One of the most interesting things about the Planned Parenthood scandal is that it has blown the Obergefell scandal off the front page. This might seem problematic to some, given the travesty that was Obergefell, but to my mind it is entirely to the strategic good. In the long game, I am always willing to trade a rook for a queen.
Don’t mistake me here. Obergefell is the lamest of abominations, and it has to go. But the reason it was possible for it to be imposed on us in the first place was because of all the legal mayhem that had happened to heterosexual marriages over the decades prior. There are sadly multiple examples of this — things like no-fault divorce — but the crowning insult to heterosexual marriage was the bloody decision of Roe. That crowning insult was the attempt to make heterosexual unions fruitless, and to enforce that fruitlessness by declaring open season on the fruit. Not all babies are killed, but all the babies could be.
According to that decision, whether a baby was to be aborted or not was a decision to be made between “the woman and her doctor.” Out of the legal picture was the husband and father, meaning that whether the woman was married was a constitutional irrelevance. One of the little known results of Roe was the abortion of the family, the abortion of the meaningfulness of marriage. Given that, Obergefell was inevitable. And now we come to discover that the decision being made between a woman and her doctor included whether or not to sell the baby off for parts.
Once you have done something like that, guaranteeing that every heterosexual union can be as fruitless as one party in that union wants to be, why would you refuse unions that are fruitless by their very nature? Marriage as God designed it is a conjugal union, centered around a sexual act that is liturgically fertile. Not every sexual act results in a child, obviously, but every ordinary sexual union enacts what fertile unions do.
Once you have surrendered that in principle, there is no reason to limit marriage to members of the opposite sex. Once you have defined marriage as a particular “emotional intensity for the time being” there are no limits outside that emotional demand whatever. Indeed, there is not even a reason that sexual activity of any kind be required. What counts is the demand to be included in what used to be called marriage. But we discover, rapidly enough, that to operate this way does not make the parasites part of the host. Despite the legalese of the decree, it just ensures that we get enough parasites to kill the host.
So without Roe, Obergefell was unthinkable. Obergefell was imposed on us in much the same way as Roe was, through an act of judicial despotism. Both decisions rejected the claims of natural affection. And the one made the other possible.
In what I am about to say, I am not claiming a conscious conspiracy, as though Supreme Court justices were cracking their knuckles and cackling over their execution of “the plan.” No, I am saying that the spiritual chess board only has a limited number of pieces, and they can only be configured in a limited number of ways. If you do not want to be governed by the authority of the normal, there are only so many abnormal things you can do. When it first starts, it seems cool. Then it is outré. Then it gets kinky and flamboyant. And then — and this is where we are now — it is lame.
So I believe that the reason the bad guys went for a second desperate overreach in Obergefell is because they were steadily losing ground with Roe. A full generation after Roe supposedly settled the matter for us, pro-lifers were winning incremental victory after incremental victory in state after state. There were actual rollbacks occurring. From their perspective, the next phase of their mission had to be launched, even though that launch was premature. And now this happens. It is almost as though a higher power were at work.
So this turn of events is not simply a random set-back for Planned Parenthood and their ghoul network of support. To have this blow up in this way is far more than a PR set back for abortion advocates. Roe is just as “legal” as it was a year ago; nothing has changed yet in that respect. But given how all this is unfolding, despite the continued legality, we have a clear opportunity to make our abortion laws loathsome. And that is good, for that is what they are. And if we succeed in persuading our fellow citizens that our abortion laws are loathsome, the ax is at the root of the tree.
I said earlier I would take a play that exchanged a rook for a queen. This is especially the case in spiritual chess because in this play — little known rule — after they lose their queen, we get our rook back.
If you came up with “liturgically fertile” then you are Chesterton reincarnate.
“Not every sexual act results in a child …” — nor need a child be hoped for in every act.
But “every ordinary sexual union” (that is — every godly and God-intended and God-honoring sex act) “enacts what fertile unions do”, which is what? —
Celebrates, reflects & participates in who God is with us (His bride, the Church).
One can sympathize a bit with the RC sentiment that sees marriage as sacrament.
The only thing that was inevitable was that the courts would rule against whatever is good and decent for the country as the judges became increasingly secular and non-Christian. Jews make up less than 2% of the country but 33% of the Supreme Court; Protestants are above 50% of the country but 0% of the highest judicial body. Remind me how this ruling was in any way legitimate? Of course this only leads to the question of why we have placed supreme authority in the hands of the judicial branch. If Congress remains silent then it is up to the… Read more »
Eagle_Eyed,
A lot of people will blame you for noticing things like that and insinuate all sorts of things about your character. It’s what some people have taken to calling a Hatefact. Hatefacts cause feelbad, which leads to repercussions for people who notice.
Remember: Use discretion and don’t apologize (That’s like blood in the water to leftists.).
Okay, Job, I’ll bite. Let’s assume for the sake of argument that you and Eagle Eyed (and I’m guessing BJ) are right, and allowing Jews or “secular Jews” to have too much influence in our culture is why we have stuff like legal abortion and gay marriage.
What would you do about it?
Pass a law deporting all Jews?
Pass a law banning Jews from government, media, and education?
If you’re right about the problem, how would you fix it?
BJ needs no defense from me, but I did not hear him say anything like that in these posts. It is remarkable that the makeup of the SC does not reflect, in the slightest degree, the religious majority in this country. I think it is very remarkable that conservative presidents and senates appointed and confirmed a whole slew of Catholics to the court with nary a Protestant to be found, and it is neither anti-Semitic nor anti-Catholic to notice this. However, I do not agree with Job or Eagle Eyed, and I don’t think they will find a great deal… Read more »
“I think it is very remarkable that conservative presidents and senates appointed and confirmed a whole slew of Catholics to the court with nary a Protestant to be found, and it is neither anti-Semitic nor anti-Catholic to notice this.”
Then we do agree. There is no need for conspiracy, Protestants and conservatives have been shoved aside from important positions (or have let themselves become marginalized) due to simple politics. We shouldn’t be surprised that a group of people which has historically and repeatedly rejected God and the Messiah has interests and goals different from even a nominal Christian society.
First, I should say that I don’t have any problem with the make up of the Court. I see it as anomalous and striking, but not otherwise troubling. As a Catholic, I am aware that Catholic political opinion runs the extreme gamut between Scalia and Sotomeyor. I cannot think of many Alito/Scalia/Thomas opinions which would disturb Protestant fundamentalists (or leave them feeling there was no one on the bench who shared their values and moral principles). I married into a Jewish family; I have a half-Jewish daughter. This has enabled me to realize that Jewish people do, in fact, also… Read more »
So is the consensus here is that the failure of any of the secular Jews on the court to vote like Evangelical Christians is purely coincidental? So no one would, say, advocate that an Evangelical rather than a secular Jew be appointed to the court? Since the Supreme Court exactly a zero sum game that means that it is more important to be “not racist” than to end legalized abortion in America.
There are some great conservative secular Jewish thinkers and I have quoted some here but they would be the first to tell you that the voting habits of secular Jews really define the far left. They would also tell you to get over yourselves and advocate for your interests.
I don’t personally know very many secular Jews so I can’t tell. I do know a lot of secular (or more accurately, cultural) Catholics whose views are left of center on a great many issues. In my own experience when I was much more liberal than I am today, I met and campaigned with a lot of mainstream Protestants who tended that way. I am troubled by the identification of views I might dislike with the ethnicity of those perceived to hold them. I can deplore a Kagan ruling without immediately attributing her opinions to her Jewishness. When I really… Read more »
Jesus had no problem generalizing and calling out certain groups by their ethnicity, or by their religious sect, or party affiliation. However, the thing that Jesus didn’t do was try to make them a scapegoat on that basis. In other words, we can point to the failure of the Amalekites or the failure of the natural branches, or the failure of the Supreme Court justices, but the problem is not that they are Amalekites or Jews or Democrats. The problem is much deeper than that. As Christians approaching a volatile climate, our need to find an easy scapegoat is going… Read more »
If there is a threat to Jewish citizens in the West it is not from scapegoating Christians but from the leftist coalitions that they have supported allowing unrestricted immigration of Muslims.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/11340173/15000-Jews-to-leave-France-for-Israel-Jewish-Agency-says.html
They are threatened in Israel as leftists around the world threaten to undo the garrison state/apartheid state that makes a Jewish Israel possible.
I have met the scapegoat and he is us.
You said that you didn’t have any problem with the makeup of the court. Of course you should have a problem with the makeup of the court. If you are going to change the outcomes of the votes you will have to change the makeup of the court and that will take advocating for people who believe what you believe. As for identity politics, you might not be interested in identity politics but identity politics is interested in you.
I should have said that I have no problem with the racial/ethnic/religious make up of the Court. The problems I have with some Court decisions stem not from the ethnicity/faith or lack thereof of the nine justices but with a judicial philosophy which ignores constitutionality in order to legislate morality (or immorality) from the bench. The fact that I may often agree with a particular outcome does not blind me to the fact that it is the result of an illegitimate judicial activism. My understanding is that the Court should not be made up of people who believe what I… Read more »
“My understanding is that the Court should not be made up of people who
believe what I believe, but of people who will put aside personal
beliefs in order to be faithful to the constitution”. Your polyglot culture disagrees
Well, I am very far from representing a consensus point of view. But I think that perhaps you offer a false alternative. Other things being equal, an Orthodox Jew who is opposed to abortion would be preferable to me than a middle of the road Protestant who is not. On the other hand, I don’t think that gender, religion, race, and views on abortion should be the litmus test for every single appointment. When the next seat becomes vacant, it will be unfortunate if the most important criterion is being a Baptist.
jillybean,
“However, I do not agree with Job or Eagle Eyed, and I don’t think they will find a great deal of congenial company on this site.”
Beg pardon?
Job, I was too quick to assume that your reply to Eagle Eyed reflected an agreement with what I saw as disturbing anti-Semitic thought. I apologize for reading you incorrectly.
Judicial nullification is an option. Essentially state and local governments ignore the federal courts and pass and execute laws restricting abortion and local officials refuse to issue marriage licenses to two men. Conservatives love to defend the constitution, but our behavior (ceding final authority to federal judges) seems to indicate that we accept living in a kritarchy. Defending the constitution is useless if those interpreting it can make up their own meanings. Education is largely controlled by the states, and many of those are controlled by conservative legislatures. Most red states could rid their campuses of insane leftists by simply… Read more »
My response was addressed to Eagle_Eyed, not you. I was not attempting to lure you into a conversation and made no argument against Jews.
I’m not so sure that this PP scandal will end in much of a ‘victory’. I fear that in the end we’ll just pass a law forbidding the sale of aborted children, as part of what will be seen as a compromise. Which in the end still means that children are being killed.
Yep. This post is just happy talk.
True, but even that will cut off a portion of PP’s revenue, which will damage their operations and.or force them to operate their chop-shop illegally, for which they can be prosecuted, fined and jailed.
It is no bad thing.
Well said and very prescient.
Sorry, folks, but this is just happy talk. Whistling past the abortuary, so to speak.
Defeatist troll that you are, pissing on our advances rather then being encouraged by the ground we’re making up.
Go join the enemy, quisling. You’re already in their side.
I don’t understand how Christians can be so quick to speak to brothers this way. I love reading this thoughtful discussions and disagreements, but it is really discouraging seeing how quick we can be to undercut each other.”Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear.”
I’m not a fan of harsh language except under conditions where it is truly warranted to make stark things starkly clear, but I will point out that Arwen’s reaction is not quick — McDivitt has been trolling and slandering for some period of time here now — and his status as brother is dubious at best. He may have admitted somewhere recently to not being a believer; I’m not completely certain on that. He certainly has yet to give any positive evidence of being one by confession or behavior. Sometimes grace is transmitted by rebuke, and sometimes rebuke has to… Read more »
I would reply the same way to a brother who had posted as McDivitt has (taking into consideration the sum total of all his replies on this blog).
Either he is an agent provocateur, or he has given up the hope we have in Christ.
In either case, he advocates capitulation to the culture of death in which we live.
In both cases, his words will serve to take the heart and courage out of the brethren.
In neither case, should we heed anything he has to say.
Therefore, a harsh rebuke.
“In both cases, his words will serve to take the heart and courage out of the brethren.
In neither case, should we heed anything he has to say.”
It would be nice, if in our own personal opinion of an alleged troll or enemy, we didn’t speak for all of “the brethren” or dictate what all of us should heed or not… After all, none of us are so perfect that we never dishearten or discourage someone else along the way or say things that really ought not be heeded…
“After all, none of us are so perfect that we never dishearten or
discourage someone else along the way or say things that really ought
not be heeded…”
All that means it that we should agree that we occasionally say things that ought not to be heeded, and be humble enough to be corrected.
It doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t apply the teaching of scripture that the words of a fool (biblically defined) should not be heeded, or be afraid to say so when necessary.
Yes, and, though (back to my original point): we are likely to each determine differently when someone is being a fool …and if we believe we really must call someone out and “say so”, to NOT presume to speak for others in that “harsh rebuke.” i.e. humble enough to correct humbly
Forthrightness and humility are not opposites. Jesus does not lack humility. Yes, we are likely each to determine differently when someone is being a fool, because we’re all error-prone — but it is not as subjective as all that. Scripture defines folly, and gives ways of detecting its presence. It’s not as simple as “someone you think is being done,” but if someone is behaving in exactly the ways associated with fools by the book of Proverbs, we’re not merely permitted, but biblically required, to regard that person as a fool. Otherwise we’re failing to apply scripture to the situation.… Read more »
“Either he is an agent provocateur, or he has given up the hope we have in Christ. ”
Nah, man, ya got it all wrong, bro. It’s just that I finally figured out that the key to a peace which passeth all understanding is to quit getting hung up on God’s revealed will, and instead, start getting in tune with his secret will.
Ohh – Churchianese word salad! So much tastier than the usual leftist flavor!
Your “advances”? LOLOL
Gregory, it COULD be. 20 years from now we’ll have the requisite hindsight to tell whether your predictions are accurate. However, in this moment, we stand at a juncture. It is our hope, our prayer, and our clarion call that every Christian, Jew, Mormon, JW, and even the Muslims too–but especially the Christians!–unite and take the path that leads to the utter political, cultural, and ideological destruction of Planned Murderhood. For you to stand anywhere near this vicinity and “poo-poo” on this opportunity and resultant efforts is ignorant at best, mean-spirited for certain, and quite possibly diabolical. Don’t be that… Read more »
To quote President Obama from 2013:
“If there’s even one thing we can do, if there’s just one life we can save—we’ve got an obligation to try.” #NowIsTheTime.
Within every true converted soul is the power of the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. It is a power that is inherently miraculous, and absolute. It rules the world, and shapes all events, regardless how ugly, into the providential, sovereign plan of the One whom all men eventually acknowledge. The strongest enemy we face, the prince of darkness, lies already dead in a hot, sulfurous pool of his own rebellious blood, traces of which can be found coating the sword of the Prince of Peace. Where we as Christians have failed is in our lack of devotion to… Read more »
I thought you’d appreciate this…
http://jonathanmerritt.religionnews.com/2015/07/02/after-gay-marriage-expect-social-amnesia/
I think it’s too early to tell if this is just happy talk or not. We’ll probably know better after Congress votes this Fall on whether to continue to fund PP, and we’ll know even better than that after the 2016 elections. But as of now, neither result would surprise me.
Okay, I’ve been following this convo. I’ve got the gist of opinions and angst. So back to your ORIGINAL comment. “I think it’s too early to tell if this is just happy talk or not. We’ll probably know better after Congress votes this Fall on whether to continue to fund PP, and we’ll know even better than that after the 2016 elections. But as of now, neither result would surprise me.” 1) What is, based on your opinions and angst, the result you prefer regarding the PP “scandal”l? When McD or I or whoever refer to Happy Talk or Dangers… Read more »
I would prefer two results. First, that PP continue to get funded because I think they provide necessary services. Second, however, that an accountability mechanism be put in place to ensure that this doesn’t happen again. Congress should bluntly tell PP that it’s demonstrated it can’t be trusted to run its own show, and so it will now have to agree to fairly intensive transparency, at least until trust has been regained. And if it is found that laws have been broken, I’m fine with putting people in jail. As for happy talk, I understood McDivitt’s original comment to mean… Read more »
McDivitt wrote: Sorry, folks, but this is just happy talk. Whistling past the abortuary, so to speak. This passage keeps coming to mind as I read McDivitt: 27 “We went in to the land where you sent us; and it certainly does flow with milk and honey, and this is its fruit. 28 Nevertheless, the people who live in the land are strong, and the cities are fortified and very large; and moreover, we saw the descendants of Anak there. 29 Amalek is living in the land of the Negev and the Hittites and the Jebusites and the Amorites are… Read more »
Here, there, or in the air!
Whistling a battle hymn :)
Well, yes. Which is a far different thing than actually going to battle. Let alone winning.
True indeed. Yet an army will rarely win if it doesnt want to. My dad tells me about when the czechoslovakians were throwing rocks at Russian tanks. Thats a people I can root for.
Shorter McDivitt: “Oh no, we might not win. Let’s not even try to fight.”
Here’s some happy talk about ‘The State…
——
“When it comes to people’s personal views and their religious faith, I think we
have to respect the diversity of views that are there,” Obama said at
the press conference, as reported by U.S. News & World Report.
“But when it comes to how the state treats people, how the law treats
people, I believe that everybody has to be treated equally. I don’t
believe in discrimination of any sort,” Obama added.
——
http://www.christianpost.com/news/texas-supreme-court-tells-houston-repeal-gay-rights-ordinance-or-put-it-to-vote-141922/
http://www.onenewsnow.com/legal-courts/2015/07/27/an-individuals-battle-against-abortifacient-mandate
And again the fair wisdom of our host emerges: “not whether but which”.
When the joy of the Lord is your strength a certain amount of optimism is to be expected.
Miscellaneous updates or summaries
http://www.onenewsnow.com/ap/united-states/no-sign-planned-parenthood-video-scandal-is-fading
http://www.bpnews.net/45156/planned-parenthood-exec-offered-help-better-way
I am really hoping that the CMR people have more of those videos in holding just waiting to be posted. Can you imagine 10 more like that with more of their executives? Even CR herself?
While I disagree quite strongly with Mr. McDivitt’s words and attitude, I don’t think responding in kind is helpful at all.
In kind? Where have I ever called anyone a filthy name, or referred to excretory functions to describe their comments?
Fair enough. I spoke of your perceived intent, and should have clarified. I apologize.
Spiritual chess is an odd game. For one, the other side has lots of queens. They like queens. Alot. They dress their pawns up like queens and deploy their bishops to protect the queens instead of the king. This might give them some advantages, with the extra queens and all, except that our king can resurrect all our pieces and converts the other sides pawns into knights for our side. And He cannot be mated. They tried that once. Lost them the game.
Nice job using the force Luke! ; – )
Shortest masterpiece I ever read!
Better and better! PP’s website has been hacked! Can’t muster up much sympathy about that.
In a conversation about how our government isn’t always “the good guy,” when asked for examples of that my 9-year-old cited “divorce, and letting mamas kill their babies.”
Saying the “crowning insult was the attempt to make heterosexual unions fruitless” is a shot toward the target, but maybe a little off the bull’s-eye. Of course abortion does have that effect, but it seems to me the direct point of taking husbands and fathers out of the picture is to make women effectively husbandless and families effectively fatherless, – or perhaps to make the statement that it is already thus.
Great article. But, as I am sure you are aware, in this “spiritual chess match” we are not the He who moves the pieces nor is it a game. But I get it.
I’m sure most of you are aware, but in case you are not a third video is up. I imagine that Doug will post something shortly, but there is no harm in getting the machine running and warmed up as quickly as possible.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xw2xi9mhmuo&noredirect=1
If, as Christians, we cannot take dominion of our language, God help us! The battle against these atrocities begins with identifying them correctly. By calling it “abortion,” we’ve already acquiesced to the opposition’s terminology. Look up “abortion” and “miscarriage” in any dictionary. A miscarriage is an abortion. What doctors (and parents) do to infants in the womb is infanticide. Had Roe v. Wade been waged over infanticide rather than abortion, it would have never made it to the court room. In fact, by employing the word “abortion,” Roe v. Wade was won before it ever got to court. The Greek… Read more »
How about “induced abortion”: Abortion caused intentionally by the administration of drugs or by mechanical means.
It’s infanticide regardless how it’s accomplished.
Well said! Interesting that you say Roe is what neutered heterosexual marriage and made it fruitless. I’d have said it was Griswold v. Connecticut where artificial contraception was legalized and gave the first dubious stretchiness to “substantive due process” that gave us Roe v. Wade. I’d even go further back and say that what first neutered Christian marriage was Resolution 15 of the Lambeth Conference of the Church of England in 1930 that first opened the conscience of Christendom to artificial contraception. Judgment begins in the house of God.
Law prof weighs in on PP having a libel case against CMP on the “selling baby parts” claim:
https://verdict.justia.com/2015/07/29/were-planned-parenthood-officials-defamed-by-misleading-videos
He ultimately concludes PP’s best move is a strong dose of truth. Moi, I’ll be a LOT more interested in how he reacts to the “alter timing/method/procedure” claims.
Oh, and PP defending itself with a strong dose of truth? Really. Really? I can hardly wait for videos 4 through 12. Only inside the Ivory Tower can people seriously believe “truth” is not in progress.
None of these people are haggling over EXPENSES.
Exactly. If this were about expenses, all of the haggling and posturing in the videos would have been completely unnecessary. The haggling demonstrates that the price determines the expenses, not the other way around.
Also, this is not just about PP. StemExpress apparently resells their acquired baby parts at an even greater markup. StemExpress may simply be sacrificed to protect PP though.
Always daunting to be the 293rd comment. Well, here’s to shouting into the void… I wonder if like the returned exiles in Ezra, Christians should be building up a damn against the flood of death with one hand and wielding a sword to ward off its causes with the other. I think it would be amazing if we could replace planned parenthood with a Nation-wide institution aimed at preserving and supporting marriages. It would be 100% free and would need to have an impeccable reputation. It’s mantra, “Every Marriage Is Worth Saving.” It would be staffed with the nations best… Read more »
Well, I’ll “like” it because I appreciate the ’cause/effect”. And I’m sorry to be an Eeyore otherwise…but if I could see or had seen or will see an impeccable reputation…along with the mantra of “every marriage is worth saving” withIN the church…for now we see excuses after excuses to get out of marriages and “support” for those that do so…and now…we have homosexual “marriage” and depending on who’s in charge of this Nation-wide institution…those will be “worth saving” as well. who do you consider the “best Christian counselors”? But I still heartily agree to not focus on one immediate emergency… Read more »
Okay, my thought on “best Christian counselors” would be war-torn, but bodily sound veterans of the battlefield called marriage. AKA- couples that have made it through a couple of decades of marriage and have the proof in the pudding that they may exclusively be eating (probably silver haired sages). This would help with making the service free. An unintended benefit of using predominately older couples to be the counselors would be that ideally they’d be retired and would not need compensation. I think that those individuals and couples that proved themselves faithful and helpful servants IN the church could then… Read more »
Ah. I like it. I was so dreading your pulling out a list of “big names” only bound to be the next moral failure headline the next day………………. Maybe those people wouldn’t want the services anyway (unless to provoke some civil rights issue :)…as for turning people otherwise away, abiding by Christian principles doesn’t make a marriage Christian, but those marriages are worth saving, too, and Christian principles can still make a better marriage–if not ultimately a Christian one. If they are interested and non-combative, maybe it’s not so bad for business after all :) Now to first figure out… Read more »
Yeah. At the church level. At my own church level. Ungh. That’s harder than just pontificating and blogging. You’re right though. It has to start somewhere. I won’t will it into existence with happy thoughts.
I appreciate where you’re coming from but marriage was held together through strong social, economic and religious consequences to separation or divorce. Until we are willing to work to bring some of those consequences back I don’t think we’ll make much headway.
Hmm… Well, that does make sense. It’s a lowest common-denominator approach, but I guess that’s what’s needed when depraved man is he whom we’re talking about. Good stiff threats.
katecho, barnabas, RFB, moor_the_merrier and BJ and sundry others of philosophical bent and EricTheRed
I think you will enjoy this discussion: Hawking declares Philosophy is dead.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/08/stephen_hawking_3098261.html
The metaphysics of Aristotle and Aquinas is far and away the
most successful framework on which to understand modern science,
especially quantum mechanics. Heisenberg knew this.
The link to http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/09/feser_on_heisenberg_on_act_and025451.html
plays off of this statement:
I don’t have time to parse it now because of other work.
cheers.
t