National Divorce or Civil War?

The other day I saw on Twitter an article about a Canadian case where a father was forced by a judge to address his daughter as a boy because that is what his daughter claims she is – a boy. This was, naturally, a minor child. It caused a lot of outrage but the real issue here isn’t whether or not a kid should transition or whether a parent should accept such a thing. These are important issues, of course, but the most crucial aspect of it was the judge ordering the father to do something he believed to be wrong – in this case, lie about his daughter’s gender. And that, really, is the point of the whole exercise: to force the lie. Either tell a lie – that your daughter is a boy – or be held in contempt of court and go to jail…where you won’t be able to do anything for anyone, least of all your daughter who is being destroyed before your eyes. But, also, if you agree to say the lie then you’ve just lost the most important thing you can be for your daughter: someone who is fearlessly honest. If you’ll lie about something like that, what won’t you lie about?

Another case that caused some comment was the Utah Senate’s vote to de-criminalize polygamy. From the article:

Sen. Deidre Henderson stood on the Senate floor Friday and asked her colleagues to reconsider a decades-old state law classifying bigamy as a felony and making implied criminals of the state’s polygamous residents.

Rather than deter or eliminate polygamy, the Spanish Fork Republican said, the state code’s threat of harsh punishments had driven polygamous communities underground; cut families off from jobs, education and health care; and given rise to a subculture that gives predators “free rein to prey upon vulnerable people.”

Note how our Conservative Republican is busy Conserving…we have to legalize polygamy because if we don’t let these weirdos do what they want, they’ll be weird. Argument sound familiar? You have heard it before. Its the way Conservatism cements Liberalism…because the real reason they are doing this is because SSM became legal and once that was done, there was no argument to be made against polygamy except the same arguments used to attack SSM…it is against Natural Law (which Conservatives are supposed to Conserve). But we jettisoned that with SSM…and by “we” I mean “we Conservatives”. Not all of us, of course, but a large enough number that made the imposition of SSM a bipartisan event in the United States.

And we were all so happy about it, weren’t we? Love is love, right? Two men. Two Women. Three Woman and a Man. A 40 year old and a 15 year old…hey, wait! What are you saying? No one is advocating for that! You insane, mean spirited bigot! The very idea!

But, you know its coming. I’m sure if I dug around enough I’d find serious scholarship arguing for no age barriers, or at least much lowered age barriers. I won’t look for it because I don’t really want to see it – and if it doesn’t exist at this moment, it will in a short while. And you know it. And the argument which will be made – and eventually by Conservative Republicans Super Conserving Conservatism – is that if we don’t lower the age bars, we’ll be giving predators “free rein to prey upon vulnerable people.”

But still in all that, the worst aspect of it all is that we are not being asked to tolerate, but to actively approve. That’s the real problem here: we definitely live in a post-Christian world which not only lacks a mechanism to enforce morality, but wouldn’t even agree most of the time on what is moral – but it isn’t enough, for those running the show, that we who still retain the old morality to live and let live. No: they insist that we participate and approve. We Christians are rather back to square one, as it were: just waiting to be rounded up and led to the arena to provide dinner for the lions. Because it is going to be like that – the Christians of 100 AD made no effort to stop the storied infamies of 1st century Rome. There was no demand that the Games be cancelled or that the licentiousness be curbed…and yet still the Roman world went mad against Christians and tore them to pieces…because they wanted the Christians to approve of the Pagan lifestyle. When such approval was withheld, off the Christians went to provide bloody entertainment to the offended Pagans. Do you get it? Your lack of immorality offends.

So, what to do?

I’m not sure – but I am inclining towards those who simply want a divorce. That the portion of America which believes a person can change their gender separates from that part of America which doesn’t believe such a thing can happen. It would take some sorting out – how much territory each side gets; divvying up the national debt and military assets; will people have a period of time where they can move freely from America I to America II (and vice versa) with immediate full citizenship status? My guess is that we’d vote by county – and if a majority votes for America I, they are America I…America II, America II. It would make for a bit of a chopped up America II (the Left side) as they have majorities in far few counties but that could be address by negotiation…which would also be a drawn out process.

But, if we don’t divorce, we’ll have to fight. One thing I can’t see is us staying together and at peace when the two sides differ not just on trivia like forms of government, but on basic things like “2 plus 2 equals 4”. For our citizens who really think that “genderfluid” is a thing, 2 plus 2 equals whatever the hell they want at the moment. I’d rather we divorced – because if we fight, then the losing side doesn’t get to live in the America of the winning side. And I mean, at all.

Can the USA Stay Together?

The knitting (yes, knitting) website Ravelry has banned all pro-Trump content. They did this, so they said, to be inclusive of “all”. I noted to them on their Twitter account that “all” has a meaning and they should look it up. I haven’t received a response. But, that aside, we should really think about what they are doing here: they are saying that being pro-Trump (you know, like most of us who come here are, to one degree or another) is inherently evil.

I’m a middle aged man of no particular importance. Just a regular guy, as it were. I’ve got my stack of sins, just like everyone else but I also at least try to do the right thing, as most people do. I’m not evil. That is, I don’t desire evil to happen – I don’t seek it out; I don’t enjoy it; I don’t wish for anyone to suffer evil in their lives. But what of people who wish to silence me because I voted for a particular person for President? Are they good? Or, more to the point, do they and I have the same idea of what “good” is?

That is the really decisive thing in a country, after all. In general, most things, most of the time, have to be agreed to by nearly everyone. If you and I have opposite understandings of what “up” and “down” are, we’re going to find it hard to cooperate in any real sense. We’ll keep having fundamental conflicts with each other as we each try to get the other to do the exact opposite of what is desired. Eventually, we either have to give up and go our separate ways, or one of us must surrender his definition of what “up” and “down” are to the other person. As Our Lord said – and Lincoln reiterated – a house divided against itself cannot stand. It must cease to be divided, or it must fall.

Until just recently, I held firmly to the opinion that it was really no business of mine, at all, what other people believed. But now I realize something: tolerance can only go so far. We tolerated the bizarre ideology of the leftists because we felt ourselves safe – after all, it was ridiculous what they believed and no rational nation would ever allow themselves to be ruled by such lunacy. But the left is no longer a fringe of lunatics we can laugh at. They control the media, the large corporations, the education establishment, the bureaucracy and a large portion of the judiciary. The very craziest leftwing nutjob we laughed at 25 years ago is now in a position to enforce insanity upon us; and they are doing so. We are now forced to watch what we say, lest an unguarded word puts our job at risk. We are forced to fight tooth and nail just to secure the right to be left alone – and even when we win, the left just keeps coming right back at us, never accepting any defeat as anything more than a temporary setback.

And it isn’t that we and the left want the same things. We might both say we want “justice” but what they mean by the word and what we mean is entirely different – so different that it is like trying to say “black” and “white” are the same thing. To us, justice means people get what they are due…to them, justice means anyone they hate gets punished. Facts and logic mean nothing to the left – but they mean something to us. And we also know that we can’t have anything without rigid adherence to facts and logic. But the left views it differently – they do think they can, by a sort of incantation, make the world fit their mental image, rather than taking the world as it is. And just how do we get along? How do we find a way to march down the road together when we want to be on the road while the left is insisting that that the cliff is the road and we should walk over it?

In the end, I don’t want us to stay together if it is to be like this – in theory, I want the entire territory of the United States to be intact and for all of us to be patriotic citizens of the same country. In reality, though, it can’t be that way. At least, not right now. And maybe not ever. I can’t live in a nation where it is implied I am evil because of whom I voted for…or that I’m evil because of the skin color I was born with, or that I’m evil because of the religion I adhere to, or that the emblems of my nation must all be torn down. You get the picture. I can’t live with people who don’t see the world largely as I do. And I don’t think anyone else can, either. It might be mere inertia that is keeping us going right now – but I fear that this is a fading quality and a crisis is coming.

It is being provoked by the left – and I honestly don’t think they’re smart enough to understand fully what they are doing – and it could lead to a civil war…wherein either they’d kill all of us or we’d kill all of them. In either case, the nation would cease to be divided against itself. It would become all one thing. I’d prefer what some are calling a national divorce…where we just nearly divvy up the national debt on a per-capita basis and everyone votes, State by State (I prefer county by county, actually) which nation they want to belong to. Each resulting nation would become a nation of people who largely agree – and that is how it has to be, if a nation is to exist, at all.