According to President Biden (who is just being the voice of others), there is a threat to this nation today from the inside. What threat? Conservatives. Oh, not all conservatives, to be sure. Any that lean left far enough are fine. No it's those conservatives that, you know, actually believe in conserving principles. Why are they a threat? They "are determined to take this country backwards. Backwards to an America where there is no right to choose, no right to privacy. No right to contraception, no right to marry who you love." Well, now, loss of free choice, of privacy, of access to contraception, of the right to marry whom you love ... that's all bad stuff. So I look around at the conservatives I know or know of and ... huh ... I don't find anyone looking to do that. In fact, I don't find any of those to be principles that used to exist, are now in danger, and ought to be preserved. Strange. (I note that Biden clarified his comments from the speech by saying that those who fail to condemn violence are the problem. Like the folks that called the riots of 2020 "mostly peaceful"?)
Of course, you and I understand that that was all "shorthand." Biden wasn't saying that conservatives actually want that. He was actually being pointed. What is the real threat of genuine conservatives? Well, it apparently actually boils down to two key points. Conservatives are a threat to abortion and same-sex marriage. See? Now we're talking. Yes, conservatives will gladly declare that saving the lives of innocent human beings and defending the traditional, longstanding definition of marriage are indeed two principles worth conserving. At least, to conservatives. For the rest, the thing we need is the right to choose to kill if it gives us what we want and the right to do it privately. No one minds if the means of preventing pregnancy doesn't kill anyone, but if it does, we need the right to do so. And, look, currently no one has the "right to marry who you love." On one hand, you still can't marry two people (or more), marry a relative, marry your pet. We rightly have limits on who people can marry. On the other hand, if marriage actually is the union of a man and a woman for purposes of reproduction and mutual support for life as it always has, then "marry who you love" has always been limited to "man and woman." If the definition carried throughout the ages is actually the correct definition, no one has been prevented from marrying because they are the same sex. That's not marriage. Ultimately, of course, the effect of this "marry the one you love" theme has, as it turns out, devalued marriage. According to government figures in 1931 marriage rates hit their lowest at 8.6 per 1,000 people. There were some high points in the 70's and 80's, but rates started dropping in the 90's and have dropped ever since. In 2018 (the last available record in this report), it hit the lowest -- 6.5. And later reports continue the trend. Among the LGBT crowd, less than 35% have taken advantage of the "marry who you love" option, but the major impact has been that more heterosexual marriages (especially among those of the generation that have grown up with "LGBT" theory) have become what has been termed "monogamish" (a term coined by homosexual couples) -- be faithful as long as they are around; don't bother if they're not. "What difference is it to you if we change your definition?" was always the question they threw at us. Not to me, but to a good part of society, they have managed to redefine marriage into oblivion. And conservatives think marriage -- real marriage -- is worth defending.
Clearly the president (and those who agree) misrepresented the threat. If genuine conservatives have their way, one choice -- killing innocent human beings -- is at risk. One privacy -- the right to kill in private -- is threatened. One contraception -- the contraception that prevents birth by killing an innocent human being -- is in question. And "the right to marry who you love" would not be threatened at all as long as we understand what the phrase means. But none of this matters. In the current societal climate, truth is not at issue. They can't handle the truth. No, "what I want" is their guide. Given the fact that the president of the United States and all who agree with him consider those who disagree on abortion and same-sex mirage a threat, how long will it be before this attitude becomes a very real threat to those who disagree with them? Some who hold such a view have already lost jobs, status, etc. In some countries it is already a hate crime. For Christians, especially, I don't think it's a foolish question (1 Tim 3:12).
1 comment:
The idea there is an actual and real threat from conservatives is mere deception intended to promote distrust and hatred against conservatives. Or, it can be stated that what is said to be a threat from conservatives is their potential response to that which is actually threatening to all Americans from the policies of this administration and its party. Even the Jan 6 dust up was a response as opposed to an initiation of some danger. Thus, I insist the notion of threats from conservatives is nothing more than a warning against opposing what the Dems intend to do. Look at how they reacted to parents objecting to radical teachings in the schools. They insist the parents are "terrorists". This is what you call those who disagree and do so loudly...a threat.
There is no greater threat to the nation than today's Democratic Party. It promotes all manner of evil and harm and does so under the guise of freedom and democracy. My fear is that they will continue to push hard until good people can't take any more, and then real trouble will plague the nation. Cooler heads must prevail, but how long can heads remain cool in the face of so much leftist nonsense?
Post a Comment