptance. It’s hard to know where people actually stand. And I certainly agree that love and acceptance is a big part of it. We get so little of that in the world, it ought to at least be offered at church. But if it’s all carrot, and no stick, then what you have is liberalism not Christianity. (And this, apparently, is at the core of the fraudulent “Emergent Church.”)

      But it’s surely a tricky balance and one that should have plenty of room for individual treatment and circumstances. This pastor told me (with a bit too much pride, if you ask me) that he had some gay members in his church and that they were welcome. His approach is that everyone is welcome because we are all sinners, and I agree with that. There’s nothing inherently touchy-feely about that in the bad sense.

      And if what he told me is true (and I have the feeling he might have been playing a bit to my more fire-and-brimstone expectations), he said that one lesbian in his congregation wanted to be baptized. He did do the baptism but told her first that if you want to walk with Jesus, you can’t be doing that same old stuff that you’re doing.

      So perhaps that’s the best anyone can do, particularly given how those who practice homosexuality have thoroughly gotten it into their heads that they are victims. I wouldn’t doubt that most of them have some sort of militancy instilled in them. I have no idea why this person was even going to church. But as Obama said, that’s an issue over my pay grade to determine. And it is. One could say sinners are called. The only question is, are their perversions accepted as-is or are there still standards to be upheld?

      Regarding homosexuals themselves, my views have always been accepting. I actually did some work for a local homosexual advocacy organization back in 2004/2005. When in the business, you tend to take what jobs you can. It certainly wasn’t my cup of tea, but nothing in the stuff we printed was particularly noxious. It was just advocacy. And they paid their bills.

      But now I would not accept such a job from a homosexual advocacy group. And not because I suddenly hate homosexuals. I don’t. It’s simply because the entire homosexual movement has become a fascist, bully movement of intolerance, militancy, and hatefulness. And I would tell any group this if they asked why I turned down their job.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        I’m reminded by this of Elizabeth’s observation that I’m an agnostic (I’ve gone back to deism now; this was several years ago) who happens to be a Christian conservative.

        One thing to remember about atrocities such as the campaign to destroy Memories Pizza is that they’re led by small groups of far leftist Thought Police. They may not even have been homosexual themselves, just as Floyd Corkins wasn’t. And some homosexuals have openly defended Memories Pizza despite disagreeing with their stance on homosexual marriage.

        The problem is that those who consider themselves liberals need to take their ideology back from the radical leftists. Until they do, they will be tarred with the same liberal fascist brush, and will deserve to be so tarred.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          The problem is that those who consider themselves liberals need to take their ideology back from the radical leftists.

          Timothy, I do not believe that people today have the ability to do so. And at some point, a movement is so corrupt that you just have to junk it. What we need is for them to become conservatives…and to understand what that means. That’s a tough sell considering you have dunderheads like Jeb Bush and Romney tarnishing the brand.

          But ya gotta start somewhere. We’ve had more than one article here about what it means to be a conservative. Perhaps we need more of that because liberalism (to the extent that it ever was a positive force) sits at the bottom of the wall broken into pieces like Humpty Dumpty. And all the King’s horses, etc.

          Because “liberalism” was always shot through with narcissism, it will take a shot of wisdom, maturity, and spirituality (of the non “Emergent” kind) to get people right. Their moral and intellectual compasses are bent. Yes, I know that what they believe now is that it’s the conservatives with the bent moral compass. And that is the task. They are part of a cult. And that cult is not quite ready to crash and burn.

          • Timothy Lane says:

            I didn’t say it was very feasible, much less likely, for liberalism to reform itself. It’s much like the need for Islam to reform itself. It’s theoretically possible, but can only happen if enough adherents realize that it’s necessary — and act accordingly.

      • Rosalys says:

        (And this, apparently, is at the core of the fraudulent “Emergent Church.”)

        I have heard of the Emergent Church recently, but I don’t know much about it. However, I am generally suspicious of new churches, with new programs, and new names. Often they are revealed to be the same old cultic garbage in a shiny new package.

        Sorry. I didn’t mean to suggest that Deana was well down the road to apostasy! We’re all capable of gittin’ a little squishy at times.

        • Rose — My youngest granddaughter likes to snuggle and tell me that I’m squishy. 🙂 I suspect I was not as clear as I could have been. I didn’t mean that God would sanction a gay marriage, I was leaving the door open for the possibility that some blessing by association might happen for one or both partners. Sometimes we are blessed just because someone is praying for us.

          I agree with you re the “emergent” church. What do they think they are emerging from? It’s all just a reincarnation of the ancient gnosticism.

          • Rosalys says:

            I had a good friend, an elderly widow, whom no one would ever call thin; in fact, she was beyond pleasingly plump. She met a man at the Senior Center who told her, “You’re not fat. You’re soft!” Is it any wonder that she married him?

  6. M Farrell says:


    “Behind the “Smiles, everyone, smiles” of Ricardo Montalban there are some very hateful people. Unwritten yet is I think is the story of the legions of people who have been made extremely angry, bitter, and hateful by Leftism. God help us if that force is ever further unleashed than it already is.”

    I was not sure you were talking about bitter leftists who have yet to show their true colors or those who oppose them, who though still relatively quiet, are angry. Either or both could get ugly.

    With respect to those opposing the Left, I think you are seeing a form of (perhaps passive aggressive) backlash already. I know that my initial reaction now (after years of ultra-saturation to progressive whining) is often: “Just. Shut. It. Off.”

    Gay wedding cakes: ” Just. Knock. It. Off.”

    Insane college campus micro-aggression complaints: “Just. Go. Away.– Grow. Up.”

    There is the grown- up side of me that dictates that people must be treated with curtesy ( even where respect is difficult), but on the other hand, does it make sense to invest so much time tolerating fools when life is so short?

    There is also a “crying wolf” problem that arises if your default position is the emotional equivalent of “going Galt”. If people are pushed to an auto-reject/auto-disconnect response by the never ending progressive assaults on cultural norms, there is the danger of the same auto-numbed response to real injustices. Perhaps many are at this stage already.
    Just a thought.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      I was not sure you were talking about bitter leftists

      Definitely was talking about the bitter Leftists, M.

      There could come a time when conservatives are like the Keepers of the Flame. When the Progressives begin to thirst for something more than saccharine, we need to be there.

      American Thinker had a short post about Gary Trudeau, creator of the Doonesbury cartoon. It’s worth a read. As Lifson so eloquently said:

      Like many on the left, Trudeau has become increasingly cranky and mean as their ideology has failed to live up to its promises everywhere it is tried.

      I’ll suffer a fool here or there. But it’s not so much about suffering fools as it is dealing with the partially sane. That’s a very bold statement, I know. But (thinking of Deana’s comment about the scorched orchards of California because of environmental wacko-ism), look at the truly insane things people are doing and voting for. This is not just a political disagreement. We’re talking about a gap of rationality.

      Oh, give me a fool any day of the week. A fool can perhaps be made wise. But how do you change insanity?

      • M Farrell says:

        Gary Trudeau indeed–Some days it seems like the entire world has flipped its polarity– In the old days (1978-1981) when I was in law school it was all the leftist fashion/radical chic to claim to be a first amendment absolutist– What happened to these people? Larry Flint of “Hustler” fame was considered a first amendment hero and martyr– Perhaps it was not truly Flint’s free speech rights that drove them then as much as their rabid hatred of the religious right which was Flint’s nemesis– As for the current “hate speech” justification for excusing radical Islamic extremism, it doesn’t wash with their prior 1st amendment absolutist position. This means they are either liars, and/or cowards or suffering from a mass form of Stockholm Syndrome. Here your insanity question arises– like you, I have no idea how to change it.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          when I was in law school it was all the leftist fashion/radical chic to claim to be a first amendment absolutist– What happened to these people?

          They were never sincere. Most liberals were simply buying into the idea that they were gold-star Special. It was a starry-eyed Utopian youth movement. Wisdom, restraint, and reality were out.

          This Utopian youth movement was also driven by a sense of victimhood. The First Amendment’s only relevance was being able to shit on everything else and call it a noble act. Another dope-headed slogan was “Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.” Again, we don’t take that at face value. It was never about dissent. It was about being able to crap on everything else while holding the heady vision of oneself as the victim who is bravely fighting authority and injustice.

          Kooks, hippies, dead-heads, radicals, ne’er-do-wells, and Vulgarians. They have added nothing to our culture but destruction, doubt, and debt. If you think I’m just having a good rant, I’m not. Every word I said I believe to the fullest.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          Leftists (who have subsumed liberalism over the past half century) believe in defending civil liberties as long as they lack power. Once they have the power, they no longer are willing to accept the civil liberties of their opponents.

  7. As the old saying goes, “It’s impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious.” Maybe that’s our problem; even the Constitution could not make this country foolproof. 🙂

  8. Timothy Lane says:

    An article in the Federalist provides some suggestions for how to counterattack against the homofascists. The basic idea is that one advertise a business dealing with marriages in very Biblical terms, effectively inviting a homofascist effort to expose bigotry and hopefully destroy another dissenting business. But instead of saying no to homosexual marriage, the owner should agree — as long as they understand that the business will openly advertise its cause when it shows up. And then, when they decide to go elsewhere, the proprietor could accuse them of religious discrimination. The link Is:


    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Would any gay couple actually hire you to show up in your Bible-thumping van? They could, and you’d have them sign an agreement that makes it clear that for marketing purposes you always wear a T-shirt with your business name and favorite Bible verse and distribute flyers under the windshield wipers of wedding guests—flyers that both summarize your services and outline your traditional-marriage beliefs.

      Intellectualizing. I thought the response from the woman who designs and sews custom wedding dresses was telling:

      She votes for candidates who take a stand she agrees with, and has quietly joined a pro-traditional family lobbying organization. Still, she doesn’t plan to turn down any future gay couple that decides her dresses are what they want for their event. Recent high-profile examples of small businesses getting negative publicity or facing regulatory interference for “standing on principle” have effectively frightened her into silence.

      Bolding mine. Anyone who is “effectively frightened into silence” by the Homo-mafia’s culture war is not likely to have the balls to wear T-shirts with biblical verses on them and have people sign contracts that allows the prospective cake-maker (or flower arranger) to hand out fliers. That is not a practical measure for a normal business.

      But it could be a practical and effective measure for those who want to explicitly fight back in this culture war in some organized way (the conservative equivalent of community organizing, some organized special lobbying group). And that is something most Christians have not wanted to do. Most have surrendered. But the above prescription by Bruce Takawani is merely pie-in-the-sky thinking…unless it acts to organize a sort of extra-business lobbying group who sets up shop with the parameters that Mr. Takawani outlined. But that is way too much for any normal business to take on.

      So you have to hand it to the squeaky wheels. They have certainly gotten the grease. And if Christians have any hope of pushing back, they must, for all intents and purposes, go on an anti-homosexual marketing campaign and try to take the gloss off that behavior and movement, which, much like single motherhood, has not just been “accepted” but glorified. And they could do so by simply taking a long and constant look at the dark, troubled side of homosexuality and all the weirdo “gender bending” that goes along with it. And then be prepared for the shit storm. (Actually, this would work for them if it is included in the marketing plan.)

      But that war, I think, has already been lost. The most that Christians can do now is try to eek out a small space for themselves. If you’re not willing to engage the culture war, if one is all too easily “effectively frightened into silence,” then there is no catchy plan that will fix this. Either you fight back or you acquiesce.

      Ultimately one must learn to bite your tongue and bake your cake, arrange your flowers, or sew your dress.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        One must remember that the demonization of small businesses is based on their “discrimination” against homosexuals. So a business that makes it a point to demonstrate their religious views without “discriminating” against anyone would make it difficult for the homofascists to demonize them. Eventually, of course, they would figure out a convenient lie in response, counting on the synoptic media to repeat it regardless of truth.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          So a business that makes it a point to demonstrate their religious views without “discriminating” against anyone would make it difficult for the homofascists to demonize them.

          Maybe…technically…according to the logic of words. But winning hearts and minds (and the legal cases) is another thing. I can’t imagine that the court of public opinion would be favorable regarding a bunch of pushy Christians who are trying to prosthelytize during a homosexual marriage by handing out flyers and wearing bible-based t-shirts. It seems to me that the homosexual mafia would still win this battle.

          Why the rank-and-file of public opinion does not considered the bullying by the homosexual mafia to be boorish behavior is a result of how far left the culture has moved. By rights, there should be united and near universal outrage to the bullying. But with homosexuals having been successfully cast amongst the “victims,” and the victim/oppressor paradigm having been swallowed down by most, it’s tough to resist this wind.

          American Thinker has an interesting blog post from Newsmachete wherein somebody astutely writes:

          What happened after that was the welfare state, which made it affordable to have children out of wedlock, and the change in cultural attitudes, which made it not merely acceptable but trendy to have children out of wedlock. Look at Hillary Clinton’s presidential announcement video, featuring not one but two single mothers, literally flexing their muscles and showing how happy they are raising a child alone. What they don’t show is how all those children go astray with little or no parental supervision because no father figure is around. That is the cause of all the “missing” Black men.

          Logic and word play won’t solve this problem. As Mr. Kung says, “Culture is everything.” We can say that there is a certain shared mindset that coalesces around certain beliefs and ideas. How this happens (and can be made to happen) is a worthy line to pursue. But it has happened in the case of homosexuals in that not allowing them to marry is called “discrimination.” The positive argument is that to allow it is “marriage equality.”

          In an age where most people do not live hand-to-mouth, and thus (thankfully) are protected from many of the vagaries of survival, there is now a disconnect between reality and fantasy. It’s no longer enough to say, “There will be dire circumstances to come because of the de-legitimizing of the traditional, two-parent family.” We are now the grasshopper culture, not the ant culture. Please, someone write a splendid essay on that phenomenon. But it is what it is. The idea that there are limits, that we must make choices, that immediate gratification isn’t the overriding determinant, are from days past.

          This is why we can rightly say now that no longer are such books as “Brave New World” warnings of the future. We’re now in that future. We’re living that Brave New World. And it is structured in such a way that as things disintegrate and deteriorate, that disintegration and deterioration is denied, let along not understood.

Leave a Reply

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