this here there

So.  Um.

To many Christians, the backlash against Indiana’s “religious freedom” bill was a frightening sign of the secular left’s triumphalism. Liberals were no longer working toward tolerance, it seemed—they were out for conquest. “Many evangelicals were experiencing the sense of an almost existential threat,” Russell Moore, a leader of the Southern Baptist Convention, told me. It was only a matter of time, he said, before cultural elites’ scornful attitudes would help drive Christians into the arms of a strongman like Trump. “I think there needs to be a deep reflection on the left about how they helped make this happen.”

To be sure, I’d rather have bakers not have to service cakes commemorating gay marriages.  (Hey!  There’s a whole article in Harpers on what gays lost by making this hetero-normative accommodation the foundation of what he considers his movement.  I don’t know where he stands on that issue.)  And I’m musing in a lot of threadings of needles — yep!  They’re arguing about creation and definitions of of “art” and “vision” before Supreme Court, when the issue comes down to whether they are forced to stick two plastic Tom Deweys on the top of the damned cake.

And to be sure, the man who made the comment here isn’t a Trump fan.  (Though, I suppose, he’d skip and stick to loyal servant — biblical servant as we see in the article — Pence in a heartbeat.)  But, “scorn” from a set of the political constituency — who themselves receive their fair share of scorn from Coulter Limbaugh and on — leads them to leap over to a Mussolini — Trump?

Like the broad-shoulder rememberances!

In the other revolt of “deep reflection” on the “left” (whatever those are supposed to signify) — Bill Clinton (and by extension his wife) versus hashtag Metoo.  Strange tidings.  So, have veteran  Clinton campaigners in a big banquet somewhere, scaring off people protesting this with an interesting buggaloboo.  “The American people decided.  They voted for him!”  Without coming on any side here, that’s a piss poor argument on moral turpitude.

Though, I see in one of the liberal rags — either The Nation or In These Times — on the considerations here… now that we don’t have, say, an Orrin Hatch to annoy us and come over to Clinton… one statement… questioning if Lewinsky in her power imbalance even has a grounds of consent.  The answer is… without exonerating Clinton here, or against the other matters that would have lead feminists to find their way to a “well, he supports abortion rights” exoneration … er, yes.  You’ve redefined things into meaningless

Leave a Reply