Why Are They So Much More Effective?
Last night, a friend and I were discussing the death of Tony Snow. Acknowledging the fact that Snow was a Catholic, as was Tim Russert, my friend asked, “Don’t you feel like there are more and more Catholics in public life, even if not all of them are exemplary Catholics?”
I’m not sure how to answer this, because I don’t have a basis of comparison. But I do know that many well-known Catholics either don’t know or don’t care much about what their faith really teaches. And yet they still self-identify. Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity come to mind. Well-known people who are in a position of influence, and yet do nothing to utilize their positions for the spread of the faith.
In fact, according to the CIA World Fact Book, Roman Catholics comprise nearly 24% of the U.S. population. That is the single largest denomination (Protestants of all stripes are lumped together at 51%) in the country.
You would think, then, that we could exert some influence here, but we don’t seem to be getting much traction. And yet, with a homosexual population in this country that is estimated to comprise (depending on where you get your data) anywhere between 1% and 10%, they are driving their agenda home, day in and day out.
Case in point: an article that appeared in yesterday’s Washington Post, entitled, “Owning His Gay Identity — At 15-Years Old“. The theme of acceptance of abnormal behavior is driven home, again and again:
School’s out, and Saro Harvey and his best friend, Samantha Sachs, are hanging out in his Arlington County bedroom. She is slouched across his bed, and he is poised on a chair, posture-perfect, wearing dark, skinny jeans and a ruffled shirt meant for a girl. A rust-orange purse he sometimes carries hangs behind the door.
The 15-year-olds were voted most popular last spring in their section of ninth grade at Wakefield High School. Still, Saro knows there are those on and off campus who don’t like him, who never will.
He has grown so used to the stares and laughter of strangers that their insults slip off his 118-pound frame like an oversize shirt.
[snip]
In recent years, 110 Gay Straight Alliance clubs, which are common in high schools nationwide, have sprouted in middle schools, including nine in Maryland and Virginia. Kevin Jennings, the founder of the first club, said he “never anticipated” they would also form in middle grades. His organization, the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, is creating age-appropriate pamphlets to respond to the trend.
This year, students in 1,046 middle schools took part in the Day of Silence, a protest against LGBT intolerance, organizers said, double the participation level of the previous year.
“Unlike people of my generation, where there was very little visibility and a great sense of sadness, these kids know gay people are out there,” Jennings said. “They have a language now to understand their feelings.”
[snip]
Days before school let out for summer, the pizza had arrived in John Clisham’s office at Wakefield High, and the students in the GSA club were spread across the sofa and chairs.
One girl told how she was writing her senior project on same-sex marriage. Another explained how in the past few years many girls at the school, especially African Americans, had started saying they were bisexual, thinking it was cool.
A junior told how he fell into his first “gay talk” in fourth grade. His foster mother had asked why he was so into the red Power Ranger. “I said, ‘I don’t know; you tell me.’ ”
Everyone laughed.
[snip]
Doris Jackson, the principal of Wakefield, said the school does not tolerate bullying for any reason. “To me, it’s more than having a policy and enforcing it. It’s establishing an environment of tolerance of everyone,” she said, adding that the school even provides a separate restroom for a transgender student so the person is not forced to use the girl’s room or boy’s room. “When we say we are very diverse, people think racially. But we are diverse racially, culturally, [by] sexual orientation and socio-economic level. Being gay here doesn’t set you apart. You’re just another kid with something about you that is unique.”
Why are they winning the ideological war? Why can’t we get a foothold? In the so-called “marketplace of ideas”, why can’t a quarter of the population of this country get an inch of wiggle room, even if only a portion of that percentage actually care enough to try?
Never have so many given up so much to so few.
Filed under: Culture Wars
The “marketplace of ideas” , thankfully, has begun rejecting beliefs like yours which are hateful, discriminatory, and not based in any form of logic or empirical truth. Racism was the first casualty, and homophobia will be the next. And as another member of the 24%, I’d appreciate it if you didn’t assign your truly ridiculous beliefs to me and others by association.
Before you say you aren’t scared of gay people - look at yourself - quivering over a 15-year-old kid joining a club with his friends. Pathetic.
As the previous commenter illustrates so eloquently, that 24% figure is pretty meaningless if people who self-identify as Catholics don’t, you know, believe in Catholicism.
Hate has nothing to do with it. Neither, really, does discrimination, unless by discrimination you mean discriminating against behavior (not persons) that is and has always been considered by my faith to be gravely disordered.
If you’re Catholic, the beliefs are already assigned to you. If you don’t subscribe to them, you’re not Catholic - you just like to call yourself one.
This certainly isn’t about cruelty to individuals, either. I feel bad for these kids. I highly doubt many of them go into this wanting this life. Further, nobody should get beaten up or shot and killed because of this behavior, but just because people do bad things doesn’t make the behavior correct.
Despite your pre-emptive protest, no, I’m not scared OF gay people, I’m scared for them. I’m scared for their immortal souls, which my faith also demands that I love, and pray for the salvation of.
I’m also scared for all the children out there who are going to have this agenda forced on them, an agenda that says they have to accept what billions of people have believed for thousands of years is wrong, just because of the new virtue called “tolerance”.
We should be intolerant of what is wrong. Clearly, by the tone of your comments, you subscribe to this philosophy, because you believe that I’m wrong, and you hold no quarter for my position. After all, tolerance is predicated on the position that “All views have equal merit and none should be considered better than another.”
And yet, when I say, “Homosexualty is sinful according to the teachings of the Bible and the Catholic faith, and those living homosexual lifestyles are wrong for rejecting this truth”, the pro-tolerance crowd starts tearing out their hair.
I get it. They feel indicted. They are bothered by a religion saying that their lifestyle, or worse yet, their unchosen orientation, is disordered. They despise being told that to act on those feelings is sinful.
For that, I’m truly sorry. I don’t envy them the struggle. It isn’t fair that people should have to fight with disordered orientations. Just like it isn’t fair that some children are born deformed, or that two of my past girlfriends were sexually molested by family members, or that America kills 1.5 million babies a year in the womb.
I admire those who struggle against their same-sex attractions, perhaps even more than I admire those who save sex for marriage, as I did. It takes courage and guts to fight something they want, but know is wrong.
But I am forced to combat, in the marketplace of ideas, those who would teach my children that one of the sins that “cry out to heaven for vengeance” is perfectly acceptable. It isn’t.
Should I refer to you as a “Catholiphobe” because of this? Maybe I should point the finger and say, “look at yourself - quivering over a 30-year-old husband and father talking about how homosexual lifestyles are sinful, just like his faith and Judaism before it have taught for thousands of years. Pathetic.”
But that doesn’t get us very far, does it? So ratchet down the rhetoric a little bit. It’s evident you have an axe to grind, and if you want to argue the thing on its merits, try that instead of making personal attacks.
I’m excited to hear just which part of the Catechism or the Bible says that I have to protest gay people exercising their First Amendment right to free association. When you can point that section out to me, I’ll turn in my Catholic Badge. How’s that?
And yes, if you believe that Gay-Straight Alliances shouldn’t be a part of public schools, you’re advocating for a limitation of Constitutionally-granted rights and thus your position is discriminatory.
I’d challenge you to construct a coherent, logical anti-gay position without resorting to a) appeals to homophobia like “the homosexual agenda” or b) appeals to the Bible or church law. Because thankfully, most people in this country don’t accept dogma as a rationale to change existing policy.
I think it’s clear here who is quivering and who isn’t. You’re the one deeming a 15-year-old kid and his friends an imminent threat to your family and way of living without a shred of evidence, whereas I’m pretty certain that the 15-year-old kid couldn’t care less about those things.
Oh, and by the way, that’s an awful definition of tolerance. I abhor your beliefs, for sure, but I’m pretty sure I’m not writing blog posts calling you a threat to my family, nor am I calling for your right to associate freely with others like you to be suspended.
Asdaf,
What is your definition of tolerance?
Also, where did I advocate the violation of anyone’s right to free association?
There’s a world of difference between saying, “I believe these ideas are bad, are harmful, and an agenda to promote their acceptance undermines traditional beliefs and culture” and saying, “We need to make sure those gays aren’t allowed to speak or associate with one another.”
You see, I’m exercising my right to free speech in saying that I believe your ideas are wrong, and that they should be combated ideologically.
The question was, originally, why Catholics are losing the culture war and homosexuals are winning it, when there is a disproportionately larger number of Catholics. This ties into the discussion of culture that’s been going on here for the last couple of weeks.
BTW, you asked for some Catechism citations; considering that neither the freedom of speech nor of association are held to be actual rights under Catholic social teaching (they are rather a feature specific to our republic) they won’t be referenced directly. However, considering that the groups in question promote acceptance of an active gay lifestyle, it’s easy to find citations that address the underlying issue of whether such groups should morally be supported:
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.
Lest you think that I really am hate-filled toward anyone even with the homosexual orientation, I have a friend who is homosexual and adheres to these principles. We have spoken at some length about the issue, and this individual, I feel comfortable in speculating, would not disagree with anything I have written here so far.
What you cite is completely irrelevant. I haven’t stated my personal position on homosexuality, you don’t know it, and it is not relevant to this discussion. Above, you stated that I was “not Catholic” and indeed a “Catholiphobe” (always the great rhetorical cudgel of the hardliners) for not protesting groups of people with a common interest meeting with each other. As the Catechism and Bible (the things that actually determine who is Catholic and who isn’t) clearly say no such thing, I hope it wouldn’t be too much to ask for an apology.
Now, concerning homosexuality in public life, which is the topic of your post: If you want to get anywhere with your anti-gay agenda, you need to express it without being too obviously homophobic or dogmatic, because in order to convince anyone that you’re right you need to logically avoid a) hatred and b) religious beliefs that not everyone holds. The inability to do this is why people like you are losing the “culture war”. The reason the “gay agenda” is “winning” is because they’ve managed to refute, with actual science, most of the anti-gay canards of the past - that gays are after your children, that homosexuality is a learned trait, etc.
Surely you can understand this: the world is shifting from an ideological paradigm to a reality-based, pragmatic one. That’s occasionally going to be good for conservatives: see recent adaption of freer gun laws and charter schools/vouchers. But you guys are going to have to occasionally take it on the chin when your ideologies don’t match up with reality - and as the first gay couples get married in this country, and heterosexual couples don’t spontaneously combust as a result, people are going to gradually figure out that gay people are no logical threat to them.
asdaf,
Dogma is not an ideology, it is truth.
Dogma is as reality based as it is possible to get.
Poeple who do not believe in the dogmas of the Catholic Church are in error; they believe falsehoods; they are wrong; they have lost touch with relity; they are deluded. Believing things that are not true is harmful. When large numbers of people in a society believe falsehoods everyone is harmed.
To be a catholic necessarily means that you believe the dogmas of the church are true. Sitting back and allowing your fellow man to believe falshoods is uncharitible.
Steve is being loving.
What you cite is completely irrelevant. I haven’t stated my personal position on homosexuality, you don’t know it, and it is not relevant to this discussion.
You don’t need to make a direct statement of belief for the following statements, in the context of this discussion, to provide your unstated opinion:
The “marketplace of ideas” , thankfully, has begun rejecting beliefs like yours which are hateful, discriminatory, and not based in any form of logic or empirical truth. Racism was the first casualty, and homophobia will be the next.
I abhor your beliefs, for sure…
You also seem to like to use the word “homophobe”. Again, I am not afraid of the homosexual lifestyle, I believe that it’s wrong, just as I believe that the use of pornography is wrong and promiscuity is wrong.
To believe something is wrong is not to fear it. It’s to be able to make moral distinctions.
Above, you stated that I was “not Catholic”
Not so. I said that if you do not subscribe to Catholic beliefs then you are not Catholic. Since you likely continue to disagree that your position in support of homosexuality is implicit in your above statements, then your interpretation can only logically be that I stated a principal that may or may not apply to you.
Unless you believed that your position on the issue was clear, and in that case, the insinuation stands. To self identify as Catholic is not to be Catholic, any more than if I self-identified as Chinese, I would be Chinese.
Objective truth has a nasty habit of constancy, and if first principles aren’t met, the rest are irrelevant.
Or, to use the Aristotelian formula,”For the same (characteristic) simultaneously to belong and not belong to the same (object) in the same (way) is impossible.”
Catholics believe Homosexual behavior (not orientation) is intrinsically disordered and gravely sinful. This characteristic can not simultaneously apply and not apply to Catholic belief; therefore only the position that adheres to the teaching is correct.
and indeed a “Catholiphobe” (always the great rhetorical cudgel of the hardliners)…
I didn’t call you a “Catholiphobe”, I rather asked if I should call you one based on your own application of the term “homophobe”, which, by the way, is the far more commonly used rhetorical cudgel, employed regularly by leftist hardliners. In this argument, I read the use of that term as 3 to 1 vs. “Catholiphobe”, the latter being merely a rhetorical device to illustrate this point.
for not protesting groups of people with a common interest meeting with each other. As the Catechism and Bible (the things that actually determine who is Catholic and who isn’t) clearly say no such thing, I hope it wouldn’t be too much to ask for an apology.
I cited the Catechism’s teaching on homosexual behavior because, as Catholics, we recognize the intrinsic disorder of the homosexual lifestyle and so are not to promote it. The Gay-Straight alliance promotes awareness and acceptance of the “Gay” lifestyle. Therefore, we can’t support it.
If we accept the authority of the Church, we’re left with no other choice. If not, well, then we’re headed back down the road of not being Catholic.
Of course the bible condemns homosexuality in much harsher terms. The penalties levied in Leviticus and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah are ample evidence of that. If you insist on citations:
Genesis 19:7-8: “I beg you, my brothers, not to do this wicked thing. I have two daughters who have never had intercourse with men. Let me bring them out to you, and you may do to them as you please. But don’t do anything to these men.”
Judges 19:23-24: “No, my brothers; do not be so wicked. Since this man is my guest, do not commit this crime. Rather let me bring out my maiden daughter or his concubine. Ravish them, or do whatever you want with them; but against the man you must not commit this wanton crime.”
Leviticus 18:22: “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; such a thing is an abomination.”
1 Corinthians 6:9: “Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor homosexuals nor sodomites … will inherit the kingdom of God.”
1 Timothy 1:10: “… law is meant not for a righteous person but for the lawless and unruly … the unchaste, practicing homosexuals, kidnapers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is opposed to sound teaching.”
Romans 1:26-27: “Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity.”
Considering that the overwhelming evidence in both Scripture and Tradition are opposed to homosexual behavior, and the group in question promotes this lifestyle, I see no reason to abandon my position or offer an apology. (Neither will I demand one from you - only those who feel wronged demand contrition.)
Now, concerning homosexuality in public life, which is the topic of your post: If you want to get anywhere with your anti-gay agenda, you need to express it without being too obviously homophobic or dogmatic, because in order to convince anyone that you’re right you need to logically avoid a) hatred and b) religious beliefs that not everyone holds.
Consider that:
a.) My audience here is primarily Catholics of the orthodox variety
b.) Those who are not Catholic and regularly visit understand after a very short time where I am coming from
c.) I have demonstrated absolutely no hatred in my statements, and the fact that you are perceiving any speaks to your emotional attachment to this issue
d.) My religious beliefs inform my position on this issue even more strongly than does my natural inclination; I believe my religion to be divinely revealed and will not discount its role in the discussion
e.) I have in the past made lengthy arguments from nature on the subject, to little avail, but am happy to reproduce them here if necessary
The real problem, as I see it, is that when people want to do something that they enjoy, particularly if it is a sin, they will defend it no matter what the arguments presented against them are. Ask any young man who is given to fornication. Even Augustine famously quipped, “Lord, give me chastity - just not yet.”
My question in the title of the post was partially rhetorical. We live in a culture given over to vice, and I myself am prone to it. The vicious (those living in habitual vice) are likely to grant license to anyone else pursuing vice, so long as their own derelictions are left unobstructed. Our country has become prosperous and Godless, and we, like Rome, have fallen into moral malaise that will (if not corrected) lead to our destruction.
What I marvel at is why, with statistically better odds, we can’t seem to make any headway with our own agenda. That is an indictment of my own side for not being more effective.
Surely you can understand this: the world is shifting from an ideological paradigm to a reality-based, pragmatic one.
And who decided that these two things are divergent? We seek to make reality correspond to ideology, not the other way around.
Further, you’re simply assuming that an ideology that is different than mine is that which is truly pragmatic. That’s rather fatalistic - I desire that men live in virtue, others desire that they live in squalor and licentiousness; since the latter is the easier course, I suppose that it is the more pragmatic?
I’d prefer to believe that the only true pragmatism is that which allows us to obtain everlasting life. Whether you want dogma or faith to be a part of the discussion or not, those are really the only stakes that make the argument worth having.
as the first gay couples get married in this country, and heterosexual couples don’t spontaneously combust as a result, people are going to gradually figure out that gay people are no logical threat to them.
No one, least of all me, thinks that we will “spontaneously combust”. We do, however, know that the propaganda being pushed on children in schools will undermine their formation, if they have any at all. It will teach them, from a very young age - long before they are capable of critical thought - that what we believe is wrong is actually perfectly acceptable. The same agenda - and there is clearly an agenda to gain acceptance for this lifestyle - tells adolescents to experiment with homosexuality, because it’s perfectly normal. It confuses children when they are most vulnerable, and makes them all the more likely to get lost along the way.
In the end, people like me, who believe homosexuality is wrong, will become the victims of “hate crimes”. We will first be persecuted, as is happening in Canada and the UK; but that’s only a step along the path. Eventually, we will be ostracized and persecuted for not being sufficiently tolerant - an irony that will be too bitter to savor when the time comes.
My religious beliefs will no doubt be considered illegal in those days. It’s not a situation without precedent, but it’s one I intend not to let overtake me without a fight.