October 20, 2014

Metropolitan Hilarion Believes that Western Countries Tend to Dictatorship

blow-out-libertySecularization disguised as democratization released a colossal energy of subordination to power in the European states.

Met. Hilarion below affirms a thesis I developed in the essay “Homosexual Marriage at the Dusk of Liberty” where I argue that the legal codification of homosexual “marriage” effectively establishes the State as both the source and judge of human morality. This breathtaking arrogation of moral authority can only lead to the extinction of liberty.

Progressive ideologies have at their core a totalitarian impulse (see Malcolm Muggeridge “The Great Liberal Death Wish“). When Progressive ideas meld with the power of the State, those who hold views contrary to the Progressive social vision will be seen as enemies of the State. When that happens Christianity will become criminalized.

Met. Hilarion makes the same point from the European side:

“Free will of citizens is a preconditioned, not absolute characteristic of a democratic state. For example, two European states – the Great Britain and France – have recently legalized unisex marriages. For comparably short time, after the parliament approved this law, France has become a stage for protest demonstrations with millions of people participating. However, the state consciously and demonstratively ignored demands of people and used tear gas to disperse them,” the author of the article says.

According to him, “secularization in disguise of democratization” released “colossal energy of subordination to power” in European states.

“This powerful energy today strives to finally break with Christianity, which controlled its totalitarian impulses during seventeen centuries. Eventually, it unconsciously strives to set up an absolute dictatorship that demands total control over each member of society. Don’t we move to it when “for the sake of security” we agree to obligatory electronic passports, dactyloscopy for everyone, and photo cameras occurring everywhere? All these things can be easily used in other purposes that can also be interpreted as “strengthening security measures,” Metropolitan Hilarion notes.

Note too his point that the infrastructure for totalitarianism is already place.

Source: Interfax | HT: Koinonia

met-hilarion-profileMoscow, July 24, Interfax – Modern Western states move to absolute dictatorship, head of the Department for External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate Metropolitan Hilarion believes.

“Nowadays state sets a principle of secularity, independency from any outside authority that is authorized to point out to violations of morals or rights,” the metropolitan writes in his article published in the Pravoslavnaya Beseda magazine.

People are declared the only source of authority in a democratic state, and people should realize this authority through free will of citizens participating in elections and referendums.

“Free will of citizens is a preconditioned, not absolute characteristic of a democratic state. For example, two European states – the Great Britain and France – have recently legalized unisex marriages. For comparably short time, after the parliament approved this law, France has become a stage for protest demonstrations with millions of people participating. However, the state consciously and demonstratively ignored demands of people and used tear gas to disperse them,” the author of the article says.

According to him, “secularization in disguise of democratization” released “colossal energy of subordination to power” in European states.

“This powerful energy today strives to finally break with Christianity, which controlled its totalitarian impulses during seventeen centuries. Eventually, it unconsciously strives to set up an absolute dictatorship that demands total control over each member of society. Don’t we move to it when “for the sake of security” we agree to obligatory electronic passports, dactyloscopy for everyone, and photo cameras occurring everywhere? All these things can be easily used in other purposes that can also be interpreted as “strengthening security measures,” Metropolitan Hilarion notes.

He believes that latest developments in the world is “constituent restoration of Pax Romana, global international supremacy.” The metropolitan also says that if Roman authorities were in certain periods indifferent to immorality, today they strive to make “immorality normal.”

Comments

  1. Back to Recent Comments list  Back to top
    geo michalopulos says:

    AXIOS!

  2. Back to Recent Comments list  Back to top
    David says:

    If there was a secular version of the word prelest, I think it would apply to him in his statements.

    • Back to Recent Comments list  Back to top
      Fr. Johannes Jacobse says:

      Secular ideology does not have the capacity to deal with concepts like prelest because by its a-priori denial of the transcendent it necessarily becomes self-referencing. Delusion is measured by ones devotion to the ideology, e.g. someone who disputes one of the fundamental axioms must be deluded simply by the fact he disputes it.

      I’m not sure what you mean by “I think it would apply to him in his statements,” however. Who? Met. Hilarion? What statements?

      • Back to Recent Comments list  Back to top
        David says:

        Yes Met. Hilarion. Prelest was not the best word to use, perhaps deluded would have been better.

        His whole premise that legalization of same sex unions is plunging the “West” into dictatorship is just silly. Most western countries still have a democratically elected government, and so if the people are not happy with the laws their leaders are making, they can freely vote for someone else to change the law.

        Secularism aims to protect the freedoms of people from all backgrounds. If there is any country that is moving more and more towards dictatorship and authoritarian rule, it’s Russia with the enactment of new laws designed to imprison anyone that dare speak out against the state or the Church.

        • Back to Recent Comments list  Back to top
          Fr. Johannes Jacobse says:

          No, secularism is not really capable of protecting people if by the term you mean denuding the public square of any reference to Christianity. OTOH, if you mean by the term that religions are free to engage the public square then, yes, the term works.

          There is much confusion about state and religion. For example, take the case of the Oklahoma judge who just invalidated a law barring Sharia Law. She seems to think that liberty exists apart from any moral reference, outside of any moral vision (and thus religion), and is somehow self-generating and self-sustaining. The Muslims of course are under no such illusion and any imposition of Sharia Law would blow the assumption out of the water at the first opportunity.

          The only other solution is that the State itself becomes the final arbiter of all things moral in which case it also asserts for itself the authority to define what morality is. It’s already doing that by declaring couplings not found in nature, history, or the moral tradition as morally licit marriage. This arrogation of authority portends the the loss of liberty since liberty rests in virtues that State cannot define or provide. In this way same-sex unions and dictatorships are related.

          • Back to Recent Comments list  Back to top
            Paul Campbell says:

            David, you write that “Secularism aims to protect the freedoms of people from all backgrounds.” You are correct in the sense that secularism protects “secular” freedoms. However, from the Christian perspective, the ultimate freedom is the freedom from sin and death. Secularism, by definition, has absolutely nothing to say about this ultimate freedom, does it?

  3. Back to Recent Comments list  Back to top
    Michael Bauman says:

    The secular is the reality prelest brings about.

  4. Back to Recent Comments list  Back to top
    M. Stankovich says:

    Since I began reading here, I have yet to determine what, in the end, will be the anticipated result of – at this point, it seems unreasonable to speak in terms of “maintaining” – restoring the Christian ideology in our Western society.

    The problems, as I see it – and with no intention of provocation – I must note that, from thread to thread, I could not describe for someone inquiring as to what the “Christian ideology” being promoted – succinctly, systematically, and cohesively – might be. The continuous impression conveyed is that where there is a society, a nation, that is grounded & governed by mechanisms and means of Christian faith, there necessarily will be justice, equity, fairness, wisdom, safety, employment, education, a vigorous economy, ethical business and securities, a strong military, accessible medical care, comfortable retirement, and an assurance of peace. This is, however, entirely theoretical. But Fr. Florovsky has noted that:

    The church was, both in the East and in the West, a supreme teacher of all ethical values. All ethical values of our present civilization can be traced back to Christian sources, and above all back to the gospel of Christ. Again, the church is a society which claims the whole man for God’s service and offers cure and healing to the whole man, and not only to his “soul.”

    Collected Works, Vol. II, Christianity & Culture, “The Social Problem in the Eastern Orthodox Church,” p. 142

    The question to ask, then, is it an “Orthodox” ideology, meaning judgement according to the Eschaton and the “redeeming of time” [τὸν καιρὸν ἐξαγοραζόμενοι] (Col. 4:5)? How am I to reconcile those Gospel readings selected for those “time-turned-upside-down” Liturgies of the Pre-Sanctified Gifts of Holy Week:

    But beware of men: for they will deliver you up to the councils, and they will whip you in their synagogues; And you shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them and the Gentiles. [But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what you shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what you shall speak. For it is not you that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaks in you.And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death. And you shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake: but he that endures to the end shall be saved. But when they persecute you in this city, flee you into another: for truly I say to you, You shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord. It is enough for the disciple that he be as his master, and the servant as his lord. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more shall they call them of his household? (Matt. 10:17-25)

    And,

    Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household. He that loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And he that takes not his cross, and follows after me, is not worthy of me. He that finds his life shall lose it: and he that loses his life for my sake shall find it. (10:34-36)

    The dissonance – a byproduct of the lack of a fundamental acknowledgment – is disturbing. Secondly, it is no surprise to me that, in describing what has become the most trite of “buzzfeeds” in the discussion of the role of the Church in modern society, “in the world, but not of the world, ” Fr. Florovsky , the activist, card-carrying member of the Republican Party, and Fr. Alexander Schmemann in delivering the first Nicholai Zernov Memorial Lecture in London, both independently settled on the same word: antinomy.

    Either Christians ought to go out of the world, in which there is another Master besides Christ (whatever name this other Master may bear: Caesar or Mammon or any other) and in which the rule and the goal of life are other than those set out in the Gospel—to go out and to start a separate society. Or again Christians have to transform the outer world, to make it the Kingdom of God as well, and introduce the principles of the Gospel into secular legislation… In the last resort, however, it is only a symptom of the ultimate antinomy. The problem simply has no historical solution. A true solution would transcend history, it belongs to the “age to come.” In this age, on the historic plane, no constitutional principle can be given, but only a regulative one: a principle of discrimination, not a principle of construction… And all attempts at the direct Christianization of the world, in the guise of a Christian State or Empire, have only led to the more or less acute secularization of Christianity itself.

    Collected Works, Vol. I, Bible, Church, Tradition: An Eastern Orthodox View, “The Church: Her Nature and Task,” pp.71-72

    [One] type of theology includes various trends. When concerned more particularly with justice and politics, it may take the form of liberation theology. Another trend within this same type of theology is well described in the title of a book called The Triumph of Therapeutics. We develop a therapeutical theology, because our world is therapeutic. We are always trying to help people. I don’t know about London, but in New York you cannot miss advertisements for a toothpaste that guarantees happiness. We make the same claim for religion: it also ‘guarantees happiness’. ‘Take your family to the church or synagogue of your choice. It helps.’ The Second type abandons all attempts to achieve a common discourse between theology and the world. Its main goal (and I am oversimplifying: I can only make the point in outline) is the attainment of personal spiritual self-fulfilment. After being dean of a seminary now for more than twenty years, I notice that the word ‘spirituality’ is pronounced much more often than the name of Jesus Christ.

    Sobornost, 7(1985): 6-14.

    When we, the Orthodox, possess so may many divisions, so many fractions, and so little by way of leadership and direction in our own “house,” so to speak, for us to be focused on illusion strikes as somewhat ludicrous:

    Byzantium had failed, grievously failed, to establish an unambiguous and adequate relationship between the Chiurch and the larger Commonwealth. It did not succeed in unlocking the gate of the Paradise Lost. Yet nobody else has succeeded, either. The gate is still locked. The Byzantine key was not a right one. So were all other keys, too. And probably there is no earthly or historical key for that ultimate lock. There is but an eschatological key, the true “Key of David.”

    Collected Works, Vol. II, Christianity & Culture, “Antinomies of Christian History: Empire and Desert,” p. 98-99.

    The reality is that the hierarchy of the Church, by logistics & indifference, has left parishes to function alone – ironically enough, the “starting point” of Fr. Schmemann’s solution to the Problems of Orthodoxy in America – as it seems everything must now wend its way to the SCOTUS eventually…

  5. Back to Recent Comments list  Back to top
    James Morton says:

    I never like to criticise our hierarchy, but as someone who tries to be intellectually honest and fair, I can’t help but make the following observations:

    1. Met. Hilarion criticises western governments for supposedly suppressing popular protest. In fact they did not suppress any popular protest, though they did choose to ignore it. The Russian government, on the other hand, consistently suppresses popular protest, and often violently. When will we see Met. Hilarion speaking out against that?

    2. Met. Hilarion says that the legalisation of homosexual marriage represents the state raising itself up as a moral arbiter. Really, only just now? In the past, the state used to prevent homosexuals from getting married – isn’t that a kind of ‘moral arbitration’? It also used to jail people for being homosexual – that is certainly a kind of moral arbitration! In Russia, the state will fine people for TALKING about homosexuality. Of course, Met. Hilarion knows all of this perfectly well.

    3. Progressives are the force driving repressive governments and dictatorships? Interesting. I think that this is what psychologists call ‘projection’ – in reality, repressive governments (like that in Russia) love nothing better than to harness conservatism. What Met. Hilarion is complaining about here is not that western governments are turning into progressive dictatorships, but rather that they aren’t turning into the kind of conservative dictatorships he would apparently like (as Russia’s government is doing).

    Of course, Met. Hilarion is a very intelligent man, and he knows all of this. However, this is the way that the political winds in Russia blow, and clearly he is happy to blow with them. That is the most disappointing thing.

  6. Back to Recent Comments list  Back to top
    Larry says:

    It’s an interesting angle to suggest that Authoritarianism (for lack of a better phrase) exists in a vacuum. As the influence of Christianity declines, the state seems to strengthen. As we are bearing witness to the issues of homosexual marriage and the burgeoning movement of atheism. Fr. Jacobse alluded to this before that atheists wouldn’t be atheists in a system such as Soviet Russia. (Indeed, the most vocal atheists in my observations seem to be young people who have no recollection of Communist Russia). As I have studied some history, I’m finding a very disturbing correlation between the modern day atheism and late 19th century Anarchism. The ideologies seem to be the exact same with the exception of terrorism and assassination. I fear that over the course of the next 20 to 30 years, will we be doomed to repeat the horrors of two world wars and a repeat of the despotic regimes of the not too distant past? I’m beginning to wonder if it’s these encroachments on the natural law that sew the seeds of our self destruction.

    • Back to Recent Comments list  Back to top
      Fr. Johannes Jacobse says:

      Larry, Nietzsche predicted the same thing. It’s not that hard to see actually. When Western Civilization abandons Christ, the categories and institutions shaped by the Christian faith get gravely distorted. The sense of judgement that held private passions in check on the one hand, and the enervating creativity that Christianity unleashed in the world on the other, both weaken. This devolution has grave cultural ramifications in the long term.

      The rise of ideologies in the last century was the manifestation of the decline of Christianity and if you look at them closely, particularly Marxism, you see their dependence on Christian categories although the New Jerusalem is of course temporalized (immanentized). The future, barring no repentance and thus intervention from God (do we need another Great Awakening?), portends a suffering as great as Soviet Russia experienced under Communism. Someone told me that St. John Maximovitch predicted such a calamity for America. I need to find out if that is accurate, however.

      Nietzsche simply projected the (de-Christianized) categories forward. He possessed a prescient sense of how societies worked which is why his predictions are reliable. That understanding came I think (apart from his native talents) from his boyhood as the son of a Lutheran pastor. (His background and subsequent work may also confirm that at the core of the embrace of nihilism lies the willful rejection of God and the hierarchies God’s creative Word brought into being. These kind of conclusions however, lie in the realm of the unseen [non-empirical] and are thus subject to hot debate.)

      Repentance and turning back of the secular machine is not outside the realm of the possible. Some historians argue that the egalitarian virus unleashed by the French Revolution did not jump the English Channel because John Wesley roused the English back to Christ. Secular ideologies always bow to the strong man – Napoleon in the case of the French.

      • Back to Recent Comments list  Back to top
        Harry Coin says:

        These discussions would benefit from integrating the lessons of economic history. The most applicable theme seems to me is the Christian faith’s upholding the value of each person puts downward or restraining pressure on initiatives that appropriate labor or oppress. Leadership representing so many becomes leadership representing nobody. The leadership becomes emboldened to try his/her/their ‘big idea’ without sufficiently valuing the shaping voices of those given to know perspectives, mostly because of the human impossibility of enough seconds in the day to connect with so many.

        In our American case we have more highly educated people in the cities and towns than ever before per capita, while proportionately ever fewer per capita in distant centers. So few’representing’ so many is beyond the means of human processing. But without the sense of ‘being the same as them’, ‘the leadership; nevertheless take decisions and ‘because they can handle it’. The loss of Christian humility and trust that those closer to the scene can manage. Wonder why all the buildings in Soviet Russia looked the same? There becomes a willingness impose detailed one-size-fits-all policies on those that know the local situation best. A lack of empathy toward those who ‘slip through the cracks’ of ‘their great policy’. It’s the sort of thinking that lowers the restraint against blunt measures such as chemical weapons, etc.

        One way to measure the extent of the decay is to guage the extent to which loyalty is ‘two way’ or ‘one way’ among leadership.

    • Back to Recent Comments list  Back to top
      Fr. Johannes Jacobse says:

      Met. Hilarion says that the legalisation of homosexual marriage represents the state raising itself up as a moral arbiter. Really, only just now? In the past, the state used to prevent homosexuals from getting married – isn’t that a kind of ‘moral arbitration’? It also used to jail people for being homosexual – that is certainly a kind of moral arbitration! In Russia, the state will fine people for TALKING about homosexuality.

      All law draws from the moral consensus operating in the larger culture. We still have laws against pedophilia, we don’t allow fathers to marry daughters or mothers their sons, outlaw polygamy, and so forth. All these prohibitions seem natural to us because they reference a deeper moral sensibility.

      The difference between the codification of a homosexual coupling as a legal marriage and traditional marriage however, is that the homosexual coupling is not in accord with natural law, historical practice, or moral tradition. It is solely an invention of the State and thus reveals an arrogation of authority in which the State asserts itself as both the source and judge of the moral validity of human relationships. This is a dangerous development. Once the citizenry grants that type of authority to the State, the State becomes Leviathian and the organs and prerogatives of the State turn to serve the State rather than the people.

      I’ve cautioned homosexuals in the past (and do it again here) that the activism might come back to bite them. If society hits on harder times (and it will), the homosexual as scapegoat can rear its head again. For example, if Obamacare survives and rationing starts, do you really believe the monies devoted to AIDS treatments today will remain? I don’t. I know that some homosexual commentators agree with me. The role of outsider might actually be safer, at least if the reach of the State increases. Natural law cannot be nullified; only our comprehension of it wanders and wanes.

      • Back to Recent Comments list  Back to top
        Larry says:

        I agree wholeheartedly. Especially with your last comment. I dare say this activism leading to marriage equality is proving to be counter productive. Advocates often argue with me because they believe they have a right to be happy. Ostensibly, happiness is the central aim in marriage equality, but it really has to do with acceptance. To believe that the lifestyle is acceptable to society. Looking at it from that perspective, homosexuals observing that their lifestyle is gaining acceptance is leading them to become more irresponsible. The CDC website issued statistics about new HIV/AIDS infections. In 2008, when marriage equality was gaining real traction after the loss of prop 8, homosexuals were responsible for 63% of the new cases of HIV. In 2010, that number burgeoned to 78%! More recent data has yet to be published, but I wouldn’t be surprised to see the rate of infection on the rise as of late.

        • Back to Recent Comments list  Back to top
          M. Stankovich says:

          Larry,

          I would suggest that you clarify your “facts”: Prop 8 was not “lost” prior to the recent decision of the SCOTUS. While the CA Supreme Court determined the proposition to be unconstitutional, the ruling had no effect in lifting the order of the Federal Court of Appeals that CA could not conduct same-sex marriages until all avenues of appeal had been exhausted. Secondly, without providing something of context for your statement that 78% of all new cases of HIV/AIDS are attributable to homosexuals, the statement is hardly as dramatic as you apparently intended. Every few years, the journals of epidemiology routinely feature a commentary of “Whatever happened to the AIDS epidemic in heterosexuals?” 78% of 5, 000 is significantly different than 78% of 5,000,000. Personally, I too would have presumed the rate significantly higher among homosexuals, obviously for different reasons than you. And so it goes…

          • Back to Recent Comments list  Back to top
            Larry says:

            M. Stankovich,

            I was merely referencing the actual election result where the advocates for same sex marriage “lost” in 2008. What occurred in the courts thereafter isn’t really germane to the point that I was trying to make.

            Secondly, with regard to the statistics, I wasn’t aiming for dramatics so much as I was aiming for pith. Irregardless of the sample size, what is inherent is the reality that an INCREASING number of new HIV infections are as a result of homosexual activity during a time when the ACCEPTANCE of their lifestyle is gaining traction. To wit: the idea of monogamous homosexual relationships under the guise of marriage equality should result in DECREASED new instances of HIV within the homosexual community, only to find out that this hasn’t been the case.

            • Back to Recent Comments list  Back to top
              M. Stankovich says:

              Larry,

              Epidemiology in complex, diverse populations is difficult enough, but add the dimension of “stigmatizing disorders” and the subjective variable of “self-report,” and you radically exacerbate the problem. You can begin to image that your conclusion – “monogamous relationships under the guise of marital equality should reduce new instances of HIV infection” – is naive.

              The rates of infection determined by the CDC derive from “men who have sex with men” (MSM) which includes men who identify as homosexual,but also those who identify as bisexual, heterosexual, the imprisoned, etc. who have had sex with men. [I would note that enough heterosexual men report homosexual behaviour but deny homo/bisexuality for the CDC to consider it in this category, and prison inmates, as a rule, do not continue this behaviour upon release, or so they report]. So, how could I possibly demonstrate any of this is true? Perhaps by examining the partners of the “non-homosexual” MSM’s? Who’d have thought? Unprotected sexual partners of AIDS-infected individuals are most often the second source for new infections – the irony being some of the the increase in HIV infection could be directly attributable to “monogamous homosexual relationships under the guise of marriage equality.”

              As to your first point, in my mind it most certainly was germane to the issue: with the greatest voter turnout in CA history – 80%+ of all registered voters – Prop 8 passed by a margin of less than 2% of the vote. This was hardly a “mandate,” but it certainly was a call to action. a call we failed to answer.

              • Back to Recent Comments list  Back to top
                James Bradshaw says:

                Mr Stankovich: What do you make of the disproportionate levels of HIV in African-American and Latino gay men? According to the CDC in 2010, black and Latino men combined were responsible for around 17,000 new infections, while white men accounted for only 11,000 or so.

                I hope this doesn’t sound like a racist ploy. I’m merely reporting the facts. Is this a lack of education and knowledge regarding how the disease is spread? Is there something about the culture of these communities that makes the acquisition and transmission of the disease more likely for some reason?

                My experience of both minority communities is that they are much less accepting of any form of homosexual conduct (even as the culture at large is increasingly accepting). If you look at the NOM traditional marriage rallies, you’ll find them very often over-represented by minorities. As such, gay men and women in those communities might be less likely to seek monogamy and instead resort to living on the “down low” (as they call it), looking for anonymous sexual encounters in bath houses and the like.

                Of course, this doesn’t deny the reality of promiscuity on the part of too many white gay men and the need for reform within that culture as well. It’s a question of degree.

                • Back to Recent Comments list  Back to top
                  M. Stankovich says:

                  Mr. Bradshaw,

                  There two recent interesting studies, one published as a systematic review of prevention strategies & racial disparities (J Gen Intern Med 27(8):1047–67, 2012) and one on the role of “stigmatizing” conditions in minority communities (AIDS Educ Prev. 2013 June ; 25(3): 179–189) that analyze the fact that African-American & Hispanic Americans have grossly accounted for a disproportionate number of infection cases for nearly thirty years. While these authors have drawn no startling conclusions, they certainly have provided a sobering context by placing HIV/AIDS among the healthcare issues in which minorities are disproportionally represented in general: hypertension, diabetes, colon cancer, lung cancer, obesity, mental illness, and chemical dependency. And what are the causes: lack of knowledge, a tradition of poor choice-making in healthcare matters, lack of access to the preventative healthcare system, poorer overall health in general, over-reliance by necessity on the emergency healthcare system, delays in diagnostic testing, blah, blah, blah. Specific to HIV/AIDS, because of cultural stigma and ignorance, they are less likely to be tested for sexually transmitted disease, less likely to seek treatment in general, less likely to complete treatment for sexually transmitted disease, etc.

                  I don’t know if you recall, but in the first “wave” of the epidemic, intravenous drug users (IVDU) were nearly exclusively minorities, and when the NYS Dept. of Substance Abuse Services projected in the late 1980’s that 250-275,000 IVDU’s were infected in NYC alone, they foretold a minority holocaust. And as you allude, the stigma & intolerance of homosexuality in the African-American & Hispanic communities is well known, but the lack of services for drug users forced IVDU’s to surreptitiously seek medical services in the gay community. It was amusing but sad to have my IVDU patients present me with gay pornographic newspapers that also happened to have large classified sections with services for people with AIDS.

                  So, Mr. Bradshaw, the short answer as to why there is a disproportionate level of HIV in African-American and Latino gay men (and you must include female partners of “men who have sex with men” as it is the leading cause of death of African American women) are the same reasons that minorities are over-represented in the healthcare system: hypertension, diabetes, colon cancer, lung cancer, obesity, mental illness, and chemical dependency. Why not offer some form of healthcare alternative to Medicaid that focuses on preventative care? Don’t ask somebody who stayed up too many nights with all the king’s horses and all the king’s men… Like the brooms carrying water for the Sorcerer’s Apprentice, they just keep coming.

  7. Back to Recent Comments list  Back to top
    cynthia curran says:

    All law draws from the moral consensus operating in the larger culture. We still have laws against pedophilia, we don’t allow fathers to marry daughters or mothers their sons, outlaw polygamy, and so forth. All these prohibitions seem natural to us because they reference a deeper moral sensibility.
    True, many people committed incest like the Byzantine Emperor Heraclitus married his niece and Byzantine historians in the middle ages believe his urine problems were caused by the God punishing him. Today, they would have a different view.

    • Back to Recent Comments list  Back to top
      Mike says:

      “We still have laws against pedophilia, we don’t allow fathers to marry daughters or mothers their sons, outlaw polygamy, and so forth. All these prohibitions seem natural to us because they reference a deeper moral sensibility.”

      Don’t be surprised to see these try to get normalized next…

  8. Back to Recent Comments list  Back to top
    Isaac says:

    Christians don’t have to stand by passively in all of this. They could at least let the government that is tending towards totalitarianism have a taste of what non-violent non-compliance might look like. Liberal types usually don’t fight in the military. If every person who claims Christ as savior, from Catholic to Mormon, left the military ASAP, and no others joined, the US military would be utterly crippled. Second, if every person who claims Christ as savior pulled their children out of public schools, the public school system would be gutted. One has to question how any Christians could be in a military that slaughters civilians for profit let alone one that openly embraces homosexuality and having women fight on the front lines. The US would be brought to a grinding halt if Christians stopped playing along with the system, but instead they act like the frog in the slowly warming water that sooner or later will get boiled. Totalitarianism only works with cooperation and these liberal tendencies to enforce moral compliance can be pretty easily unravelled.

Care to comment?

*