On Louis Giglio - When Political Incorrectness is Too Correct

Under pressure, Louis Giglio has withdrawn from giving the Benediction at the Inauguration of The One because he said BIGOTED stuff like the following back in the 90’s:

We must lovingly but firmly respond to the aggressive agenda of not all, but of many in the homosexual community. … Underneath this issue is a very powerful and aggressive moment. That movement is not a benevolent movement, it is a movement to seize by any means necessary the feeling and the mood of the day, to the point where the homosexual lifestyle becomes accepted as a norm in our society and is given full standing as any other lifestyle, as it relates to family.

How DARE he say something so . . . so . . . uh, well . . . correct.  He was right on target as to what would transpire.  He was downright prophetic even.

I thought liberals liked “prophetic.”

The worst thought/speech crimes to Lefties are those that tell the truth. 

To put it another way, nothing is more intolerable to what used to be the “tolerance” crowd than political incorrectness which is . . . correct.

Louis Giglio was too correct for his own good.  And isn’t that what Christians are supposed to be?

Cranmer’s Law

His Grace has promulgated a law of political and religious discourse:

CRANMER’S LAW: “No matter how decent, intelligent or thoughtful the reasoning of a conservative may be, as an argument with a liberal is advanced, the probability of being accused of ‘bigotry’, ‘hatred’ or ‘intolerance’ approaches 1 (100%).”

He helpfully fleshes out this law in action:

Should you dare to raise the thorny subject of limiting immigration, you are ‘racist’; if you juxtapose homosexuality with sin, you are ‘homophobic’; if you argue for the Protestant foundations of the British Constitution, you are a ‘bigot’; if you expresses theological concerns over Islam or utter a word in defence of Israel, you are is ‘Islamophobic’; if you are sceptical about man-made global warming, you are a ‘denier’; if you reason from Scripture and seek to uphold traditional morality, you are ‘intolerant’; and should you ever dare to question any precept or directive of the ‘ever closer’ European Union, you are a not only ‘xenophobic’, but a ‘swivel-eyed, right-wing loon’.

Thus is the level of political discourse in modern Britain . . .

And thus is the level of political and religious discourse in the U. S. as well. And it is shutting down real dialogue that liberals claim to cherish.

Nevertheless we must not allow this libelous and poisonous atmosphere to cow us from standing up for what is right and opposing what is evil.

Liberals and the Race Card, the Homophobia Card, the . . .

This morning, Charles Krauthammer nails a common reflex of liberals and leftists – to equate opposition to them to bigotry. And we have been seeing that reflex in spades of various cards lately:


. . . promiscuous charges of bigotry are precisely how our current rulers and their vast media auxiliary react to an obstreperous citizenry that insists on incorrect thinking.
-- Resistance to the vast expansion of government power, intrusiveness and debt, as represented by the Tea Party movement? Why, racist resentment toward a black president.
-- Disgust and alarm with the federal government's unwillingness to curb illegal immigration, as crystallized in the Arizona law? Nativism.
-- Opposition to the most radical redefinition of marriage in human history, as expressed in Proposition 8 in California? Homophobia.
-- Opposition to a 15-story Islamic center and mosque near Ground Zero? Islamophobia.


Hence, if you oppose the various agendas of the Left, you are a bigot. Just letting you know.

It will be interesting to see how this bigotry meme plays in November. Krauthammer thinks it will not play very well:

The Democrats are going to get beaten badly in November. Not just because the economy is ailing. And not just because Obama over-read his mandate in governing too far left. But because a comeuppance is due the arrogant elites whose undisguised contempt for the great unwashed prevents them from conceding a modicum of serious thought to those who dare oppose them.

The Politicization of Science

I haven’t written much about it here. But I often shake my head at how politicized science has gotten in sensitive areas.

Those familiar with debates involving Neo-Darwinism know well how the Neo-Darwinists tend to attack those who disagree with their dogma with blackballing and vilification more than with honest discussion and debate.

Now we’re seeing similar behavior among global warming advocates. Personally, I think both sides of the debate have good points to make that should be considered seriously. And if there are feasible ways to reduce harmful pollutants, governments should facilitate that. I don’t have ill feelings towards scientists on either side engaging in honest research and debate.

But I’m appalled at how certain global warming shills, Al Gore included, are vilifying those who differ. The latest effort at vilification is the disgusting recent Newsweek cover.

When I saw that cover in the grocery check-out line, I shook my head but was not surprised. That’s the sort of propaganda masquerading as news I’ve long come to expect from that glorified prop mag.

But sometimes the depths the advocates of politically correct science are willing to dive in order to destroy the reputations of opponents is indeed shocking. Read about the “holy hell” Dr. J. Michael Bailey was put through for daring to write a book about transgendered men that transgendered activists didn’t appreciate.

What adds to such outrage is that governments join in and aid the politicization of science, particularly the exclusion of the politically incorrect:

. . . two researchers said they were advised by a government grant officer that they should distance themselves from Dr. Bailey to improve their chances of receiving financing.

Heck, if that’s the way we’re going to do things, let’s just abolish real science – since it can be so (politically) incorrect and evil, don’t you know – and replace it with the Ministry of Correct Knowledge and of the Destruction of Incorrect Lies. That’s the direction Western society is going anyway. Let’s just be done with the myth of academic freedom and get on with indoctrination and with the destruction of those who refuse to be indoctrinated.