If you’re not with us, you’re against us. President Bush popularized this expression after 9/11 to describe his foreign-policy doctrine: Countries couldn’t support or indulge terrorists and be our friends at the same time. But his detractors quickly turned it into a fairly paranoid vision of domestic political life, as if Bush had been talking about domestic opponents and dissenters.
The irony is that few worldviews better describe the general liberal orientation to public policy and the culture war. The Left often complains about the culture war as if it’s a war they don’t want to fight. They insist they just want to follow “sound science” or “what works” when it comes to public policy, but those crazy knuckle-dragging right-wingers constantly want to talk about gays and abortion and other hot-button issues.
Advertisement
It’s all a farce. Liberals are the aggressors in the culture war (and not always for the worse, as the civil-rights movement demonstrates). What they object to isn’t so much the government imposing its values on people — heck, they love that. They see nothing wrong with imposing their views about diet, exercise, sex, race, and the environment on Americans. What outrages them is resistance or even non-compliance with their agenda. “Why are you making such a scene?” progressives complain. “Just do what we want, and there will be no fuss.”
Consider President Obama’s decision to require most religious institutions — including Catholic hospitals, schools, etc. — to pay for contraception, sterilizations, and the “morning after” pill. When “Obamacare” was still being debated, the White House had all but promised Catholic leaders that it would find a compromise to spare the Church from the untenable position of paying for services that directly violate their faith. Now that Obamacare is the law, the administration says the Church, like everyone else, must fall in line.
Or consider the still-raging controversy over the Susan G. Komen for the Cure’s entirely reasonable — albeit very poorly handled — decision to withdraw its funding of Planned Parenthood, America’s largest abortion provider. The Komen foundation is singularly dedicated to raising research money for, and awareness about, breast cancer. It’s the folks with those pink ribbons. The organization decided to withdraw its comparatively meager funding in part because Planned Parenthood doesn’t offer mammograms. (Planned Parenthood’s president, Cecile Richards, was caught misleading people on this very point last spring.)
Other factors included the fact that Planned Parenthood is under investigation by Congress and the obvious but unstated fact that the organization is wildly controversial. It’s this last point that infuriates the Left. Pro-choice activists and their allies believe that Planned Parenthood should not be controversial, nor should abortion be up for discussion, either. If you have a problem with either, it is because you are an ideologue, an extremist, or a zealot opposed to the interests of womankind. And any attempt to suggest that abortion should offend the consciences of mainstream Americans, never mind such a revered organization as Komen, is simply unacceptable.
It’s clearly not about the money. Komen’s $600,000 in donations amount to less than .01 percent of Planned Parenthood’s budget (as opposed to the nearly half that comes from taxpayers). It’s about making it very clear: Resistance is not just futile, but dangerous.
I was thinking the same thing when this Planned Parenthood-Komen kerfluffle came up. The Muslims believe that once an area (or individual) is Muslim, it can never change. That is why they are "purging" the Christians in Egypt. Egypt was majority Christian until the Muslim onslaught in the 8th century and "conversion by the sword". Only a small minority of Coptics survived. The same in Iraq with the Chaldeans. This story is witnessed in every region of the world. Convert or die.
Planned Parenthood was granted money (it was a gift) by Komen. That became their money forever. Komen is now obliged to continue funding. The Libs work the same way in Congress. Why won't a Federal program ever die? Why are they assured a 6-8% increase every year and a 5% increase is considered a cut?
The funny thing is, Komen didn't cut any funding, they just restricted Planned Parenthood from applying for additional grants. Hopefully, this will effect Planned Parenthood's financing. Who would start to give them money if they have this to look forward to?
"Choice" has nothing to do with Planned Parenthood. The phrase Planned Parenthood is an oxymoron. a misnomer, and an absolute lie. Planned Parenthood is planned abortion which is the antithesis of parenthood.
And, of course, "liberal's moral vision" extends far beyond its rabid defense of abortion, forcing opponents to retreat and hide. Emboldened and impressed by their own breast-beating in this case, they'll get even louder on the issues of environment, "global warming," wealth redistribution, open borders, and all the other beloved moral visions they have in store for us. I hope we'll have enough will to resist, but the playing field is tilting increasingly to the left.
Today's liberals are taking a page from totalitarian regimes of the pasts play book. Totalitarianism politicizes everything, so that neutrality is betrayal.
Liberals don't insist that everyone get an abortion...we just want those who choose that to have that option. Liberals don't insist that everyone be gay and get married. We just want gay people to be able to make that committment to each other. You call it a culture war, we call it human rights. You dont seem to get that the constitution applies to everyone, not just conservatives. One day, just maybe, you will figure this out, though I don't plan on holding my breath. When you guys start fighting for rights, instead of fighting to deny rights, then we can talk. We do not all share the same beliefs that you do, so we simply have to agree to disagree on those issues.
The only problem is your definition of rights. Yeah, we all have the right to live our own lives, unless you are young and defenseless, in which case you can be killed since, let's face it, you're probably not wanted anyway. We all have a right to decide whether or not to join a union right? Well, not so much, and the left is working to make sure it stays that way. You don't just want gay people to be able to get married, you want the rest of us to accept those relationships as legitimate.
We can talk once you on the left stop yelling racist every time someone disagrees with you, or if you ever decide to talk about issues instead of throwing names around. Living in Madison for the past 15 years, I've seen how much you lefties really like rights, as long as we all go along with what you say there are no problems. Dare to stand up for taxpayers, the Catholic Church, workers (as opposed to unions), or the unborn and suddenly a guy is Mubarak of the Midwest. Give me a break, grow up, and maybe take a look at your own hypocrisy for a change.
Great response to another Leftie who can't conceive that anyone would have a legitimate reason to oppose the Left's agenda. But tell me, how on earth have you managed to live in Madison WI for 15 years without losing your mind?
Homosexuals already HAVE equal rights,they have the SAME rights as any normal person. What they want are SPECIAL rights.
Homosexuals have an equal right to marriage;
they can marry another person of the opposite sex the same as any other person.
That IS the definition of "marriage";man-woman,it's been that way for several thousand years.
This is all about the REDEFINITION of "marriage" to be something it's never been,and thus FORCING other states to recognize the abomination via Article IV,sec 1.
Of course,some people IGNORE the second part of Article IV,sec 1;
"and the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts,Records,and Proceedings shall be proved,and the Effect thereof."
Congress "prescribed the manner" by enacting DOMA.
THAT alone allows DOMA to be Constitutional.
Mr. Gillhoolly, you write: "You dont seem to get that the constitution applies to everyone(.)"
This is an error on your part. As a conservative, I believe that the right to life applies to all humans, including those still in their mothers' wombs. As to gay marriage, homosexuals have the same rights as other men; a homosexual who is single may marry any single woman that will have him. He just likely has no interest in exercising that right. Opposing gay marriage is not the opposing of a basic right; it is rather the defense of a basic social institution that pre-dates virtually all government and realistically reflects the biology of the human species.
On the other hand you as a liberal - if 'liberal' means a supporter of abortion and gay marriage - want to continue to deny rights to individual beings that are obviously human, and insist that government can designate any sort of relationship it chooses to be the equal of the exclusive, ancient, and critical status of the male/female pair.
Explain where in the constitution it says I have to allow an abortion, let alone fund agencies that wish to provide it. Where is it stated that I must let gays marry the same sex - the 14th amendment? Where is it stated that the democratic will over things that are and have been democratically decided must be forced upon society at large by a minority through an "enlightened" judge. Guess what - marriage, by definition is between a man and a woman. That predates the state. Does the state tell gays they cannot marry a person of another sex?
Is it OK for states to make laws on drug use, and prostitution? (its her body!!).
You just don't believe in democracy. And of course the funniest thing about all of this is that gays won't marry in great numbers because by definition gays just have overactive sex drives and have little desire for a long term stable relationships. In fact some radical gay groups don't like the push towards gay marriage for that very reason. Hence the unfortunate aids epidemic amongst them. You know, if "gayness" were a product, product tort lawyers would have put it out of business by now. So why not just let it go ahead and happen. But I guess at some point you just say enough is enough.
I really don't care what any court says - or even a state for that matter. A gay couple will never be married in most people's eyes and nothing will convince me otherwise. Because they aren't. And the state has no compelling reason to provide it a privileged status in society because it does zippo for its betterment.
You aren't kidding that there's an "unfortunate aids epidemic" among gays. The U.S. government’s Center for Disease Control (CDC) reports that in 2006 gay & bisexual men, less than a mere 2% of the U.S. population (euphemistically called “MSM” or men-who-have-sex-with-men), were getting a majority, 57%, of new AIDs cases in the US, and 64% of the new syphilis cases. So a minority of new AIDs cases (43%) were spread thinly over a whopping 96+% of the remaining heterosexual U.S. population. Thus, according to the CDC, in 2007 gay & bisexual men were “44 times to 86 times” [sic] more likely than heterosexual men to contract AIDs, STDs, and other pathogens. In addition, gay & bisexual men are the ONLY group for which the number of new infections have been increasing each year since the 1990s. Go to the CDC web site and read it. The increased odds for getting these diseases from male homosexuality is astounding. The promiscuous nature of male homosexuality and the dangers of gay sex are amply proven by scientific evidence. But so called "gay-marriage" and “gay-adoption” would legitimize & encourage homosexuality as just another lifestyle choice!
Sean,
There are several issues that I believe you are confusing here: rights, behavior restricted by law, and what the constitution provides for.
Per our Declaration of Independence, we have the right to "life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness". Abortion on demand deprives the human child of the right to LIFE, not to mention the others. Therefore, many, myself included believe it should not be legally allowed, to the extent that it currenly is. Killing unborn or partially born children is a terrible thing that should be very strictly limited by law. It should be illegal.
I dont see anywhere that the Constitution provides for the "right" to abort a child, or the "right" for the type of union you propose to be called a marriage.
Given this fact, and given most conservative's stance on this problem, the US Government (using our taxpayer money) should not be providing for abortion on demand procedures. Therefore, taxpayer money should not be going to an organization like Planned Parenthood because the fungible moneys are in fact paying for aborting children, depriving them of life.
Now, as long as it is legal (a separate but related battle to funding), people can choose to undergo abortion by election- because it fits their plans. We cannot restrict access, but we certainly can loudly council against it. And argue against it, and actively demonstrate (peacibly) against the practice of aborting human children.
Certainly you can see that we must not be party to paying for them; this is NOT an essential government function.
Gay rights- you mention it somewhat off-topic, but here goes: homosexuals have every right that I have, bar none. Marriage is a union recognized by the state, between a man and a woman. If a homosexual wants to marry someone of the opposite sex, they certainly may. There is NO credible reason to redefine marriage as anything other than that contract between a man and a woman of consenting age. Not two women and a man, not two men and a woman, not two men, not two women, not a man, a woman, and a dog. No, this is not marriage, it is something else altogether.
THis is not a blindness on the part of conservatives. It is a culture war we choose to fight, or more correctly a MORAL war, because these are crutial issues that will affect the stability and well-being of our society and our nation.
We are fighting for rights. We are standing for the dignity of each human life, no matter how small or inconvenient. We will not simply agree to disagree for you are demanding that we sanction the slaughter of innocents.
Would you have demanded that the Abolitionists stop trying to "force" their morality on the slaveholders?
Would you have demanded that pastors such as Dietrich Bonhoeffer stop trying to force their religion on the Nazis?
Follow
