Letters: The Revoice Edition, for the Most Part

Sharing Options
Show Outline with Links

Revoice

Keep hammering away on the Revoice Conference. You are one of the few that are publicly opposing it. Please keep doing so.

Michael

Maybe it is because your husband is bi, and leading a workshop in St. Louis. Explaining how it should be done.

Michael, thanks and will do. Though thankfully, there are others, and more coming.


Enjoyed (?) your humorous use of the metaphor of the birth of sin. (It is especially appropriate since PCA also argues that human life actually begins at conception. “The PCA is busy arguing that her confessional standards don’t say anything about pooching out a bit.”) In such a debate, James, like his brother, would argue that, according to this metaphor, death also begins at conception. The manifest birth of sin is merely an inevitable chronological result of its conception. Overt copulation with the body can add no more severe punishment that what has already been accrued in the heart. It is as if the act were already committed (Mt 5:24). “Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death” (James 1:15).

Greg

Greg, thanks.


Personally, I have always felt that gay marriage was an inevitability, for good or ill (most likely both). I do not think that the arguments against gay marriage are all grounded in bigotry, and I find some of the arguments persuasive. But I also find it cruel and absurd to tell gays that living the free-love lifestyle is abominable while at the same time telling them that their committed relationships are illegitimate too.

“Many of my conservative friends who oppose both civil unions and marriage and object to rampant promiscuity often act as if there’s some grand alternative lifestyle for gays. But there isn’t. And given that open homosexuality is simply a fact of life, the rise of the HoBos—the homosexual bourgeoisie—strikes me as good news.”—Jonah Goldberg And, of course . . . link.

Barnie

Barnie, this is how the conclusion gets smuggled into the premises. Of course there are no homosexual sexual options for homosexuals that are lawful. Neither promiscuity nor one partner for life are acceptable to God. But homosexual men have the same options that all of us do—find a woman and marry her. To say that this restricts them cruelly is like saying that standard menu options in restaurants is unfair to cannibals.


Do you really think it will take 5 years?

Melody

Melody, actually, no.


Thanks, Pastor Doug. It’s hard to believe my eyes. The small seminary I attended was unofficially PCA, and it’s almost too much for words to watch this happen. Question for you: Why should Christians bother with forming denominations and seminaries? Doesn’t church history teach us we are never doing more than building temples which will one day be ripped out of our hands and consecrated to Baal?

Dave

Dave, that temptation is at least understandable. My mother attended Prairie Bible Institute, whose president back then once said that he didn’t want to build stone buildings because he didn’t want to leave anything nice for the liberals. But it is a temptation. It is like refusing to rejoice over the birth of a grandchild because you know that he will one day die.


I appreciate your willingness to go into such great detail about the causes and nuances of this issue. I really do. But I think the cause of this conference is that they want to normalize homosexuality in the church. Plain and simple. They cannot resist the allure of being liked by the “cool kids.” 20 years ago, the homo lobby claimed they were just looking for fair treatment, not marriage. Of course not. Who would think of such a thing? Well, they are liars and here we are. The same is going on here. The best way to push back against this sort of thing is to state simply that they want to make gay marriage a thing in the church. Start with affirming celibacy until the crowds get used to seeing it and then, well we know where this ends. This is pure and simple boundary pushing. We need to push back. The PCA loves to argue about angels on the head of a pin, but this is ridiculous. Just censure them and discipline anyone who advocates for homosexuality. If they won’t, then have the local churches stop paying the Presbyteries who are okay with this. If the PCA won’t have the courage to do this, then they get to be the new PCUSA. Congratulations.

BJ

BJ, your summary phrase says it all nicely—boundary pushing.


I write again, not because I think it really matters to you what I think, but because your words have helped me and strengthened me for many years, and I wish more Christians would open themselves to your teaching and pastoral counsel at its best. Thank you so much for this post on The Mortification of Courtly Love . . . Your pointed assessment of decided weaknesses of Wesley Hill’s vision of friendship (finally!), your assessment of the watershed nature of this conference for evangelical Christianity, your engagement with Matt Anderson’s ambitions as noble and high-minded, but quite probably naive when it comes to shaping the actual issues at stake in this Revoice conference are all straight up the middle bulls-eyes. Thank you. It would have been deeply and tragically ironic if these young people (compared to you!), some of whom I believe are genuinely God-fearing and seeking to call others to a counter-cultural but joyful pathway of cruciform-shaped discipleship, lacked sincerely articulated Godly fatherly counsel from someone who really cares as much as you do about calling people to repent and believe the gospel, and who has spent so much time developing the problem of Father Hunger which is at the core of so many of these issues we are facing. They probably need that in person even more than in writing, so maybe faithful older men like yourself need to consider going to that conference if it ends up going forward to contend for the faith in person. Be that as it may, I wanted to say thank you for an excellent post. This is the kind of engagement that seems much more appropriate to the battle at hand. I pray for you and others who seek to fight God’s battle for God’s Church in God’s way. That is a tall order in these fractious times.

Michelle

Michelle, thank you very much. But the organizers of the conference are now uninviting any registrants who have written against the conference online, and is refunding their money. And so, in record time they have established the social justice form of dialog, which is “I talk, you listen.”


Is all this talk of homosexuality something that is of the flesh, or something that is of the Spirit? Romans 8 is pretty clear: “Those who live according to the flesh have their minds set on what the flesh desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. The mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the Spirit is life and peace. The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God.”

Dan

Dan, thanks.


I appreciate your sound words on the conference. However, in this post you seem to be premature in decrying Covenant Seminary.  The seminary is not sponsoring or organizing the event, and the one speaker (Jay Sklar) has stated that he isn’t affirming everything in the conference. He is going to be articulating the Bible’s prohibition of homosexuality.

There are two statements on this, one from the President and one from Dr. Sklar:

Maybe I’m missing something, but your strong words for the seminary seem premature at best.

Tim

Tim, given what I mentioned above, which is that critics of the conference are not even being allowed to attend it, that would indicate at the very least that the organizers are not expecting Dr. Sklar to say anything that would be contrary to the agenda of the movement. And while I don’t have any problem with the “I’ll go anywhere to preach the gospel” standard (which is the position I hold), I believe that in this case it is disingenuous. I would be willing to speak at Revoice also, but am not expecting an invitation. It is very plain that they do not want any discordant voices, and they are not expecting one in Dr. Sklar.


What Temptation Is

There seems to be a kind of temptation that is either a direct assault from Satan against the mind, or just low-level psychological noise: the sudden impulse to cause a sensational crash by swerving into traffic, blasphemous words crossing your mind, or a promiscuous image. I usually dismiss these thoughts as feeble inputs by Satan, attempts to bind me to the fear that I’m a psychopath or blasphemer; but should they be understood as real temptations, in spite of their apparent passive nature? Is the passivity an illusion? Do they really represent the secret longings of my flesh? If they really tempt, was our Lord similarly tempted?

Douglas

Douglas, I think it depends on whether the outrageous thought has any “purchase” in you. Sometimes the fleeting blasphemy is just external harassment. Other times it might reveal a closet in your heart that needs to be cleaned out.


It’s sad to say but the only people who are allowed to be feminine are not women these days but men. The opposite is true—the only people who are allowed to be masculine are women. We are a very confused people. My husband and I became a form to the PCA church but we saw crouching liberalism, and political correctness as well. We were not allowed to use the word abortion and homosexuality and any announcements in the church as to not offend anyone. My husband and I knew this denomination was headed in the wrong direction even then. There’s been much compromise for a long time in the PCA but there are still many faithful and I pray that they don’t go down without a fight. My husband also looked into going to Calvin College 14 years ago and when he visited and met with the staff he couldn’t believe how liberal it was. Thankfully did not go but it is no shock to us they are where they are now.

Valerie

Valerie, yes. Sins and compromises can be mustard seeds also.


We’ve arrived at this point because the Church lost its shame concerning heterosexual relationships. Divorce came first. The expansion of what was permissible became wide enough to erase. Shame. Then premarital sex and shacking up. Repentance is defined as getting married no matter that the fornication continues in a public and proud way. Perhaps we need to dial it back and do a Vince Lombardi—“gentlemen, this is a football.”

Jeff

Jeff, yes. Our problem is not our homosexuals. Our problem is our sexuals.


I appreciate your Post entitled “As the Serpent Uncoils” very much. Concerning all that you say about Revoice and its issues, I am in 110 percent agreement. I have more of a Christological question for you. When Romans 8:3 says that Christ came in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin, in order to condemn sin in the flesh, what does this mean? I am sure I must be in error because it seems my understanding is not at all in the mainstream of orthodoxy, but I conceive of Christ taking on flesh that has all the issues and deficiencies as ours, except that Christ is not guilty for this because He came in the likeness of sinful flesh “on account of sin,” in other words, to atone for our sin. It is part of His bearing His people’s sin. Adam is not His federal head, and so He cannot be charged with original sin or any guilt whatsoever for the sinful flesh that He has taken on for the sake of His people. As our sin is imputed to Him as He suffers and dies on the cross, could it not be that the sinfulness of the sinful flesh He takes on be sin/sinfulness that is imputed to Him from His own elect people? I think that is the essence of my question and position. I realize that sin arises from our soul, but Scripture also seems to indicate that our own corrupt bodies can tempt us, leading us into sin. Is a person suffering from PTSD not suffering in part at least from a chemical/physical/bodily issue (I am not denying that there are spiritual issues as well)? So then, could not Christ have dealt with internal temptations just as we do, perhaps even internal temptations toward homosexuality, and yet FOR HIM it would not be sinful because He came in the likeness of sinful flesh, and yet He came with this “on account of sin,” in order to “condemn sin in the flesh.” So the guilt, the sinfulness, if you will, of the flesh Christ came in owes to our own sinfulness, and thus we bear the blame for that sinfulness and not Christ, but Christ came in this way, in the likeness of sinful flesh, in order to redeem us from it. So, for Jesus, His internal temptations and their sinfulness were not accredited to Him, but to His people; He was not sinful, because He came bearing these temptations on behalf of His chosen people. Any human being who is not the God-Man cannot claim that their sinful flesh is of no fault of their own. It is, for we are represented by Adam our federal head, and are guilty in him. Therefore, if my friend says he has same-sex attraction/homosexual orientation—that for him is a sinful, internal temptation. It is sin, and it is his sin. Jesus could have taken that on in the incarnation, suffered with it if you will, but in such a way that the sinfulness of that internal temptation was not his sin, but the sin of those for whom He suffered. As an ironic twist to all this, in an email exchange with Greg Johnson, who pastors the PCA church where the Revoice conference is set to be held, he told me that Romans 1 indicates that all humanity is to blame for homosexual temptation, by which I believe he means same-sex attraction. Because we all sinned in Adam, he said that we all brought upon humanity the effects of the fall. So when we see homosexual sin, it is we who should grieve for what “we” have done to humanity when we sinned in Adam. He went on to say that most who experience same-sex attraction never chose the attraction or orientation, and that the condition “is part of God’s curse on our idolatry. We human idolaters all share in the blame.” Anyway, I don’t know if my view concerning Christ requires a belief in Traducianism or what, or how Traducianism would even work for the God-Man. So perhaps you could just point out to me how my position is heretical and illogical so that I can kick this understanding to the curb once and for all and swim to safer shores :) In Christ,

Thomas

Thomas, two things. I actually agree with Johnson in saying that no sinner can declare independence from any sin. We are all complicit in everything. But what we do with that matters. I can either repent of all sin as though it were my own, or I can start indulging all sin as though it were my own. I think that Revoice is encouraging the latter.

With regard to the “likeness of sinful flesh,” I would say this. I take it as saying that Christ took on the appearance of an ordinary man, all the rest of whom were internally corrupt. You couldn’t tell that Jesus was not that way by looking at Him walk down the street. He took on the form of a servant, the form of a sinner. And in this, He was a servant, but He was not a sinner.


Fancy Boy Issues

Fancy boy: If you are referring to the photo you also have in your post, your points notwithstanding, the absence of socks gives it away.

Bethyada

Bethyada, the socks will tell.


Thank you for this very cogent, timely, biblical, and winsome piece (“Hey, Fancy Boy”). It is regularly a blessing to be encouraged and admonished by your writing . . . as a fellow follower of Christ by grace through faith in His name, I wanted to encourage you to continue to fight the good fight of faith in deed and in truth. Excelsior ad Dei gloriam and greetings from Little Rock,

Chad

Chad, thanks very much.


“Splagchnonistical” That’s a word worth a Benjamin. Googling it was no help at all. The only result was your Goldberg article. Since it seems you made it up, would you mind telling us what it means?

Also for interested readers, I made an RSS feed out of your blog (this link should work: ) as well as a channel that Pushbullet users can subscribe to [in order] to get notified every time you post something new (see here: ). Disclaimer: only for the serious readers.

Clayton

Clayton, thanks for the links. And I am afraid that word was a coinage of my own, and is taken from the Greek word for the intestines. Roughly rendered, it would mean “dredged out of the gut.”


Isn`t this just another sign of the Hillbilly Elegy complaining the symbols around him are changing? Something like when the Scots started seeing men wearing decent pants and thought these men were pansies for not being ready for war at all times by having a lot of leg freedom? The mannerisms and manly symbols of a once dominant group are passing away. Douglas Wilson is simply trying to keep Idaho looking the same—Hillbilly Elegy.

LJ

LJ, in a confusing world, there will be people who are falsely accused of being pansies and fops. But there is also such a thing as being a pansy and a fop. In other words, I am sure that there were many instances when the kilt-wearers were exactly right. This is one of those times.


Child Communion

Re: the Wainscot Pastor Wilson, As one of those who reads your words at risk of disapproval, thank you for your faithful exposition of the God’s word. A question, if I may: I’m in the PCA and thinking about attending seminary but inclined toward the admission of children to the Lord’s Supper—do you have recommendations? If you would be willing to write about the options some time, I might not be the only one interested in reading your thoughts on the subject. Thanks!

Name Withheld

NW, I am afraid that I am not in a position to rate seminaries based on their openness to child communion. The landscape consensus is pretty bleak that way, and openness to it is often a consequence of liberalism, not exegesis. So, if that stalls you out . . . here go.


Joel McDurmon

A Brief Reply to Joel McDurmon: From Joel’s: “This is not to say eyes count for nothing. A man in a dress is a man in a dress; but this case is trying to draw those lines where they are not clear and God has not clearly spoken, ‘Thou shalt not.’” I don’t think God has said “thou shalt not wear a dress.” Joel is drawing that line all on his own, and he’s doing it by means of his eyes and judgement. Perhaps the question should be asked, “Is there an effeminate way to dress? Is there a masculine way to dress?” Obviously, based on this above comment, he believes that there is. So if there are two established end points, there’s a point in between there where one becomes the other. I hope it’s obvious to Joel that such a point isn’t right down at the end, just millimeters before the dress itself; if only because it’d be silly and baseless. Talk about drawing lines in the sand. Sounds like Joel just doesn’t like dresses.

Isaiah

Isaiah, thanks. I had some Facebook discussions about this which illustrated your point nicely.


More on Paige Patterson

“Paige Patterson at Colonus”—I waited to interact until a little more information had come to light, and thought I would share now that it has. There was a motion at the 2018 SBC to dismiss the entire executive committee of the trustee board for SWBTS; speaking in favor of the motion was actually a member of the full trustee board. Bart Barber, a very well respected pastor of a rural Texas church and member of the executive committee rose on a point of personal privilege, and explained how he personally came to the decision that Patterson should have been terminated. He did not speak for the whole board, only himself, so his reasons were not those of the press release, and it essentially came down to insubordination, as he revealed several facts that had not been made public. You can read the summary from the Baptist Standard here. Or you can watch the entire video of the debate here. (It is under “Wednesday Afternoon” and the entire video labeled “Previously Scheduled Business” concerns this matter)

Joshua

Joshua, thanks for the additional information.


Calvinism

In response to your Calvinism 4.0. While we are spiritually dead, I never hear Calvinists bring up the soul. Are our souls dead too?

Matt

Matt, in Scripture death should be understood as separation, not cessation. In physical death, the soul is separated from the body. In spiritual death, the soul and body is separated from God. So yes, we have souls, and they are separated from God, and therefore in a state of spiritual death.


Covenant Objectivity

Where do you find the idea of the objectivity of the covenant? Did you get it from a particular Puritan writer? I’m not suggesting you’re not getting it from Scripture, I’m just curious as to what developed your thinking on this view of covenant theology.

Tim

Tim, the best place to see the objectivity of the covenant as a matter of historical theology would be in Peter Lillback’s The Binding of God.


Rethinking on Courtship?

So this question is not related to anything you’ve written recently. You were one of the guys who heavily promoted the courtship movement back in the 90s and 2000s. With Josh Harris now taking a step away from courtship, I am wondering where you stand on that subject today? Have you rethought any of your positions or changed your mind on anything? Does Her Hand in Marriage still accurately represent your views on how to go about getting married? (This is not a gotcha question—as a single man pushing 30, I am genuinely trying to work these things out myself.)

Andrew

Andrew, yes, my views are still represented well in Her Hand in Marriage. I have made additional qualifications and clarifications since, which can be found here on my blog for the most part.


Eschatology

I am a fairly recent convert to the Post Millennial eschatological position by listening to you expound on the subject. Although I still have questions, thanks to you the Post Mill view makes the most biblical sense. My question is; how is the Post Mill view differentiated from the Kingdom Now or the Dominion Theology that is practiced by groups typically in the New Apostolic Reformation. I have struggled to get a clear delineation. Thank you in advance!

David

David, I know that there are optimillennialists in other quadrants of the church, but I simply don’t know enough about them to do a side-by-side comparison.


Trump Isn’t Going Away

As an avid consumer of the Plodcast I thought you’d be interested in this article by Victor Davis Hanson: https://www.hoover.org/research/hillarys-hamartia . . . As I’ve mentioned before I voted for Trump. I did so understanding he was somewhat of a travesty, but since that moment I’ve become much more comfortable with my decision. This article helps push me down the road a bit. Not so sure it will do the same for you, but I had to at least try.

TF

TF, thanks for sharing.


Ego Preachers

“So when it was just a matter of personal ego, Paul was absolutely willing to let it go.” So are you saying that Paul was giving a pass to those who “preach Christ” as a matter of personal ego, even out of envy and strife? Paul did not in any way shape or form approve of such things, and in other places (like, the next chapter!) he spoke out explicitly against such behavior. Seems to me this verse is more a commentary on God’s sovereignty than some kind of tacit approval for such egomaniacs.

GRH

G (may I call you G?), I agree. Paul was not countenancing such sin. I am saying that so long as the envious preacher stayed orthodox, Paul didn’t let it get under his skin. You don’t charge someone at presbytery because you think that they are competing with you for the “best preacher” award. But you do say something when they veer off from preaching Christ—and which is something that can be shown and proven.


Mutterings Among the Outcast

“As it turns out, it is possible to look at the analytics, look at the stats, look at the trackers, and follow the adventures of a hot little something you said, studiously ignored in public, but obviously bounced all over tarnation in private.” I’d give a Klondike bar to see just one of those maps.

A reader

AR, as one who knows something about all the goings-on, I think you would be safe to raise your offer to three Klondike bars.


Take heart and be of strong courage. For if all the echelons of Corporate in Evangelicaldom Inc. HQ determine you are of too little significance to be responded to, er, what you say is of too yippy significance for them to actually provide a decent response, all the agitated onlookers on the other side of the embargo, Side ABC, must at least afford you this: you’re funny, man! I now unconsciously grin whenever the phrase “coventantal contraband” floats into my thoughts. Maybe that’s what makes you so alarming, what raises the threat level to DEFCON Q+: “Do Not Engage Under Any Circumstances.” This dog’s yip is so hilarious to listen to, people are magnetized at the ensuing chaos of the HOA trying to shut it up. “The Siren’s Yip” could explode YouTube. Lol.

Patrick

Patrick, thanks very much. And at the risk of wrecking it, humor is one of the most serious things I do.


Separated Families

I’m curious about your perspective on the “separated families crisis” at the border. Can you write a blog post about it? Thanks!

Rachel

Rachel, I hope to be able to do so. But frankly, it might be a dead issue by the time I get to it—the bloodhounds of the media are baying after absolutely anything that they think might bring down Trump, and this whole thing was simply one more manufactured screamer. So by the time I write about “separated families at the border,” the hot issue of the moment will be Trump’s ice cream selections, and my biblical analysis of “how best to detain the family units of illegals” will be yesterday’s newspaper.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
98 Comments
Oldest
Newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
JP Stewart
JP Stewart
4 years ago

Since someone brought up a Texas pastor in the SBC, here’s one for the “You’ve Come a Long Way, Baby” department. A woman in an SBC church in Texas divorced her husband, fell in love with a lady and started to proudly bring her wife to church: https://www.texasstandard.org/stories/a-southern-baptist-woman-describes-coming-out-at-60/ “But then, I feel that God nudged me at that time. If I stayed, I told myself that I had a very unique opportunity to become known as a gay Christian …she joined me at the church, then together we became the church’s example of a gay Christian couple. And we made… Read more »

Jill Smith
Jill Smith
4 years ago
Reply to  JP Stewart

Coming out at 60! If I had ever wanted to come out, by 60 I would have wanted to go back in again!

JP Stewart
JP Stewart
4 years ago
Reply to  Jill Smith

But imagine if you did and wrote a book about it. Would you compliment yourself in the title like she does? “Out – A Courageous Woman’s Journey”

Maybe “Wonder Woman Aint’ Got Nothin’ On Me: A Catholic Woman’s Mad Adventures Into and Out of the Closet”?

Jill Smith
Jill Smith
4 years ago
Reply to  JP Stewart

My describing myself as courageous anywhere, let alone in a book title, would send my friends into fits of derisive laughter. They would be issuing cruel parodies: “The Mouse that Squeaked: She told her ex to come pick up his stuff after a ten year separation, and when he said no, she said That’s okay, sorry I asked.” They would crack jokes about which closet I was referring to, the one that with the vacuum cleaner that falls on my head or the one piled high with phone bills from 1987. Seriously, so many of these kinds of books strike… Read more »

The Commenter Formerly Known As fp
The Commenter Formerly Known As fp
4 years ago
Reply to  JP Stewart

This woman who’s playing house with another woman is anything but courageous. She’s itching for an opportunity to make an example of the pastor if/when he decides to grow a pair and apply to them the left foot of fellowship. She, and everyone else, knows full well that the point-and-shriek press, the Democrats (but I repeat myself), some Republicans, and every other faux-outraged screeching harpy on Facebook, Twitter, and any other social media sewer will have their torches and pitchforks at the ready to hound this poor minister out of his pastorate and deprive him of any ability to earn… Read more »

JP Stewart
JP Stewart
4 years ago

Well put. And the pastor can’t expect much support from the new breed of movers & shakers in the SBC world. The new SBC president would find some way to praise the lady, condemn the pastor and still maintain that he holds a Biblical view of homosexuality as a sin.

Jill Smith
Jill Smith
4 years ago

I am troubled by Doug’s suggestion to Barnie that a gay man wanting to live chastely can find a woman and marry her. It reminded me a little of a recent Bayly post (June 11) about a hypothetical gay man who attends his church penitently, is active in counseling and Bible study, yet weekly goes to a gay bar and picks someone up for sex. Bayly advises immediate marriage; as he says, “why aren’t pastors and church officers commanding those men and women who talk about their homosexual lusts to marry and raise up a godly seed for the Lord?… Read more »

Justin Parris
Justin Parris
4 years ago
Reply to  Jill Smith

Jill, I have a couple thoughts on this. Firstly, must we treat homosexuality as fundamentally differently than other forms of perversions? Suppose a man could only achieve *ahem* satisfaction under other, hetereosexual, perverse conditions. Would you oppose suggesting that he marry a wife who is uninterested in such things? I find it strange that the assumption is being run that “If the guy has sinful interests other than his wife, he WILL indulge them”. After all, I’d wager that on average most men have sexual interests that their wives don’t meet, from body type to ethnicity and so on, that… Read more »

Jill Smith
Jill Smith
4 years ago
Reply to  Justin Parris

Good thoughts, Justin, let me take them one by one. I will try to phrase this delicately yet clearly enough that you know what I’m talking about. Consider the straight man who is only truly satisfied by the expression of physical cruelty during sex, or by doing something that Catholics are not allowed to do and women tend to intensely dislike because it is painful and degrading. Those are serious hang-ups, but at least his preferred sexual partner is a woman. He can love her as a woman without constantly wishing that she were a man. My point is that… Read more »

Justin Parris
Justin Parris
4 years ago
Reply to  Jill Smith

“My point is that being gay is much more than a liking for sex with men; being gay also determines whom they love and with whom they want to share their minds and souls.” I don’t think this is the case for a fair number of homosexuals, though that hypothesis is obviously beyond impossible to prove. ” In this case, wouldn’t it be naive to think that sex with a woman–sex which he may well find second best–is going to be more successful? ” You could say the same thing of the nicotine patch for smoking, and while its success… Read more »

Jill Smith
Jill Smith
4 years ago
Reply to  Justin Parris

The word was coined by a female computer programmer in 1994 who described herself as an involuntary celibate and then shortened it to incel. They are a very scary group these days, now that they have taken the Santa Barbara mass murderer Elliot Rodgers as their hero. You remember that he left a manifesto attributing the killings to his inability to get a date. The recent mass murderer in Toronto said he was honoring Elliot Rodgers. He, too, couldn’t get a date. This might have had something to do with his extreme weirdness. He roamed the hallways of his college… Read more »

JP Stewart
JP Stewart
4 years ago
Reply to  Jill Smith

“I must say I have some pity for those virginal Christian girls in Bayly’s church who , like Lot’s daughters, are being fed to the mob in the hope of quelling homosexual lust.” I don’t know how much of that is actually happening. I’m sure both the girls and their parents would have plenty to say about that. Heck, I’ve heard a lot of young Christian women say they want nothing to do with men who’ve ever struggled with porn (even if they’re virgins in the real world). Depending which study you read, that eliminates 50-70% of eligible men in… Read more »

Jill Smith
Jill Smith
4 years ago
Reply to  JP Stewart

I would really hope for strong parental involvement! I don’t like to see myself as hard-hearted. But I think marriage is hard enough without going out of your way to find red flags. My daughter is no longer under my care and control, but if she wanted to marry a man six months out of rehab for crack cocaine, I would be nagging night and day. And leaving pamphlets all over her bed. I think I would want to know what someone meant by “struggled” when it comes to porn. I grew up in an era where girls took for… Read more »

OKRickety
OKRickety
4 years ago
Reply to  Jill Smith

Jill Smith said: ‘I think I would want to know what someone meant by “struggled” when it comes to porn. I grew up in an era where girls took for granted that even normal guys look at porn from time to time. It was just one of those weird sex differences. If a guy couldn’t leave his porn to take me out dancing, that would be another story!‘ I would suppose that “struggling with porn” would refer to using porn even when one believes it is sinful or harmful to do so. Contrary to the idea that “even normal guys… Read more »

JP Stewart
JP Stewart
4 years ago
Reply to  OKRickety

The women have obviously been neglected, taken for granted, emotionally abused or something. The men are simply horrible perverts, even if their habit started after a 12-year sexual drought in their marriage (channeling my best MeMe).

Jill Smith
Jill Smith
4 years ago
Reply to  JP Stewart

Oh you just skimmed the surface, JP. Not only are they horrible perverts; they are also sadistic. They bring their filthy images into the house to create insecurity in their wives who have bodies bearing the marks of age and childbearing, not the bodies of airbrushed, siliconed hussies. The poor wife, knowing the race is already lost, can scarcely drag herself to the starting post. And these depraved males who call themselves Christians have committed the worst crime in the book (short of putting a roofie in a pretty girl’s drink, failing to get progressive consent, or feeding your wife… Read more »

OKRickety
OKRickety
4 years ago
Reply to  Jill Smith

Jill,

I wish your first paragraph had ended with </sarcasm>. For a while, I thought you actually believed that, probably because you expressed exactly what I think is believed by a large number, maybe the majority, of Christian women in the USA today.

While I agree that a married couple should have fun, both in and out of the bedroom, I have my doubts that porn usage would be in that category.

Jill Smith
Jill Smith
4 years ago
Reply to  OKRickety

OKR, I am sure I am as corruptible as the next person, but never by ideas presented to me without a trace of humor! During my time at the Status of Women I was struck by the grim seriousness, the utter dreariness of it all. They excel at removing every bit of light-hearted romance from male-female relations. Worse, they made me feel like Molly the horse in Animal Farm who fraternizes with the enemy in return for hair ribbons and sugar cubes! I think I’ve told this anecdote before, but I attended one session where after some debate a resolution… Read more »

OKRickety
OKRickety
4 years ago
Reply to  Jill Smith

Jill, out of curiosity, what was the population of the “remote northern village” and enrollment of the school?

Jill Smith
Jill Smith
4 years ago
Reply to  OKRickety

The population was around 1500, but many of those were itinerant oil drillers, miners, pipeline workers, and trappers. For people there all year round, it was closer to 1000. Many of them lived outside the village, and their children were bused in from as far as 60 miles away. Three hundred miles of taiga separated us in all directions from the nearest neighboring settlement. The place was originally a Hudson Bay trading post, but it was developed by the US Army building the Alaska Highway. (which wasn’t paved in my day). In fact, the teachers lived in teacherages which were… Read more »

Jill Smith
Jill Smith
4 years ago
Reply to  OKRickety

OKR, perhaps it is the result of my having come of age in a simpler time, but I find this kind of attitude very intrusive as well as pretty silly. Had my husband left porn pictures lying around the living room with notes saying “Why can’t you look as good as she does?” or “I’ve ordered some handcuffs from the classifieds in a cop magazine,” I would have realized that he (and I) had a problem. But surely husbands are entitled to some area of their lives that are free from wifely scrutiny. I would not want a husband to… Read more »

kyriosity
kyriosity
4 years ago
Reply to  Jill Smith

It’s late, and I’m too tired to read the other replies, so apologies if I’m repeating anyone, but I think you’re changing Tim’s meaning by inserting “immediately” into your summary. I’m not sure if he’s written in more detail about the process he would counsel, but I assume it is careful and not hasty and requires evidence of repentance.

-BJ-
-BJ-
4 years ago

Am I the only one bewildered by Barnie’s comment?

The more conspiratorial part of me thinks he is backhandedly trolling on Jonah Goldberg and Doug’s support of him. I doubt Barnie actually likes him, (I certainly don’t), but I could be wrong.

JP Stewart
JP Stewart
4 years ago
Reply to  -BJ-

Yes, though I’m not sure if it’s really the same guy. He described the behavior as “buggery” in the past.
https://dougwils.com/books-and-culture/s7-engaging-the-culture/propriety-saying-expel-ass.html

-BJ-
-BJ-
4 years ago
Reply to  JP Stewart

Buggery? He is definitely trolling then. He always had that subversive, alt-right-like approach to technology.

Or, I guess it could be someone else.

Jill Smith
Jill Smith
4 years ago
Reply to  -BJ-

BJ, Barney’s first paragraph is quoted (without attribution) from a Jonah Goldberg essay:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2010/12/gay-becomes-bourgeois-jonah-goldberg/. Why he used quotation marks around the second paragraph and not the first is known only to Barney.

-BJ-
-BJ-
4 years ago
Reply to  Jill Smith

That makes sense. Barnie was trying to quote the whole thing, but mistakenly missed the quotes on the first paragraph. I didn’t think Barnie would like Goldberg, especially given that he is part of the (((tribe))). I have gotten some hints from him that he might not be a part of the Israel lobby, shall we say. Yep, he was trying to quote Goldberg to Doug. Doug’s support of Goldberg has bee confusing to me. I don’t like him . He, along with Ben Shapiro, another tribesman incidentally , are far too globalist in their defense of capitalism for my… Read more »

Jill Smith
Jill Smith
4 years ago
Reply to  -BJ-

One of the advantages of keeping the Mossad on speed dial!

JP Stewart
JP Stewart
4 years ago
Reply to  Jill Smith

Your next assignment is a citizen’s arrest of Maxine Waters (you are in CA, right)?

Jill Smith
Jill Smith
4 years ago
Reply to  JP Stewart

Nobody tangles with Mad Maxine. Didn’t I just explain at some length that courage and I are not on nodding terms?

Justin Parris
Justin Parris
4 years ago
Reply to  -BJ-

” He, along with Ben Shapiro, another tribesman incidentally , are far too globalist in their defense of capitalism for my liking. #trumptradewar”

I haven’t followed Goldberg super closely, but Shapiro’s argument that free trade, even one way free trade, still mathematically works in our favor, has nothing to do with globalism. That more than one country is involved does not make it a globalist viewpoint.

-BJ-
-BJ-
4 years ago
Reply to  Justin Parris

Global free trade is the main cause of the immigrant pressure we are facing. Labor and capital move through the path of least resistance. Our desire for unfettered resistance in the global markets are going to continue to increase the demand for free movement of labor. That system works very well for the corporate and politically connected. It destroys the world of those who are not. Their wages are diminished and their jobs are lost; their cultures are radically changed and in a democracy their voting power is diminished. Shapiro almost always pushes back against this criticism by saying that… Read more »

Justin Parris
Justin Parris
4 years ago
Reply to  -BJ-

“Global free trade is the main cause of the immigrant pressure we are facing. ” Would you care to explain how this is the case? For one, by far the most common response I see from defendants of protectionist tariffs, including from Trump himself, is that what we have *isn’t* free trade. So if Trump is right and what we have is not free trade, how can free trade be at fault for the immigration crisis? Further, since what Trump claims is that he wants free trade, and is creating tariffs as a bargaining position to get two way free… Read more »

-BJ-
-BJ-
4 years ago
Reply to  Justin Parris

“Would you care to explain how this is the case?” Simple, free movement of labor is the parallel to free movement of capital. Resources attract capital, and capital attracts labor. I know we are no where close to a truly free economy in the US, but the immigrants coming into the US are coming for job opportunities. They are not running from violence (or not mostly), they are running from poverty to job opportunities. If they can get a free education for their kids along the way, great. Why do you think both Republican and Democrat establishment types are for… Read more »

demosthenes1d
demosthenes1d
4 years ago
Reply to  -BJ-

“One gets cheap labor for corporations, the other gets votes.”

Both get cheap labor. And awful lot of blue tribe professional managerial elite use immigrant labor for nannies, lawn care, cosmetic workers, restraunteers, etc. Indeed immigrants being willing to crowd into tiny dwellings and/or make massively long commutes makes the price of luxury services in places like Manhattan, San Francisco, and Seattle much more affordable for the merely affluent.

I have nothing against the immigrants trying to escape crushing poverty but the economic benefits (and costs) are not equally distributed.

Justin Parris
Justin Parris
4 years ago
Reply to  -BJ-

“Simple, free movement of labor is the parallel to free movement of capital. Resources attract capital, and capital attracts labor. Do you mean to suggest that without free trade we wouldn’t have the resources to attract illegal immigrants? Because this appears to be tantamount to suggesting that without free trade we would be a poor country. Certainly, what you’re suggesting is that without free trade, the policy you propose, we would have *more* resources. If we had more resources, wouldn’t we attract comparatively more labor than we do now? If we agree that immigants are coming because they smell the… Read more »

Jill Smith
Jill Smith
4 years ago
Reply to  Justin Parris

Justin, I have thought a lot about your last point, and I have a hard time understanding what the government could do to preserve culture. Canada relies on legal immigration to supply its remote regions with medical and dental care. Sometimes these Indian doctors and nurses then face opposition from a small town that has been solidly Polish Catholic or German Lutheran for generations. As more Indians move into the town, is it the government’s role to limit their numbers in deference to popular desire to maintain the old status quo? This desire is understandable but is it virtuous? Is… Read more »

Justin Parris
Justin Parris
4 years ago
Reply to  Jill Smith

My personal answer Jill is, and this is just my subjective feeling, backed by nothing concrete of any kind, is that the government is a referee and not a player. The government (barring an openly theocratic society, which I would not oppose given the correct base Doctrine) should not care one jot about which culture is more successful. There’s no mechanism in the government to accurately discern good cultures from bad, so it’s only natural that any attempt to approve of one culture more than another will inevitably result, at some point, in the government endorsing an evil culture over… Read more »

JohnM
JohnM
4 years ago
Reply to  Jill Smith

“Sometimes these Indian doctors and nurses then face opposition from a small town that has been solidly Polish Catholic or German Lutheran for generations.”

But not back to the first generation of European immigrants to Canada, right? Same as in the U.S. As a descendant of British colonists (who doesn’t want to make too much of that) it amuses me when descendants of 19th/early 20th century immigrants express nativist outrage against contemporary immigrants.

demosthenes1d
demosthenes1d
4 years ago
Reply to  Justin Parris

Justin, I’ll let BJ answer most of your questions as he likely has a very different understanding from me. I am not opposed to free trade and I agree, in the abstract – every instance has its own unique features – that even unilateral free trade makes us wealthier in the aggregate. However, due to the way trade policy making works these impacts do not scale in over time as new markets open and as regions attract capital and gain competitive advantage. They happen all at once, when NAFTA is signed, or when China subsidizes domestic steel or neodymium. People… Read more »

-BJ-
-BJ-
4 years ago
Reply to  Justin Parris

Justin, it really feels like you are intentionally obfuscating the issue here. If capital and goods can cross a border without impediment (like tariffs), then capital and jobs grow where there are adequate resources. Basic capitalism. Where jobs grow and capital is available, people go to get these jobs and this capital. Two sides of the same coin. Right now, the Ted Cruz and Ben Shapiro types want no barriers for capital and goods, but strong barriers for people. But this creates a pressure for people to work around the barriers. That is why we have the issues we have… Read more »

Justin Parris
Justin Parris
4 years ago
Reply to  -BJ-

“Justin, it really feels like you are intentionally obfuscating the issue here.” Why? You’re making a moral accusation here and providing no reasoning or evidence. “Where jobs grow and capital is available, people go to get these jobs and this capital. Two sides of the same coin.” No arguments here. You’re just ignoring my point. As I stated, we would have ample jobs and capital even without free trade with Mexico, so the policy implemented has no relevance to the immigration problem. The only way it would is if we would otherwise not have jobs or capital without free trade.… Read more »

-BJ-
-BJ-
4 years ago
Reply to  Justin Parris

It is quite funny, you argue just like Ben Shapiro. “I didn’t say you were a socialist, just that you were acting like a socialist.” “We would be rich without free trade, but you are arguing for our poverty when you argue against free trade.” (Which I didn’t do, btw). My point was very simple. Agree or don’t, I am not going to go rounds with you if you are not willing to concede that free trade and immigration go hand in hand. It is a patently obvious observation that all economists concede, but which complicates the free trade absolutist… Read more »

demosthenes1d
demosthenes1d
4 years ago
Reply to  -BJ-

It is very convenient (and easy) to ignore disparate impact when you are benefitting. As one example (of many), people benefit from the Chinese subsidizing their steel industry. indeed Shapiro is right, at least in the simple sense, that the American economy as a whole benefits. Builders get cheaper material, developers get cheaper buildings, tenants may get (slightly) lower rent, many consumer good a are cheaper, etc. However, the guy who used to work at the foundry is out of a job. The town that is supported by the foundry is out their main employer and all of their social… Read more »

Justin Parris
Justin Parris
4 years ago
Reply to  demosthenes1d

A great perspective overall Demos, and I don’t really take issue to the idea that we need to be more aggressive in acquiring “true” free trade. I just find that, more often than not, claiming to be searching for “true” free trade is a paper thin lie to cover the indefensible economic silliness that’s actually being professed. I don’t feel particularly inclined to rebut much of what you say. I think there’s serious merit to its consideration. However “the town that is supported by the foundry is out their main employer and all of their social capital, and the local… Read more »

Farinata
Farinata
4 years ago
Reply to  Justin Parris

Justin, re: our hypothetical steel mill town, I see that you adressed the point in an ex post facto way – making Chinese steel more expensive doesn’t directly give everyone his job back. But why would it not be the case, if our tariff structure privileged American steel, that the marginal steel mill would tend to stay in business, with all the downstream good effects that this implies: blue-collar jobs, a vibrant and self-supporting community that isn’t largely on the dole, et cetera.? If you tell me that protectionism will cost us in marginal economic growth, isn’t that a price… Read more »

demosthenes1d
demosthenes1d
4 years ago
Reply to  Farinata

Farinata, This is an excellent contribution. Our moral imagination has been pruned so severely that the only language acceptable and persuasive in the public square is economic language. People and social systems must be commensurable, and at the end of the day humans become a fungible commodity (labor) which should flow like other commodities to the place of highest demand or return. There is simply more to life than GDP, or even “standard of living” (as opposed to human flourishing or the “good life”). I expect some of the pressure points here are a radical distrust and devaluing of governments… Read more »

-BJ-
-BJ-
4 years ago
Reply to  demosthenes1d

“I expect some of the pressure points here are a radical distrust and devaluing of governments and collective action and a lack of appreciation for larger social structures such as families, towns, counties, etc. as appropriate for political organization and consideration.” This idea seems to be waning to some degree among some of the people I know. Perhaps the older generation of my semi-rural family never lost it, but even among many of the 20 somethings who are not liberals, government seems to have ceased to be a dirty word. Plus, the focus on community is gaining traction. Not that… Read more »

-BJ-
-BJ-
4 years ago
Reply to  Farinata

You have stated, much more lucidly than I did, my main contention. Thank you.

Jane
Jane
4 years ago
Reply to  demosthenes1d

I don’t see how an appeal to disparate impact helps you. Much as I don’t want to view the steel town as just “collateral damage,” saving the steel town via tariffs might entail ruining the aerospace town or or the construction equipment town. I don’t want them to be collateral damage, either. When there are competing local impacts, it seems like the only rational approach is to do the things that will do the least damage to the overall economy.

demosthenes1d
demosthenes1d
4 years ago
Reply to  Jane

Jane, You have to take a step back in the argument. I am not in favor of using tariffs to prop up the steel industry simpliciter. I am, rather, in favor of preventing foreign agents (or other states possibly) from wrecking domestic economies and society. In the example I gave the Chinese (or Europe or South Africa, it doesn’t matter who) began subsidizing their steel industry. Placing tariffs on those imports to neutralize the subsidies isn’t causing first order harm to other industries. Additionally industrial policy can and should take into account critical industries, especially capital intensive one a like… Read more »

Micael Gustavsson
Micael Gustavsson
4 years ago
Reply to  -BJ-

Really, what is globalism? In what way does it differ from internationalism? I often see it used both about antiracism and free trade as an accusation. And immigration. These are tree separate issues. You can be anti racist and be against free trade, support free trade and be racist etc. If globalist means support for a federal world government, I think many accused of globalism isn’t that at all.

Justin Parris
Justin Parris
4 years ago

“I often see it used both about antiracism and free trade as an accusation. ” I see it most often used as a synonym for “disagreeing with Donald Trump on any issue of foreign policy at all” as a means of ignoring the argument presented. Note that I am not accusing BJ of this. He hasn’t explained his position yet. Just relaying my personal experience. What I see most often, particularly with trade, is people who have been life long conservatives voting in high taxes to “punish the wealthy” but hurting themselves in the process. The only difference in rhetoric… Read more »

Jill Smith
Jill Smith
4 years ago

When it’s not being used by economists and political science mavens, the word can have a number of negative meanings. The one I encounter most frequently when I foray in to right wing boards with a populist flavor is the one that tends to be a dog whistle for “Zionist elites.” Globalists are the shadowy figures manipulating the money supply to ensure their own wealth and your descent into poverty. They are the ones who scorn national borders because it suits them to have an inexhaustible supply of third world maids, nannies, manicurists, pool boys, and chefs who excel at… Read more »

demosthenes1d
demosthenes1d
4 years ago
Reply to  -BJ-

Barney has expressed interest in MacDonalds Culture of Critique; however he also appears to be a big fan of (crazy atheist) Jew Curtis Yarvin (mencius moldbug) so I doubt he would discount Goldberg or Shapiro based on their connection to the Elders of Zion and world jewry.

Related, reactionary book reviewer “Charles,” who I enjoy, recently wrote a somewhat acerbic summation of the “Dark Enlightenment” or “Neo-Reactionary” movement. Some here may find it interesting or useful.

http://theworthyhouse.com/2018/06/27/analysis-dark-enlightenment-curtis-yarvin-mencius-moldbug/

-BJ-
-BJ-
4 years ago
Reply to  demosthenes1d

“I doubt he would discount Goldberg or Shapiro based on their connection to the Elders of Zion and world jewry.”

Fair enough, but he is far too nationalist to like them for their views in other areas.

mys
mys
4 years ago
Reply to  -BJ-

BJ-Are you saying nationalist like it’s a bad thing?

-BJ-
-BJ-
4 years ago
Reply to  mys

No, not at all. I have a pretty strong nationalist streak myself.

demosthenes1d
demosthenes1d
4 years ago
Reply to  Jill Smith

It may have been an editing problem on Doug’s end when he put the comment up, I have noticed some irregularities. I thought it was prettry clear from the context that Barnie was trolling Doug for being a liberal (falling all over himself praising noted liberal Goldberg), which seems to be Barnies primary M.O. in his letters. Doug clearly is a liberal in the classical sense, he has mostly neocon sensibilities but is a bit more circumspect on foreign policy. He has a basically Lockean view of the world. Though he is critical of some aspects his view of right… Read more »

-BJ-
-BJ-
4 years ago
Reply to  demosthenes1d

Well said. I couldn’t agree more. Doug tends to pull, politically, in the right direction most of the time, but his sensibilities are Lockean.

JP
JP
4 years ago
Reply to  -BJ-

I’d say Doug is more of a small “t” theonomist who’s somewhere between National Review and a Lew Rockwell/Tom Woods type. To his credit, he makes a lot more sense than the current American Vision crowd. They apparently went from theonomists to hard-core libertarians who are obsessed with race/slavery and have a soft-spot for other SJW issues (which makes them very different from the Lew Rockwell libertarian types).

-BJ-
-BJ-
4 years ago
Reply to  JP

I don’t read American Vision. What are they about? I thought they were theonomists.

SJW-ism and hard-core libertarianism don’t seem to jive with theonomy in my mind.

JP Stewart
JP Stewart
4 years ago
Reply to  -BJ-

AV was started by a guy named Gary Demar and they were theonomists–and a bit easier to swallow and digest than North or Rushdoony. Gary North’s son-in-law (Joel McDurmon) took over a few years ago. He supposedly took AV in a more libertarian direction and now seems to be sidetracked with SJW stuff. He’s debated Doug on a few things. He recently took Doug to task for the photo of the metrosexual dude in one of his Revoice blogs. Apparently McDurmon thinks it’s just a dapper way to dress and who are we to judge what’s feminine…or something. Here’s a… Read more »

demosthenes1d
demosthenes1d
4 years ago
Reply to  -BJ-

As an aside, libertarianism is the apotheosis of classical liberalism.

*belief in one ideal political system for all places and times. Check.
*belief in the sovereignty of the individual and the elevation of the individual will. Check.
*belief that restriction of individual autonomy is a form of violence. Check.

I’m not making a value judgement against libertarians, many of their critiques are helpful, but they are definitely liberals in the only meaningful sense.

Barnie
Barnie
4 years ago
Reply to  -BJ-

Either Wilson or (more likely) myself misplaced a quotation mark. That’s all Goldberg.

It’s strange that someone as wel- read as Wilson lists John Piper as his favorite (presumably favorite living) author and Goldberg as his favorite pundit/commentator. It’s like meeting Anthony Bourdain and having him tell you that the food in your school cafeteria is the best thing he’s ever eaten.

JP Stewart
JP Stewart
4 years ago

I like what DW posted on his FB page:
“Got a great conference idea from a friend: “‘Hot Messes and the Young Men with Poor Impulse Control Who Love Them.’ We should be able to get one or two chaste friendships out of that.”

Maybe the Revoice fellows can help us figure out what treasures the hook-up culture can bring into the kingdom. And what a “spiritual friendship” between a hormonally-raging 22-year old male and a hot mess should look like.

-BJ-
-BJ-
4 years ago

RE: Trump Isn’t Going Away

After the Supreme Court has given numerous victories to the right in the last few weeks, for both Chamber of Commerce type Republicans, as well the Trump oriented ones, I wonder how any never-Trumper or Trump skeptic can say Trump was the wrong choice over Hillary. The evangelicals who claimed Trump was worse than Hillary have to say that either they are liberals or that they were wrong.

I don’t see any other choice. #stillnotsickofwinnning

*Sorry for all the hashtags. Maybe I should spend more time on Twitter.

JP Stewart
JP Stewart
4 years ago
Reply to  -BJ-

+1. If more Christians jumped on the #nevertrump runaway train, it’s very unlikely this wouldn’ve happened. Here’s what Robert Gagnon had to say” “In a close 5-4 decision the Supreme Court ruled on free-speech grounds that California cannot force crisis pregnancy centers to advertise how to obtain abortions in the state at taxpayer expense. Had Clinton been elected President the Court would have ruled against crisis pregnancy centers because instead of Gorsuch we would have had a hard-left jurist (a young Ruth Bader Ginsberg in effect) replacing Justice Scalia. Ask me if I regret casting an effective vote against Clinton… Read more »

-BJ-
-BJ-
4 years ago
Reply to  JP Stewart

And now we learn that Justice Kennedy is retiring. The Trump victory will secure a conservative Supreme Court for decades.

JohnM
JohnM
4 years ago
Reply to  -BJ-

And despite everything I said, and stand by, I’m not sorry about that.

Barnie
Barnie
4 years ago
Reply to  -BJ-

Are conservative justices prepared to withstand attacks from the FBI and antifa? As long as they define conservative as open borders and wars for Israel they’ll be fine but I wouldn’t count them to hold the line on much more.

-BJ-
-BJ-
4 years ago
Reply to  Barnie

I guess I am not sure what you mean by attacks from the FBI and antifa. What are you envisioning?

mys
mys
4 years ago
Reply to  -BJ-

Well, the FBI was neck-deep trying to stop Trump. Same kinda stuff here.
As for Antifa, unhinged leftists have been behind many shooting attacks like the one at the Congressional ball game.

JohnM
JohnM
4 years ago
Reply to  -BJ-

Only one of those victories really had much to do with Trump, and it was the least important one. One we would have happened in any case, one happened in spite of Gorsuch. True, I’d prefer any of Trumps SCOTUS candidates over any of Clinton’s, and I’ve always said Trump has the virtue of being not-Hillary. However, to say I like his pick better than her’s is saying less for Trump than you think, because I would prefer the nominee of ANY Republican President over anyone ANY Democrat would ever nominate. Nothing Trump can do as President makes him not… Read more »

JP Stewart
JP Stewart
4 years ago
Reply to  JohnM

“Only one of those victories really had much to do with Trump, and it was the least important one.” How would either have happened “anyway” since both were 5-4 decisions…and we’d have Hillary’s pick instead of Gorsuch? In addition, SCOTUS sent the floral-arrangements-for-same-sex-wedding case back to the state of Washington’s Supreme Court to reconsider in light of Masterpiece Cakeshop. And Trump hasn’t been any more damaging to the church than Hillary would be. He’s brought out the SJWs and this will force some big denominations to either stand for the truth of face a large exodus. His election has expedited… Read more »

JohnM
JohnM
4 years ago
Reply to  JP Stewart

Both? I had more than two in mind. I was forgetting about one the NIFLA case, which was decided on the grounds of free speech, and you are correct Gorsuch instead of Hillary’s pick made a difference. Trump vs Hawaii had more directly to do with Trump himself, but as I said, that one matters less. In one of two Fourth Amendment cases Carpenter vs United States, which matters more, Gorsuch voted the wrong way. Masterpiece Cakeshop was so near a slam-dunk it wouldn’t have mattered if Gorsuch or Clinton’s pick was sitting on the court. Trump is more damaging… Read more »

JP Stewart
JP Stewart
4 years ago
Reply to  JohnM

JohnM, you’re still not engaging with my original post. I said “both” because I referred to two very recent cases. I mentioned a third in another comment. Yes, there are others before that, but that’s what my “both” was referring to. As for “Evangelicals are following a particularly profane Pied Piper,” that’s simply your opinion and there’s no evidence for it. Look at the biggest conservative denominations and the issues they’re dealing with: Revoice and softening stance on homosexuality as sin, race-obsession (based on unbiblical identity politics and critical race theory), incipient feminism, etc. The biggest names are either behind… Read more »

-BJ-
-BJ-
4 years ago
Reply to  JohnM

“Only one of those victories really had much to do with Trump”

Every 5-4 decision in this recent spate has to do with Gorsuch, which has to do with Trump. A Hillary victory would have given the Left every oen of those decisions and decades more of them.

Justin Parris
Justin Parris
4 years ago
Reply to  -BJ-

“How would either have happened “anyway” since both were 5-4 decisions…and we’d have Hillary’s pick instead of Gorsuch? ” “Every 5-4 decision in this recent spate has to do with Gorsuch, which has to do with Trump. A Hillary victory would have given the Left every oen of those decisions and decades more of them.” Both of you need to reread his post. He said “However, to say I like his pick better than her’s is saying less for Trump than you think, because I would prefer the nominee of ANY Republican President over anyone ANY Democrat would ever nominate.… Read more »

JP Stewart
JP Stewart
4 years ago
Reply to  Justin Parris

“Both of you need to reread his post. ”

No, Justin, you need to do the re-reading. JohnM started by saying “Only one of those victories really had much to do with Trump, and it was the least important one.”

Again, both 5-4 decisions were decided by Trump’s nominee.

JohnM was responding to BJ and me, and we were clearly talking about Trump winning over Clinton despite the #nevertrump crowd. I noticed JohnM moving the goalposts in the middle of his comment, but didn’t bite on it. This isn’t about Cruz or Rubio hypothetically nominating someone better than Hillary.

JohnM
JohnM
4 years ago
Reply to  JP Stewart

JP, it was about everything you read, not just the part you paid attention to.

JP Stewart
JP Stewart
4 years ago
Reply to  JohnM

JohnM,

I’ve noticed the same stream-of-consciousness and goalpost-shifting approach from you in the past, including the recent socialism discussion. As such, I don’t see any reason to continue. I’m happy to engage with folks with whom I disagree, but not when they ignore clear evidence and redefine the topic in the same paragraph..repeatedly. Ciao.

Justin Parris
Justin Parris
4 years ago

As of the SCOTUS news today, calling it now. Trump wins 2020. Assuming he doesn’t screw up this nomination, 2 of the remaining 4 progressive judges are in their 80’s, with Ginsburg at 85. The potential of a 6-3 or knock on wood a 7-2 conservative Supreme Court? Everyone even slightly right of center will be running to the voting booths, regardless of how they feel about Trump.

JohnM
JohnM
4 years ago
Reply to  Justin Parris

I expect you’re right on your call. Especially in view of the way the Democrats seem to be trending. If anyone wonders how it could happen, just consider the likely alternative the electorate will be offered. Why oh why can a third party not get off the ground?! Of course I’d prefer a sane one, but even a crazy one might merit consideration at this point.

Justin Parris
Justin Parris
4 years ago
Reply to  JohnM

“Why oh why can a third party not get off the ground?!” Because it isn’t mathematically viable in a first past the post voting system. In a system where everyone gets 1 vote, and the candidate with the most vote wins, and candidate that divides a group of people for any reason, hurts both of the resulting groups by making them smaller than the alternative party. You won’t see a third party unless we switch to a multiple votes system. We could, for example, have a system where you vote for *every* candidate, numbering them in the order you would… Read more »

JohnM
JohnM
4 years ago
Reply to  Justin Parris

I’d like to believe the last election cycle plus concern over current extremism and factionalism would provide impetus for really rethinking how we do it, but I’m not optimistic in the near term.

demosthenes1d
demosthenes1d
4 years ago
Reply to  Justin Parris

Viable 3rd parties can and do happen in a first past the post system, but they are either a flash in the pan (bull moose party), or they are in the process of replacing a previously established party (republican party – mid 19th century). We have lived through a period of remarkable political stability in the U.S. that may not last. A viable 3rd party would b a black swan event, but I would be less surprised now than ever.

-BJ-
-BJ-
4 years ago
Reply to  demosthenes1d

Or, the 3rd party candidate takes over the established parties and reshapes them in their image. This is clearly the case with Trump, and kinda sorta happened with Bernie.

At this point, we really have three factions in our current political system. Nationalist-lite Populism with Trump, Socialist-lite populism with Bernie, and Corporatist capitalism with the establishments of both parties. They all just exist in two party organizations.

demosthenes1d
demosthenes1d
4 years ago
Reply to  -BJ-

“Or, the 3rd party candidate takes over the established parties and reshapes them in their image. This is clearly the case with Trump, and kinda sorta happened with Bernie.” I don’t think this is quite right. In both Bernie and Trump you see the ascendancy (or near ascendancy) of a faction that has long been in the coalition. You don’t see a rival coalition or mass movement. Trumps positions on most issues have been a part of the republican coalition since at least the success of the southern strategy. And obviously Bernie-esque social democrats have been part of the democratic… Read more »

-BJ-
-BJ-
4 years ago
Reply to  demosthenes1d

Then we are splitting the hairs on the definition of a third party.

There is always overlap on positions between 3rd party candidates and the main parties. Parties are simply coalitions. If southern democrats of old are now the Trump coalition of today’s Republicans, we are defining parties too fluidly to speak about them “getting off the ground.”

demosthenes1d
demosthenes1d
4 years ago
Reply to  -BJ-

BJ, Maybe it is just definitions, but it appears to me that Trump’s coalition is pretty similar to the coalition that elected GWB and failed to elect Romney and McCain, with some movement around the edges and better turnout with some groups. He emphasized the pet issues of different members of that coalition, but he has at least paid lip service to the concerns of the entire coalition (except gay-marriage, that has moved on to trans issues). If a candidate with a completely different coalition – say a pro-labor, pro-life, trad-catholic who was in favor of universal healthcare – got… Read more »

-BJ-
-BJ-
4 years ago
Reply to  demosthenes1d

Well spoken. I can’t disagree with this. To some degree, there will always be overlap with 3rd party candidates, because a total radical would never gain traction. But, much of Trump’s success (in fact, much of his appeal in the election) was to a portion of the Repub party that had been ignored, rather than bringing in new members to the party that had previously been opposed to the party.

JohnM
JohnM
4 years ago
Reply to  -BJ-

That or established parties take over the 3rd party cause, as the Democrats did the People’s party in 1896.

Micael Gustavsson
Micael Gustavsson
4 years ago
Reply to  Justin Parris

Thats the so called Australian ballot. You can also have a system where there is a runoff with the two most popular candidates if nobody gets over 50% in the first round. Or you can have proportional representation like Israel and the Scandinavian countries do. The latter works this way: let’s say a state gave 50 representatives. Every party presents a list with 50 names. If a party gets 50% it gets 25 persons from their list seated, if a party gets 10% of the vote it gets 5 persons seated etc. And Germany has a complicated mix of first… Read more »

ashv
ashv
4 years ago
Reply to  JohnM

In European parliamentary systems, parties represent various factions and then form a coalition after they’re elected. In the US system, the coalitions are formed first within parties. Amounts to the same thing, overall.

demosthenes1d
demosthenes1d
4 years ago
Reply to  ashv

Good point, ash. It is interesting to me that America has much greater levels of political involvement when parliamentary systems provide more finely graded political choices, ostensibly this should allow people to vote on a platform closer to their preferences. I’m guessing there is a game theory, competition and identification, reason.

Jill Smith
Jill Smith
4 years ago
Reply to  demosthenes1d

In Canada, at least, the three main political parties consist of loosely formed coalitions: The Conservative Party is made up of fiscal conservatives, groups less committed to multiculturalism, and such social conservatives as Canada has. The New Democratic Party contains socialists, trade unionists. and tax-and-spenders. The Liberal Party is pretty much in the middle. If one party gets in with a solid majority, the other parties become the opposition and can’t effectively block legislation. When one party gets in with a minority, the other two can form a coalition to bring down the government with a non-confidence vote. This is… Read more »

mys
mys
4 years ago
Reply to  JohnM

A never-Trump third party would put whatever 2020 Dem runs in the White House. That can’t happen. I assume that RBG is waiting until 2020 at least to retire (assuming she’s still alive now and they aren’t just doing Weekend at Bernie’s with her).