Get PJ Media on your Apple

PJM Lifestyle

Thanks to Our Atheist, Agnostic, and Liberal Friends for Their Help in the Liberty Wars

They have the integrity to defend free speech and freedom of religion unequivocally because they know how quickly political and cultural tides shift.

by
Paula Bolyard

Bio

January 12, 2014 - 9:39 am
Page 1 of 2  Next ->   View as Single Page

2waystreet-320x320

Many are beginning to recognize that there is more to the so-called “culture war” issues than mere disagreements over abortion and gay marriage. It’s becoming increasingly clear that something more basic is afoot. In many cases our most treasured American rights — freedom of speech and freedom of religion — have been diminished as the czars of political correctness desire to create a nation where tolerance is redefined to mean tolerance only of culturally acceptable viewpoints. Those of us on the outside of this new cultural orthodoxy find ourselves not only marginalized from the public square of ideas, but increasingly, on the wrong side of the law. We’re warned to keep our religion in our churches as many attempt to make a distinction between freedom of worship and freedom of religion, the former allowing only for private expressions of faith.

Liberals — I like to call them illiberal liberals — are often the most vocal perpetrators of intolerance against unpopular viewpoints, but a fair number of those who profess to be of the libertarian persuasion also have a penchant for trying to silence those with whom they disagree on certain issues. The justification for this squelching of speech is usually some version of “sticks and stones may break my bones…and your words are mean, so you have forfeited your right to speak in public.” The libertarian version of this is (paradoxically), “You’re embarrassing us and making our side unelectable. Knock it off.”

It’s not uncommon in our modern political discourse for ridicule to replace dialogue and open hostility to replace genuine debate, to the detriment of our country and our humanity. Those who demand silence from those with whom they disagree dishonor the principles of liberty upon which our republic was founded. Those who use the courts or who pass laws to force Americans to violate their religious principles trample on the graves of those who fought to defend our liberty through the ages.

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
Even California - yes, even California! - voted against "gay marriage" in the most recent vote by the people on the matter. A court then decided that the vote of the people didn't matter at all.
37 weeks ago
37 weeks ago Link To Comment
"55% of the population supports gay marriage and 65% civil unions. "

Has there been a single state where the people have voted on it with those numbers?
37 weeks ago
37 weeks ago Link To Comment
Dude, nobody remembers who Akin is.

If you want the people responsible for Obama, you need to look squarely at Chris Mathew, Candy Crowley, and the rest of the people who papered over everything that he had ever done, and reinvented the man as some sort of messiah come to save us from our sins. Forming a circular firing-squad lets them off the hook, and makes their job considerably easier.
37 weeks ago
37 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (18)
All Comments   (18)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
Your sentiments are laudable, Paula - but they miss the proper understanding. Given your home-schooling activities, you should understand this better than most.

The so-called social issues which bother you are but symptoms of a broader cultural decay. The broader cultural decay has a cause. Fighting that cause is a good use of your time. Fighting for your point of view on the symptoms (Abortion - Euthanasis - Gay Marriage) perhaps makes you feel noble, but its a complete waste of time.

So what is the cause of the social decay? Hard to believe but its simple. Its caused by government schooling. Schooling is spiritual and psychological destruction. When generation after generation is weakend from a character perspective, the cultural decay becomes automatic.

Fighting the decay through political activity while the schooling system stays in place is a nearly worthless activity. If you ever succeeded, another generation would pass through the system and all your work would be reversed. Furthermore, if all the cultural conservatives gave up on their favorite issues and started fighting for the return of children being raised by their parents - instead of the government - then all of your cultural concerns would solve themselves and you wouldn't have to fight (those issues) any more.

Once you accept all of the above, then common cause with the freedom wing of the conservatism becomes automatic. Call it "privatizing the culture war".
37 weeks ago
37 weeks ago Link To Comment
Not really much I disagree with there, James. Faith and family are the keys.
37 weeks ago
37 weeks ago Link To Comment
That would imply that for social conservatives - or at least you - school vouchers are a higher political priority than "pro-life", "pro-family" issues.

If that is the case, then there is almost nothing to fight about with the libertarians.

Then again, maybe you not a typical social conservative. In my travels through the rural parts of the upper-midwest, I often drive by billboards saying "Abortion stops a beating heart". I've never seen one that said "Government schooling crushes the human soul".
37 weeks ago
37 weeks ago Link To Comment
How about gun rights? If you passionately defend the Second Amendment while fighting for school vouchers are you wasting your time?

A good rule of thumb is that a judge who supports Roe v Wade is a judge who will rule against parents who want to home school. Another good rule of thumb is that a politician who supports giving public funds to abortionists will oppose giving public money for school vouchers.
37 weeks ago
37 weeks ago Link To Comment
You are correct that Gun Rights are fundamental to a free society. If you can't defend yourself, then the government owns you.

Your point about judges is well taken, but at the legislative level not that important. Last year a voucher bill in Texas was proposed by the governor and killed because of too few Republican votes. What do you want to bet those Republicans who killed the bill were all pro-life?

Voting pro-life and then voting against vouchers is a waste of effort - its self defeating.
37 weeks ago
37 weeks ago Link To Comment
You are right that "pro life" should not be a get out of jail free card for bad votes, and that vouchers and fighting educational indoctrination are every bit as important.

Of course, did any of those supporting vouchers also support public funds for abortionists?
37 weeks ago
37 weeks ago Link To Comment
Follow the money -- when politicians vote against school choice you can almost guarantee the unions have their hooks in them (or more recently, the corporatists who are funding Common Core). You're conflating two completely different issues.
37 weeks ago
37 weeks ago Link To Comment
I'll try one last time:

The progressives had a lot of influence on schooling systems in the US through the Wilson administration - 1920. By the 1930s, they had complete control. 2 generations later, our culture fell apart - and the mainline protestant churches became leftist talk-fests.

That's not a coincidence. It was built in. As things fell apart, strands of "New Protestantism" began pushing back. But the new Christians never understood the cause - which had been operating for 2 generations by then. The extent of the destruction of schooling was only really understood once home-schooling started, and the various beliefs of public schooling were found to be false - and therefor destructive.

Christians now are left with a conundrum. Can they somehow fix our culture without changing schooling and then waiting 2 generations like the progressives did? Its my opinion that they/you can't. Moving schooling to the market - parental control - is about the only choice - and then waiting a long time after that.

Fighting the cultural issues in the mean time maybe brings satisfaction to those in the fight, but is otherwise useless.
37 weeks ago
37 weeks ago Link To Comment
The Wilson administration may have been the most obvious early point, but Dr. Benjamin Wiker on the Blaze speculates that it may have originated as early as the 1860s: http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/why-liberals-think-being-educated-means-being-liberal/
37 weeks ago
37 weeks ago Link To Comment
I don't think it has to be either/or. It can be both/and. There are those who have dedicated their lives to stopping the evil of abortion. They believe it is a modern-day holocaust -- that it does indeed stop a beating heart. Who am I to tell them to stop fighting for an issue they've poured their time and treasure into?

But in case you haven't noticed, the so-called social issues have become much lower priorities for most in the GOP. You very rarely hear candidates making them the centerpiece of their campaigns anymore. Again and again it's the left that brings them up. When a social conservative simply answers questions they're asked, they're accused of "screaming about social issues" -- a completely unfair characterization for the majority of candidates.
37 weeks ago
37 weeks ago Link To Comment
Well - it is either/or from a opportunity cost perspective. The time you spend working on one is time you could be working on the other. God only gives you so many minutes in the day.

The people working on the abortion issues are correct, but they are also fools. They are chasing symptoms rather than causes. Working to end abortion while the government still raises the children is like taking aspirin because someone is hitting you over the head.
37 weeks ago
37 weeks ago Link To Comment
I agree with your premise 100%! It was in school that I was taught that a baby is just a blob of splitting cells and NOT a human being. That was back in the 70's. It was doctors in the 90's that changed my mind.

Schools are THE soul killer and what people haven't pieced together is that preachers and pastors go through those schools too. This is why the word of God has been so watered down and churches so accepting of vice and behavioral sin.
37 weeks ago
37 weeks ago Link To Comment
"This is not a Republican, Democrat, or libertarian issue. It’s my freedom of speech and freedom of religion today — it may be yours tomorrow and I will stand with you to defend your right to speak your mind and practice your religion."

The First section of The Bill of Rights should certainly be defended, but so also should be the Fourth section of the Bill of Rights, which is under even greater withering assault by utterly fascist, utterly Stalinist forces.
37 weeks ago
37 weeks ago Link To Comment
Umm...knock it off you are handing out the clubs that the opposition beats us with every freaking election. Followed by, do you remember Todd Akin who may be the reason Obama is President, is called "advice" or sometimes "a plea for mercy".

The notable difference is that we are not calling for our "allies" ( who didn't show up to vote for either of the last two Republican nominees) to be fired, kicked out of school, lose their writing jobs or otherwise inconvenienced. We don't do that. It's not our style. We just don't think putting the logic defying concept that human life and full personhood vests at the level of a un-implanted cell and proceeds through pre-born baby with no difference between front and center in the platform is a great idea in a country where only a small slice of people believe that. Particularly if you can win by shoving partial birth down the Dems throats.

Also it seems like a pretty bad idea to put opposition to gay marriage front and center particularly with inarticulate spokesmen who can't talk about homosexuals without their skin visibly crawling.

Show me one libertarian who said "PJ Media, Paula Boyard needs to go, how dare you put her on the site." We don't do that. I seem to recall (seriously) thanking you for engaging in discussion after you said I must be a "tolerant liberal" for making several of these points (and also defending Mourdock for being honest and clearly of a different stripe from Akin).

We're used to being called names. SoComs have been calling me immoral, a closet democrat, and saying I need to leave the party for years. Now we suggest you might not be the best face of the party when 55% of the population supports gay marriage and 65% civil unions. This because so many SoComs behave like gay hating hicks straight out of central casting when they get pressed on TV. "We love the sinner but hate the sin" and "pray the gay away" Sure as hell isn't Fred Phelps, but is also isn't Fred Rodgers.

Oh...one last thing...was it the wicked libertarians who banned the Log Cabin Republicans from CPAC...wasn't that a fun news cycle.

Go ahead, call me intolerant for sharing my opinion again...
37 weeks ago
37 weeks ago Link To Comment
"55% of the population supports gay marriage and 65% civil unions. "

Has there been a single state where the people have voted on it with those numbers?
37 weeks ago
37 weeks ago Link To Comment
Even California - yes, even California! - voted against "gay marriage" in the most recent vote by the people on the matter. A court then decided that the vote of the people didn't matter at all.
37 weeks ago
37 weeks ago Link To Comment
Didn't Saddam Hussein win a majority in his last election?
37 weeks ago
37 weeks ago Link To Comment
Dude, nobody remembers who Akin is.

If you want the people responsible for Obama, you need to look squarely at Chris Mathew, Candy Crowley, and the rest of the people who papered over everything that he had ever done, and reinvented the man as some sort of messiah come to save us from our sins. Forming a circular firing-squad lets them off the hook, and makes their job considerably easier.
37 weeks ago
37 weeks ago Link To Comment
View All