Trying to talk sense to our ruling elites in these our frantic times is like Pentheus thinking he could stop the Bacchae on their rampaging and murderous toot by standing up in front of them, holding up both his hands, and saying, “Guys, guys . . .”
Satire is not exactly dead, but it might have to wait for a saner age to get its groove back. And who doesn’t want satire to get its groove back? If a satiric writer with a gleam in his eye comes up with an especially nice bit of box fruit, he will no doubt the very next day read about that very thing, somberly put forth in a press release by the governor of California, put out with enough lead time so that the formal announcement might double as a photo op. They are proud of their monkeyshines.
The other day I saw a liberal bumper sticker—you know the kind, very arch and very prim—that reminded us all that “If you think education is expensive, try ignorance.” To which the answer springs immediately to mind, we did try ignorance and now it wants a raise.
Think about this for just a minute. We have spent millions of dollars on geography lessons over the course of the last generation and now not a teen in America knows where the Mississippi River is—except for those who live on its banks, and even they are not quite sure. Except that I didn’t mean geography, although that is probably involved also. I actually meant sex ed. We have spent millions on sex education and to what result? The whole country has now officially descended into the maelstrom condition of not knowing the difference between boys and girls, and not a few young people are lining up at AMA-approved hospitals to have their genitalia mutilated for ready money. In the old days, professionally-trained doctors would fix you for money. Now they fix you for money.
Now this is an intellectual problem in that it does manifest in the intellect. But it does not start there. This is not a question of IQ, or intellectual horse power. The Bible teaches that sin can (and does) blind the smartest of men. If the heart is dark, then that darkness grows and spreads. If the heart is filled with lust, then that is a gangrene that knows how to grow, especially when it has that kind of rotting flesh to grow in. And as it grows, it creeps upward, toward the head.
This is why it doesn’t work for a secular conservative to say, “That doesn’t make any sense. You need to learn logic.” The need of the hour is to say, “That doesn’t make any sense. You need to repent.” And repentance means turning away from the sin in order to turn to Jesus.
In order to conduct the headlong flight away from God, one must pursue his own lusts. He goes off in that direction. When he turns back to God, this is what conversion is. The Latin word convertere means (among other things) to turn around. Now it is not possible to turn away from sin without turning toward God in that same simultaneous motion. The turning away is repentance and the motion of turning toward is faith or trust. If I am facing south and turn around, was that motion turning away from the south or was it turning toward the north? Well, obviously it is both.
Simply put, America needs to be turned. “Turn thou us unto thee, O Lord, and we shall be turned; Renew our days as of old” (Lam. 5:21). And it is not possible for us to turn away from what we are pursuing—our demented lusts—without simultaneously turning back to the one we are fleeing. And by that I mean the Lord of these United States, Jesus of Nazareth.
The Bible does teach that there is the kind of ignorance that is the simple function of not knowing.
“And the priest shall make an atonement for all the congregation of the children of Israel, and it shall be forgiven them; for it is ignorance: and they shall bring their offering, a sacrifice made by fire unto the Lord, and their sin offering before the Lord, for their ignorance” (Num. 15:25).
But there is another kind of ignorance, the kind that has us by the throat. It is not the result of never having been told. It is rather the result of suppressing the truth in unrighteousness. It is the result of being blinded in the understanding through the agency of our beckoning and blistering lusts.
“Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart: Who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness” (Eph. 4:18–19).
We give ourselves over to darkness because there are things we want to do, and we would rather not see.
“As obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts in your ignorance” (1 Pet. 1:14).
Lusts and ignorance go together as a matched set. And of course the classic passage on this is found in Romans 1.
“Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves” (Rom. 1:21–24).
Notice the progression. A lust for autonomy, a moral choice to suppress the truth about God (refusal to honor the sovereignty of God and refusal to be grateful to Him) results in vain imagination and darkened hearts. That leads to idolatry, which results in God giving them over to the lusts of their own hearts. Lust and darkness of heart are entwined together, like two tumors that grew together and fused, and then they steadily get worse.
Once this process has set in, there is absolutely nothing that can be done about it outside the gospel. There is no political solution. There is no cultural solution. There is no artistic solution. There is no solution outside of Christ crucified and risen. And it is more than manifest that this particular kind of rot has set in—it is pervasive throughout our entire culture.
And this means the secular experiment is necessarily over. If secular America does not die, then America will die. If we do not drop the secular pretense with loathing then it is inevitable that God will drop us. With loathing.
Here’s the deal, the secular world, liberals, even just the moderates among the working class, are rejecting faith, rejecting the church, because of the blatant hypocrisy, hostility, and arrogance. The only “beckoning and blistering lusts” that the rabid right can ever see are OTHER people’s. It’s like forever watching the fornicators point fingers of condemnation at the adulterers, while congratulating themselves for their amazing powers of discernment. It’s far worse than even Pastor Wilson realizes. It’s not really a desire for autonomy that’s driving sin, it’s an inability to see any moral superiority within the church. It’s become a faith… Read more »
“even just the moderates among the working class, are rejecting faith, rejecting the church, because of the blatant hypocrisy, hostility, and arrogance. ” Most of which are predicated on inferring meaning into right wing statements which don’t exist. Nine times out of ten by assuming negative intent on people who disagree with you, rather than a different interpretation of the facts. eg: Right Winger: “Welfare has been terrible for black communities. It needs to end for the benefit of all. Here, I can prove it statistically. Centrist or Left Winger: “Why do you hate black people and the poor?” “The… Read more »
“I think this places a very unrealistic idea of how much influence the church has on most people.”
Why is that? Why does the church have so little influence on people? Do you feel any sense of responsibility about that? Has the church become just another political club?
Do I feel any responsibility for that? Well no. I’ve only been living apart from my parents house since 2010, and only found a church with sound doctrine in Washington state in 2014 (which, as it turned out, has connections to Doug’s church which is how I found this site). My capacity for influence on that problem has been small. You’ll see in my own response to the article though that I’m hardly calling the church perfect. On the contrary, I’m consistently the most vocal critic of churches I know who actually goes to one. I just didn’t think your… Read more »
“Do I feel any responsibility for that? Well no.”
So no concern for the lost or broken at all?
You’re changing the topic. The question wasn’t, “do I have concern for the problem”, the question was “do I feel responsible for the problem”. I have concern for the aftermath of the hurricane in Puerto Rico, particular as they were already suffering the consequences of terrible economic policy. I have concern, but I don’t feel responsible because absolutely none of my actions could have effected the outcome.
“I have concern, but I don’t feel responsible…”
Yes. That does sum up the nature of the problem. You are not alone.
It’s probably a mom thing, but I am always astounded by how we people can see a big huge mess and than promptly declare it’s not my mess, I didn’t make it, not my responsibility.
You’re equivocating on “responsible” here. Justin is using the word in a causative way.
You’re imparting meaning to my words they quite obviously did not possess. Let’s try communicating this way.
MeMe, do you feel personally responsible for this 6 year old’s murder?
http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/18/us/6-year-old-killed-left-in-car/index.html
No? You don’t think you’re personally responsible for that? Well then I guess you don’t care about 6 year olds, or murders. Does that seem a fair assessment to you?
I am a stay at home dad of two small children with a third on the way. Condescending about parenthood is not likely to get you very far.
“MeMe, do you feel personally responsible for this 6 year old’s murder?”
Yes. I have helped to create a world were six yr olds are murdered. I failed to figure out how to protect that child. Kid’s blood is on our hands.
This puzzles me a lot, MeMe, because I remember you saying once that you would never involve Child Protective Services in a case of obvious child abuse. Have you changed your mind about that? If not, do you think that ignoring the abuse of a child might cause you to end up with his blood on your hands?
But MeMe, if you’re responsible for the 6 year old’s murder, aren’t you equally responsible for all the terrible rebukes and judgements on this board? You’ve helped create the world where we say the things we do. It seems you owe us an apology for your part in allowing us to commit the sins you accuse us of committing. I await your apology for my actions.
I am really sorry that I have failed so miserably to share the faith properly and have contributed to the dark and ugly heart that is evident in so many of the comments on Pastor Wilson’s site. It grieves me no end to see people who don’t seem to understand what it is to have truly received grace themselves and to a have been washed in the Blood of the Lamb. I intercede for all those I have failed to reach, failed to testify to, and I pray the Lord make His presence known to them.
And I am sorry, and I feel a certain ability to say we are sorry, that we have so desperately failed to communicate our perspective to you that you then choose to fill the gap with anti-Biblically assuming negative intent. I’m glad you seem to understand grace so well. I just hope that one day you would choose extend that to people you disagree with.
So, it is your fault I don’t want women to vote.
Being serious, I think that perhaps every woman who has presented you with a totally irrational but sincerely held opinion may have contributed to your views about this! But my take is that your opposition is more deeply rooted than in the realization that some women, like some men, will be illogical from time to time.
My views of women voting have far less to do with the irrationality displayed by some women, for many men do the same. Rather it is due to the lopsided outcomes of women voting which bend distinctively away from Biblical results by a 2-1 margin, as well as my view that giving voting rights to sinful men in regards to which laws they will be governed by is simply unbiblical. Theocratic constitutional monarchy is much to be preferred.
This is nothing personal.
“Theocratic constitutional monarchy is much to be preferred.”
Umm,……Killy, we are in a Divine Monarchy now.
Who is Lord around here again? ; – )
What with Jesus being Lord and all, sometimes prayers seem to go unanswered from the creature’s point of view, because creatures are not, after all, The Creator!
( I suspect this is what happened with my request for a new Ferrari and some cup cakes!)
Lol.
Upvote for the Divine Monarchy. I just wish Christians prayed, “Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth as it is….” oh wait a minute!
“Killy”??????
Killy? Well, it does rhyme with Jilly, but it is my new nickname for Kilden, AKA Kilgore T. Durden.
; – )
I know it is nothing personal! And you would probably not much like the way I used to vote back in the day. So far you’re lucky–I’m not a citizen yet. I am the only person I know who is yearning for jury duty.
At least you cared enough to vote. For years, I never bothered. As long as I could get my hands some booze, I didn’t care who was president. Honestly, until I started doing my plumbing work, and owning my own small business, I never really had much concern about the government.
I hear you, Kilgore. For the first time in 31 years, I am paying my own bills and taxes–and I am not happy! Not so unhappy as to threaten my limousine liberal status just yet, but who knows?
It’s not a mom thing. As a mom, I’m as capable as Justin of understanding the difference between a mess that I can help clean up and one I’m responsible for. My kids make them all the time.
Not only am I a mom but I also am prone to sudden bouts of irrational Catholic guilt. Nonetheless I refuse to take responsibility for causing hurricanes or the deaths of unknown toddlers. I have found that thinking myself responsible for everything can distract me from facing my responsibility for the actual, personal, and specific.
“I have found that thinking myself responsible for everything can distract me from facing my responsibility for the actual, personal, and specific.”
That’s a feature, not a bug.
Why does the church have so little influence on people? If you mean people outside the church, the question answers itself. If you mean people inside the church…good question.
Come on, y’all, MeMe doesn’t really feel responsible for the six-year-old who died. She’s just taking it to the logical conclusion to avoid the corner she painted herself in.
If the police were knocking at the door, MeMe would be quick to say that she was NOT reponsible for the death of that child.
Memi, while some may see “loathing” and Godly rebuke as the same thing, they are not the same thing.
Even so, there are risks that go along with speaking Godly rebuke.
Jesus got crucified for it.
Stephen got stoned for it.
Me? So far I have only been slandered for it.
Jesus does instruct us to rebuke brothers and sisters who wrong us, so there is a place for rebuke.
And there are times when rebuke and correction is the most loving thing that can be done.
Unfortunately all that ever seems to get done are endless rebukes and perpetual condemnation. Frankly I’m sick of it, I certainly wouldn’t tolerate it in real life, and the things I’ve seen on the internet from so called Christians are far worse. So, I accuse those those who are totally obsessed with rebuke and discipline of having never met grace themselves.
I want no part of that world, it’s ugly and dark. If I as a Christian cannot abide seeing it, how can I even think to ask those outside the church to come in?
“from so called Christians ”
Again, just yesterday you complained about people calling you names. Do you see this as appropriate? Do you have any basis whatsoever to call into question their personal relationship with Christ, or are you just basing this conclusion on other sins you perceive them committing which are not incompatible with Christianity, since Christians are definitionally sinners?
For someone so bothered by rebukes without empathy you seem to be very good at them. You would have made an excellent puritan.
“Again, just yesterday you complained about people calling you names.”
Actually I wasn’t complaining, I was just stating a fact, making an observation. After a few years of following this site, I’ve come to the conclusion that all people here know how to do is call one another names and engage in endless rebuke and condemnation.
“Do you have any basis whatsoever to call into question their personal relationship with Christ?” The sad thing is that judging from the condition of people’s hearts, I have no basis on which to say one way or the other.
“I’ve come to the conclusion that all people here know how to do is call one another names and engage in endless rebuke and condemnation.” Well, that’s just called “The internet”. Honestly, if you go very far in any direction at all, this site holds up as a beacon of fair discourse. ” The sad thing is that judging from the condition of people’s hearts, I have no basis on which to say one way or the other.” How precisely is it that you’re judging people’s hearts? That is something I’d love to learn. It would spare me a lot… Read more »
“all people here know how to do is call one another names and engage in endless rebuke and condemnation.” MeMe, I think most of the discourse on this board is very civil. I am aware of no other conservative board on which I could air my left-leaning views without getting insults and a whole bunch of down votes. People are more than willing to contemplate unusual opinions when they are expressed politely and backed up with even slightly sensible arguments. It’s not your opinions that, in themselves, arouse opposition. It is your flat assertion that everyone else is not only… Read more »
“You would have made an excellent puritan.”
Justin, that is entirely unfair to Puritans.
To be honest, I was just stealing a line of Doug’s from his debates with Christopher Hitchens. It was so exquisitely perfect to irritate the late Mr. Hitchens who was making a similar argument.
I have been told that much of what we Catholics think of as Puritan turns out to be historically inaccurate. Such a shame, really. I always relished the picture of us Catholics as warm-hearted, fun-loving, wine-quaffing, joke-cracking holy hedonists in comparison to the dour, theatre-suppressing, Christmas-turkey confiscating, witch-burning Puritans. Of course, I realize that my own people burned witch or two–but that was just an excess of high spirits!
Well there were the early and the late Puritans
The historical misunderstanding of the Puritans came from the popularity of The Crucible and The Scarlet Letter. Bother were dealing with contemporary issues and dealt with them through the historical lens of the Puritans. The rest of the character slander was simply added on by liberals.
My fondness for John Bunyan (“Come wet, come dry, I long to be gone”) and my love of “Paradise Lost” have ensured my deep respect for Puritans. Not to overlook “On the Morning of Christ’s Nativity” which I find beautiful beyond words.
Jill,
You can think of Puritans as having occupied the left-leaning side of the moral realm in much the same way that communists inhabited the left-leaning side of the economic realm.
As bethyada points out, there was a difference between the early and late Puritans. Just as communism can work when it is limited to an initial small group of enthusiastic individuals but then fails nightmarishly when it is rolled out on the general populace, Puritanism can be inspiring when practiced by the fervent but crushing when imposed on society.
I actually have a lot of English Puritan ancestors which no doubt explains something or other. I was actually a bit disappointed to discover that they were not as pleasure-loathing as I had always assumed. They appealed to my ascetic streak–the streak that made me shake my head sadly on my “Come and See” visit to the convent when I found the nuns eating chocolates and playing board games. “I want to eat dry crusts and wear a hairshirt.” “Not here you won’t.”
Don’t hate on my Puritans.
They are routinely slandered unjustly.
So I have been told and must believe! But remember that many of us got our information from Lord Macaulay whose prose style was so dazzling that it could convince us that black is white. Who can forget “The puritan opposed bear baiting, not because it gave PAIN to the bear, but because it gave pleasure to the spectator.”
I believe it was “not because it caused harm to the bear, etc.” was it not?
Yes, Jane, senior moment. I am sure that bears take no pleasure in being baited.
Well, MeMe, if everyone at the church you attend spreads grace the same way you do, what’s the problem? Surely you have thousands of the lost and broken begging to come inside. There must be food trucks catering to lineups that stretch around the block.
“Frankly I’m sick of it… ”
If that statement was true, you would’ve stopped your own “endless rebukes and perpetual condemnation.”
Even if turning away from something is the same as turning toward that thing’s opposite, it does not necessarily imply turning to its opposite. I can turn very far away from South and still wind up facing North-North-West. Which tack, if pursued resolutely without further alteration, will inevitably lead one all the way back South again, and miss True North entirely. So while it might be real progress for America to regain even an ordinary pagan sense of sexuality – say, that of Cato’s fondest memory – we should be careful that our flight from the pit doesn’t lead us… Read more »
An absolutely outstanding piece. Though I think a major, perhaps insurmountable save for divine intervention, obstacle between America and renewal is the generational culture gap that’s been created dividing believers with sound doctrine from the youth at large. One of the numerous consequences of the sexual revolution of the 60’s is the church (small c) mistaking the terrible values of the movement, for the numerous aspects of culture of that period that had nothing to do with those terrible values. This tendency has, in my experience, proceeded on in full measure. The children of the church who honor their parents… Read more »
“We’ve bred ourselves to be incapable of relating to our neighbor.”
I feel like I’m going to be unpacking this one for a while. This is wise.
1 Cor 5:9-13 comes to mind.
Speaking of the maelstrom and the need for repentance, I have pontificated on that very subject just yesterday. Adequate minds, as they say…
https://kinshipradio.org/home/2017/10/19/heaven-invade/
Stellar. So well said.
For fun among friends, National Review online had a fairly good satire poking fun at Charles Blow (NY Times) for comparing president Trump to Adolf Hitler.
How do people get past the paywall? I use up my ten free articles by the third or fourth of every month.
I don’t know, but you could try Google cache, or internet archive
Of course, in view of my condemnation of illegally downloading movies, I realize there would be a certain inconsistency in my pilfering articles from the NYT!
National Review Online articles are mostly free. Occasionally they’ll have a magazine article that’s paywall.
Once again Lady Dunsworth provides the “barefoot” truth! ; – )
(As opposed to Charles Blow’s (strangely) jack booted truth! ‘Wonder if it comes in goose step?)
; – )
Charles Blow invoked Hitler? Bummer man, sounds like Blow broke the “law”. ; – )
Godwin’s Law
A term that originated on Usenet, Godwin’s Law states that as an online argument grows longer and more heated, it becomes increasingly likely that somebody will bring up Adolf Hitler or the Nazis. When such an event occurs, the person guilty of invoking Godwin’s Law has effectively forfieted the argument.
‘Wonder if we could establish:
“Frederica’s Law” ?
It’s the same as Godwin’s Law except “racism” is the tipping term, instead of Hitler.
Far too many people have the name Wilson to call it Wilson’s Law.
Since I have become the bad guy for having the audacity to oppose the very feminist position of women’s suffrage, let me pose a hypothetical scenario for the women to see which is more important to them: the feminist victory of women’s suffrage, which is nowhere supported by Scripture, or stopping the dissection of babies in the womb, which is pretty clear biblically. A universal vote is offered to everyone about whether to abolish women’s suffrage. Christian women, do you vote to remove your right to vote, knowing that shortly thereafter abortion will be made illegal federally and most likely… Read more »
That’s an easy choice, but is it really a useful thought experiment?
If you ask me whether I would forever give up coffee if I could end abortion tomorrow, I would obviously give up coffee. But does that really give us any grounds (no pun intended, seriously, I didn’t think of it until I typed the word) for claiming that coffee should be banned or voluntarily relinquished by all, unless we’ve demonstrated some actual connection between the two?
is it really a useful thought experiment? Only insofar as anything we do on this board is useful. The reason I ask is to show the connection between support for abortion and support for unbiblical “rights.” I have become the resident ogre on here and an example of how so many of us hate women, simply for even mentioning women’s suffrage, but until the church sees how we hurt our own efforts by holding to unbiblical and unhelpful ideas because we don’t want to offend secularists we will continue to be held back. I know this scenario won’t play out,… Read more »
Hi Kilgore, I disagree with many of your opinions but I could never imagine you as the resident ogre. I see you as somebody who has high principles and who follows his conscience. I think you are wrong about female suffrage but why would that make me think you don’t like women? And with whom could I debate if you always agreed with me?
“If you ask me whether I would forever give up coffee if I could end abortion tomorrow…”
That’s a non sequitur. Drinking coffee did not – and never could – lead to the legalization of infanticide. Women voting did.
To be clear, I disagree with Kilgore (I’d restrict voting in other ways, not by sex), but your response to him is nonsense.
Jane is pointing out that, in the absence of causative proof, declaring that the legalization of abortion was caused by women voting is a post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy. In recent years, women (or, more precisely, unmarried women) have voted heavily for Democratic candidates. However, in the years leading up to Roe vs. Wade, there was little or no gender gap in voting. 1980 was the first presidential election where women favored the Democratic candidate by a significant margin over men. Prior to then, there were only two presidential candidates who women favored strongly over men: Hoover and Eisenhower… Read more »
always providing an excuse for female nonsense
it takes a while for a group to show their true colours, women only got the vote in the 20’s, for decades they would have voted like their husbands/fathers
now we know the true colours of women
constant support for murder, sexual perversion and atheism
And always running off to Bible study instead of staying home and matching their husbands’ socks. Shocking!
if the bible study is taking her away from being a wife and mom, it ain’t much of a study is it?
Surely a study should be teaching one to be more Godly.
Imagine if men wen’t to a study and left their wife to rebuild a part of the house….
Callaghan wrote: Jane is pointing out that, in the absence of causative proof, declaring that the legalization of abortion was caused by women voting is a post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy. I initially took Durden’s thought experiment to be more powerful in the immediate case, rather than questioning whether women were historically causative in legalizing abortion. Durden’s later comment even referred to being “held back”. Durden may be suggesting that, if women were to forego suffrage (and if abortion were somehow simply up for a vote), then there is currently a majority of men who are pro-life (51% according… Read more »
Oscar, I wasn’t living in the U.S. when the court handed down Roe. But was abortion policy actually put to the vote in individual states? Certainly not in mine–it was signed into law by Governor Reagan. Weren’t the majority of the court that decided Roe appointed by Republican presidents? And weren’t they all men? I am not sure how women voters can be held accountable for Roe.
Jill,
I wasn’t alive in 1973, and only moved to the US in the 80s, so if you think your location at that time prevents you from knowing the relevant history, I’m not sure why you’re asking me.
Be that as it may, if you’re “not sure how women voters can be held accountable for Roe”, you may want to ask your sisters why they consider baby murder a fundamental part of women’s rights.
Hi Oscar, I think the point I was making was that nationwide legalization of abortion seems to have happened without the input of women. It was the work of predominantly male legislators, governors, and courts. If it were put to a vote now, I agree that many women would not support abortion restrictions. But I simply can’t see how Roe can be tied to women having the vote.
men needed to please women instead of doing what is morally correct as soon as women got the vote
Just like Adam decided to please Eve instead of God.
also since Roe, if women did not have the vote, Roe would be overturned by now.
Because women voted for all those men. I don’t actual know the demographics, but it’s not unreasonable to posit (depending now hat the evidence is) that the men in question were in office as a result of the female vote, and would not have been without it.
That’s apparently not true of the Supreme Court justices as far as I can tell, though. I don’t think any of the presidents who appointed the ’73 court were elected by a female majority and male minority. I’m not even sure that happened until Obama.
Jane-
The difference, though, in voter accountability matters. Few who voted for presidents pre-1973 and Roe would have known what was on the table. You literally had a justice on the court appointed by FDR. There was no idea that abortion would be an issue, and if so, how each justice would come down.
Today, though, there is no argument. Leftism reigns, because women vote. Is that a reason to deny women the vote? Not the point. But it is silly to deny that women vote leftist. It is an undeniable fact.
Kilgore, I agree with Jane. If I am required to run into a burning building to save a life, obviously I would have to give up my vote to do the same. But I am puzzled why you think there is a huge gender difference between men’s and women’s attitudes toward abortion. I searched only conservative sites, and I am not finding evidence of this. This is a pretty good summary from Real Clear Politics: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/2012/08/22/do_men_and_women_view_abortion_differently_288137.html
In my state, the split runs about 70/30 against pro-life, and there isn’t a noticeable gender difference.
if women did not vote, democrats would never control government in their current form.
Women have consistently proven that they support baby murder and all sorts of sexual perversions
Women vote 2-1 for leftist outcomes. Democrats would die tomorrow without women’s suffrage. The narrow question of pro-life/pro-choice is irrelevant if one votes for candidates who support abortion, because those same candidates support government spending at every corner. Plus, that question has to be more specific. Ask about exceptions and the gap opens up more widely.
Kilgore,
Just for the sake of better understanding what you are saying:
Would you oppose women’s suffrage if women did not vote 2-1 for leftist outcomes? If women voting resulted in good outcomes would it still be a bad thing? Do you think the bad outcomes to which you refer were inevitable? What is truly the problem – that women participating in a political process in the first place is inherently wrong, or is it just what happens to be the outcomes of that participation?
A little of both. I’m an idealist politically. I want a theonomic rule of God’s Law. Now, I obviously understand that we are far from that, so in the meantime we have to ask ourselves what is the best thing to do for now? Now, what we have to do is work within this system. That means influencing the culture. To do that we must preach the gospel. For those who have accepted it, we must send missionaries to every area of the globe and to every area of culture. We teach our children and we use the freedoms we… Read more »
I would caution against identifying feminism as the source. Feminism is part of the larger puzzle, that I would identify as a worldly, self-satisfied, rebellion against God’s authority. Western civilization became so enamored of itself that it has been operating without reference to the creator for better than a century. Sadly, the church’s own view of humanity has been corrupted right along with it, such that the church has been unable to reprove this move away from godliness.
It would seem reasonable to suppose that women are more susceptible to err towards showing sympathy and securing against risk, leading to more social programs and regulations. That does correspond with many of our missteps in policy over the last 100 years. Then we might ask why the male vote is not capable of balancing this out. Is this a particular failing of American men in the last century? Or is the male vote overall more reliable for good policy and the female vote contributes nothing but to dilute the quality of decisions? I’m not prepared to put forward an… Read more »
I agree with you that the electorate is extremely ill informed, but is this balanced a little by our low voter turnout? Do the abysmally ignorant bother to vote, especially in local and state elections? I think it is true that women lean left on policy issues regarding health, education, and welfare. But so do other blocs of voters including Jews, the very rich, the poor, Californians, city dwellers, many immigrants, and some racial minorities. I am not convinced that women are constitutionally unable to vote for financial restraint if they clearly understand the needs and resources at hand. I… Read more »
Yes, I imagine that some do help by abstaining, but the incompetence extends beyond being ignorant. More than just requiring information, there are skills needed to consider proposed policies. These critical thinking skills are dreadfully lacking.
“Why can’t the government just print more money?” is an example not so much of lacking information, it is that, but even worse, they lack even a little understanding. They ought be able to come up with the answer even without being told. That they don’t even *suspect* what the right answer is should be horrifying.
I don’t get the impression that awareness of the national debt has much impact on voting decisions. It should, but I’m not sure it does. I don’t think it matters that much more to men than it does to women either. I think men, as well as women, are more motivated by whatever they think is of near term benefit to people like themselves, whatever they perceive that to be. Perhaps women are more often the beneficiaries of leftist spending preferences, or at least could more easily imagine themselves benefiting. Men are probably more likely to support a big military… Read more »
yes Nathan we all know you are very scared of offending women.
There are more women in the population than men , of course men have less power.
any policy that males prefer is painted as anti female etc etc
there is good reason why Jesus did not have 50/50 gender split on his disciples
I don’t know what you’re talking about.
you asked why the male vote doe snot balance in out.
You forget the modern christianity teaches male submission to women
Kilgore, if you’re looking to stack the deck to produce desired outcomes, why are you singling out women? Black men mostly vote Democrat. People of Asian descent mostly vote Democrat. People who work in high tech mostly vote Democrat. Liberal Protestants, like Episcopalians and Methodists, mostly vote Democrat. People with college degrees mostly vote Democrat. The people in blue states mostly vote Democrat. Why not disenfranchise all of them while you’re at it? If you want to say that democratic elections is a really bad idea (and unbiblical to boot), make that pitch. But if we’re going to have democratic… Read more »
you obviously have not studied history
restricting it to men does not only produce one viewpoint, it just shifts the goal posts!
governments changed prior to women having the vote!
black men, Asians, protestants and blue states have all proved capable of voting differently.
Women have not, they continually vote to kill of their own civilization
The presidents who appointed the justices who ruled in favor of Roe were elected by male majorities. Men also continually vote to kill off their own civilization.
But Jane, you mustn’t detract from bdash’s narrative that it’s all women’s fault. After all, if the mothers of those presidents and Supreme Court justices had remained single and childless, none of this would have happened. See, it’s always the women’s fault.
Most excellent. Thank you and Amen.
Except.. “Satire is not exactly dead, but it might have to wait for a saner age to get its groove back.”
Satire is most potent when juxtaposed with madness. It adroitly cuts through the fog of lies and is a moral necessity. For the culture war-weary soldier, truthful satire gives encouragement like few other things.