By Hook or Crook…

their agenda will become your agenda, because the given inches always yield to the taken miles, as this story from Yahoo news so helpfully foreshadows:

After years of contentious debate, the Senate on Saturday voted to repeal the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy that blocked gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military.

While critics, including Arizona GOP Sen. John McCain, said the repeal would cause a deadly distraction on the battlefield at a time of war, the lawmakers backing repeal equated the vote to other historic moments including the end of racial segregation among troops in the 1950s and the decision to allow women to attend military service academies in the 1970s.

Which isn’t an accident.  If they can paint it in the same light as real civil rights legislation, then it makes it much easier to maintain and forcefully assert the fiction in the federal lawsuits against state law that are to come.  And make no mistake, they will come.

“It is time to close this chapter in our history,” President Obama said in a statement hailing the vote’s passage. “It is time to recognize that sacrifice, valor and integrity are no more defined by sexual orientation than they are by race or gender, religion or creed.”

But sacrifice, valor, and even integrity can find a home in the deeds of the worst of the worst when the circumstances are right.  That was the whole point of films like The Dirty Dozen, and The Devil’s Brigade, wasn’t it?  Taking convicted criminals, some of whom were under sentence of death, and siccing them on the enemy, demonstrating that such characteristics were not reserved for the law-abiding and the basically “good”?   Still, branches of the military do not generally make a habit out of integrating criminals and other people with “evil” habits and tendencies, that have manifested themselves in the choices that they have made, into military units as a matter of policy.   And yet, because of a near-constant erosion in the basis of our law, this is exactly what the Senate has decided to do.  What makes it an act of far-reaching consequence is that it will not stop there.  The will of a small vocal minority, and a larger minority that has installed itself as the “Decider” and arbiter of what is and is not good for society will not let it. 

Yet the repeal is far more than just a single policy shift. The overturning of “don’t ask, don’t tell” is likely to create a ripple effect in addressing other gay-rights issues, as many states continue to debate issues including same-sex marriage and the right of gay partners to share benefits the same way legally married couples do. With gay service members serving openly, it will become difficult for policy makers to justify, say, withholding visitation rights or survivor benefits to the same-sex spouse of a wounded or fallen soldier. [Emphasis Added.]

The casual observer might simply take this as an inspired bit of wishcasting, but anyone who has been paying attention sees it as another in a series of careful plays intended to bring about a specific result.  The fact is that we have no rational basis for treating this policy shift as a victory for civil rights, and those who today enjoy the great strides made in the area of civil rights should be insulted that the implication that “discrimination” on the basis of what can only be conclusively proven to be a choice is the same as discrimination on the basis of an immutable condition, such as race or gender, or of specifically protected behaviors like religion or creed.   The Left does not see it in this light, because their elation at sticking their fingers in the eyes of those they brand as “extremists” or “fundamentalists” has specifically blinded them to the reality of what they have done.   That realization will be for a later day, if indeed they are still capable of drawing any lines between things that are acceptable for a society and things that are not when that day comes.  The over/under on that being the case is about even at this time, and it has occurred to me more than once that once it is no longer socially acceptable to call evil what it is, then drastic changes to the definition of good cannot be too far behind.   We have already started down this road, and while we are not in danger of putting our imprimatur on things like obvious theft and murder as society, there is already a groundswell under way that supports it in less obvious forms, and have already made compromises between it and our formerly better understanding of such things.  The more obvious manifestations will be the last to come, not because they are obvious, but because the only thing that purveyors of the new, who reject the old philosophy and understanding, hold sacred is the self, and that once their own possessions are forfeit through proceedings that commonplace avoid process, or consist only of a perfunctory circuit through the motions, and they cry foul, will the most perceptive among them realize that they long ago removed the rationale allowing them to hold these last vestiges of an old order by any rational legal means.

The truth is that this policy will not benefit the military or society at large.  We are not made stronger when one of the things we must prepare for are policies and procedures to deal with new claims of discrimination, with merit, and perhaps more importantly, those without, and the way to add finality to such determination without completely removing it from those closest to enforcement in the attempt to give it the appearance of legitimacy.  All of what this entails will unquestionably bring more cost, more complication, and more distraction to a profession already arguably more weighed down in the issues of diversity, fairness, and equality than it is in the idea of merit, which benefits the service, and actually training to achieve and maintain physical and technical superiority over our nation’s enemies.

By casting it as a victory for Civil Rights, the Deciders and those they would empower delegitimize Christianity, when it was Christian churches which have been major players in the Civil Rights movement, a move that somehow does not appear to them to be a logical disconnect in any fashion, or call their previous victories into question.   This makes them either hypocrites or opportunists.  Given their support of self-proclaimed “christian leaders”, who tell them exactly what they want to hear on this subject, (a position that can only be reached by picking and choosing what portions of scripture support their conclusions) I’m coming down hard on the side of opportunist.   However you choose to define it, it brings us to the same place:  When we start redefining evil, first by accepting it, then by legitimizing it, a creeping redefinition of what we place value on as being good must also follow.  And it has.  This is the elephant in the room that these modern-day crusaders for the Religion of Self™ refuse to recognize.   If we decide that choice is the basis of a civil right to behavior largely unthinkable 20 years from now, there is no basis for denying a civil right on the basis of choice for things that are still largely unthinkable now.  These crusaders scoff at such notions, all the while failing to recognize that there are already those who are laying the same kind of groundwork that they themselves have put down to get us here.  If you look hard, you can see the future, and what it holds isn’t pretty.   Everything will be permissible, except for believing that some things should not be.  And the worst part is that the trap is already springing.  Those who claim that these things aren’t related are blind to the steel teeth closing about them already.   They have already made such things possible, and arguing that they will never be acceptable to society ignores the fact that they already are.

It’s Come To This: Dueling Christmas Billboards

Like I’ve been saying…it’s that time of year, again…the Christmas season is upon us, which means  militant atheists are out in full force to prove to everyone just how goshdarn cute and clever they can be with their anti-Christmas sentiments. I didn’t bother to do a post about this bit of obnoxiousness when it appeared outside the heavily-traveled Lincoln Tunnel between New York and New Jersey, because, really,  what can you say to people who are that determined to be killjoys? Do you just ignore them…what?

Keep telling yourselves that if it makes you feel better….

But good old, Bill Donahue of The Catholic League, is having none of it, and put up a response billboard:

“We decided to counterpunch after a donor came forward seeking to challenge the anti-Christmas statement by American Atheists,” Catholic League President Bill Donahue said in a statement on the group’s website. “Our approach is positive, and services the common good. Theirs is negative, and is designed to sow division. It’s what they do.”

Which billboard do you suppose is more appreciated?

RELATED:

A Sunday rumination from Frances R. Porretto, November 16, 2008:

First, number 3: “There’s probably no God.” One aspect of the debate over the existence of a supernatural realm that enrages anti-theists is that there’s no indisputable evidence either for or against the proposition. Their militancy is as unverifiable and unfalsifiable as any religious faith. Therefore, according to Porretto’s Partition, it constitutes a faith of its own. (Beware: he who says that to an anti-theist had better have the number of the local ambulance service on speed-dial.)

Read the whole thing.

John Hawkins, RWN: Liberalism: Mohammad Cartoons Vs. Jesus Being Eaten By Ants

Share

It’s That Time Of Year, Again: School Bans Christmas Colors

This is what happens when moonbats take over school boards:

A school in Florida has not only banned Christmas — but everything associated with the Christian holiday.

Teachers at Heathrow Elementary School have been ordered to banish images of Santa Claus from classrooms — along with traditional Christmas colors like red and green.

“You can’t use red and green,” one outraged parent told WESH. “It’s ridiculous.”

The parent, who serves as a volunteer room mother, said she was recently given a list of guidelines that listed the holiday restrictions.

She said the basic theme of the letter was, “We don’t want to offend anyone who doesn’t believe in Santa Claus or the Christian beliefs.”

That last bit is so unctuous, disingenuous, and and insulting, it’s making my eyes water. Conflating belief in Santa with belief in Jesus is a favorite militant atheist ploy.

So by not offending a few atheists (and kids who don’t believe in Santa Clause?), they wind up offending the vast majority of people who would like to see their children experience the holiday in a normal,  traditional manner.

Nobody is advocating that Christianity be pushed on children at school, but since Christmas is an official state holiday, schools should feel free to recognize it with  traditional images,  songs and carols. ” Winter festival” is not an official anything, and deserves no special attention, so what’s the point of “celebrating the season” with some bland, meaningless, winter theme? Kids learn about the seasons in first grade.

A district spokesperson told WESH that so far no parents have complained.

No, it looks like they’re going right over their heads to complain about their stupidity to the local media.

MORE:

The results of a poll  taken at WESH show that people overwhelmingly disapprove of the district’s anti-Christmas policy:

Do you think restricting Christmas decor at schools is going too far?
Choice Votes Percentage of 3,079 Votes
Yes 2,868
93%
No 211
7%
Thank you for participating in our survey.

Hat tip: Weasel Zippers

MORE:

The BlogProf: War on Xmas: PA Town Bans All Displays So That “No One Is Offended”

Share

  • Blog Stats

    • 4,683,381 hits
  • free counters
  • Is your cat plotting to kill you?
  • Follow

    Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

    Join 548 other followers

    %d bloggers like this: