Apparently Rosie O’Donnell, the sage of looney liberalism, wasn’t alone in her assertion that “radical” Christianity is just as dangerous as radical Islam. For the uninitiated, below is the clip where the prophetess walked among us and spoke:
I included the word “radical” in quotation marks as it regards to Christianity out of offense. Progressives like O’Donnell, may her tribe decrease, ought to know better than to assume our radicalism. Good thing we weren’t talking about gender, otherwise she’d be on the receiving end of another social justice warrior mob receiving hate mail avalanche from basement dwellers everywhere.
Bernie! Bernie! Bernie!
Nevertheless, Rosie and her ilk believe that the Christian view of sexuality is the very definition of radicalism. All that talk about the sanctity of marriage, secure homes for raising family, and the beauty and purpose of intimacy is equal to the Islamic terrorist who has a machete for every violent occasion.
Secularists do not fear beheadings, they fear morality that runs against antinomian passions. They do not openly condemn Islamic terrorism (what does ISIS have to do with Rhode Island?), but the forbidden fruit.
Believing the cultural wind is in their back, the Banana Republic of California, just weeks away from Utopia with Hollywood as its das kapital, now want to ban books and any other goods and services that dare to challenge the sexual orthodoxy of progressive religion.
- Thou shalt not convert fornicaters.
- Thou shalt not speak evil of LGBTQ-XYZ
- Thou shalt not associate with people of faith.
- Thou shalt not be intolerant. (What contradiction?)
The bill in question doesn’t just threaten the sell of books but any goods and services that promotes secular heresy. Yet it is the threat to books that is particularly alarming as it seems quintessentially unAmerican. A helpful summary of the bill is provided by David French here and here.
My attention here is two-fold. First, progressives view the law as a weapon. Rather than securing the equality of each citizen under the law, progressives use the legal system as a means of punishment and suppression of idealogical and political enemies. The examples of the last decade are numerous and one does not need to peruse Breitbart to find them. The purpose of the law is to protect, not to weaponize and AB 2943 is just the latest example of that.
Second, progressives apply the law selectively. John Stonestreet, one of those radical Christians who stands against secular orthodoxy and holds fast to monogamy (the bigot!), rightly shows that such a bill would allow the selling of Adolf Hitler’s autobiography, Mein Kampf, as a matter of First Amendment but would ban the sell of any Christian or conservative book that argues in favor of traditional values and biblical marriage.
Likewise, it would seem to me that progressives are selectively targeting Christian believers and not other faiths who hold similar, if not more, “radical” views on sexuality. Most notable is Islam. Christians believe that all are sinners and thus all are welcome at the cross. Yes we demand repentance, but we demand the same from heterosexuals, homosexuals, pansexuals, transsexuals, and whatever term will be coined next. Conversion, in Christianity, comes by appeal. In Islam, historically speaking, conversion often comes by threat. Islamic dominated countries execute homosexuals. Yet for reasons that go beyond this post, progressives, I believe, will justify their writings over Christians.
In the end, we must see that all that rhetoric about tolerance and equality was a ruse for something much darker. And now that we’re sinking into the quicksand of post-Christian secularism we are seeing what this dark side looks like. Progresses may think they’re moving society forward, but when given the chance, they increasinly look to conserve the worse aspects of the past . . . like banning books.