By DEXTER DUGGAN
The wily serpent in the Garden of Sodom said that of course God was right that you shouldn’t eat the fruit of that certain tree. But surely you can just lick its skin. It needs to look all shiny; you’d only be helping God’s creation look better, as He intended.
Now, the serpent said, I’ve just nicked off a tiny bit of its skin for you to put on your tongue. That’s not taking a bite, which God rightly forbade. He just wants you to appreciate the complexity of His creation, all rightly arranged, from the skin to the seeds.
Think of this, the serpent said. When He made His restriction, God probably only meant the fruit on that tree right now. I’m sure He didn’t mean to forbid last year’s harvest, stored away in my lair that surely you could take a little taste of.
You know, the serpent said, I’m horrified to have to say this, but I think God made a slight error. He misleads you into thinking that all fruit isn’t equal and forbids you to partake only of this particular part of His bounty. But God is for equality; He can’t have meant to draw a boundary here. Have a bite.
Actually, the serpent said, considering this from every angle, I regret to say how disappointed I am in God, intruding into the details of our lives when He should tend to His own affairs in Heaven on high.
Do you, the serpent asked, tell God how to live in His castle? Of course not! So what gives Him authority over your modest dwelling? When all His royal jewels and gold demand His attention, who would ever think He has time to care about your little orchard? Here’s a basket. I suggest you fill it with the forbidden fruit and put it on sale to your neighbors.
And when you folks all have some of this harvest, the serpent said, you can share in hospitality and closeness by celebrating forbidden fruit-dunking contests, and baking contests, and eating contests for the most fruit consumed in an hour. And I’ll draw up a lawsuit to get Him out of your lives!
Said the serpent in the Garden of Sodom: Oops, do I hear the thunder of God’s footsteps outside? Good luck, you’re on your own — you and your gullibility. I’m outta here!
And so an openly Christian country is transformed gently or sometimes brazenly or brutally, step after step, into an officially God-denying one.
The U.S. Supreme Court has been a major tool in this tearing down, and now may be poised to declare sodomy a constitutional right in the guise of “marriage,” overturning the endowment of traditional Judeo-Christian understanding and historic preference also shared by other cultures around the world.
Or, if the High Court thinks the time isn’t right quite yet to conclude this revolution, there’s always the day after tomorrow.
The court invents fairy-tale “rights” it thinks it can get away with declaring, thereby answering demands from, and depending upon strong defense by, elitists who look hostilely at a nation and world they intend to take over.
In an article posted June 8 at The Federalist website (thefederalist.com), former intelligence analyst Stella Morabito wrote on, “How to escape the age of mass delusion.” She named “same-sex marriage” as just one of the assaults storming against the nation now.
Morabito cited a prescient book from 1956 by Dutch psychiatrist Joost A.M. Meerloo, The Rape of the Mind: The Psychology of Thought Control, Menticide and Brainwashing.
Morabito wrote that “the power elites who now control the media, academia, and Hollywood seem to understand social psychology well enough to exploit it on a massive scale. They have engaged in psychological warfare against the private mind by inducing ‘collective belief formation.’
“There’s really nothing new here,” Morabito wrote. “Conditioning and nudging the masses into groupthink is a very old trick of all wannabe dictators. The bloody 20th century is filled to the gills with examples. . . .
“In his book,” Morabito continued, “Meerloo also shows immense compassion for our human frailties. He understood just how difficult it is to push back against the social pressures to conform. When it comes to brainwashing, every one of us has our breaking point.
“But,” she said, “we absolutely must push back once we understand those tactics: ‘The totalitarian potentate, in order to break down the minds of men, first needs widespread mental chaos and verbal confusion, because both paralyze his opposition and cause the morale of the enemy to deteriorate — unless his adversaries are aware of the dictator’s real aim’.”
There’s no doubt that gender itself is seen today by the Barack Obama-style elite as only as fluid as rushing water — or whatever fluid you think water should be. And from this flows more monstrous nonsense.
Powerful businessmen solemnly inform various states’ officials that prideful sodomy not only is good for their economies, but also that religious believers trying to earn a living must be politically punished if they disagree. And that the business powerhouses will do their utmost to punish dissenting states’ economies, too.
What insane, dictatorial nation are we well on the road to being, where meaning itself has no meaning, but threats to moral truth have iron-fisted import?
Though these threats are real, is some of the supposed social upheaval only contrived by liberal media exaggerating the extent of the change in hopes of pushing it forward even more quickly?
In 1973 a vain Supreme Court deluded about public opinion thought it was settling the abortion issue, only to stir continuing decades of national social strife. “Gay marriage” proponents don’t want the court to see similarities if it dares impose sodomy as “marriage” on the nation now.
However, if “love” and “equality” are the ruling considerations, there’s no end to the combinations of bigamous, polygamous, and ever-permutating lovers and beloveds who have their own ideas of what “marriage” needs to be. Even if every victorious “same-sex couple” never wants to go to court again, plenty of other lovers will want their day before the bench.
As commentator David Harsanyi posted at The Federalist last October: “My sense is that the vast majority of Americans have little interest in shacking up with their sisters or entering into a ménage à trois (well, in its literal meaning, ‘a household of three,’ at least). Rather, I’m asking on what logical grounds can a person argue that gay marriage is okay but polygamy is not — or any other type of marriage?
“If your answer is an arbitrary declaration like ‘the ideal union is between only two individuals’,” Harsanyi wrote, “then all you’ve done is redefine the parameters of marriage. You support gay marriage, not ‘marriage equality’.”
New York attorney Dan McLaughlin warned at The Federalist on June 8: “When my faith itself, the faith of a billion Catholics, is being cast in public debate and popular culture as a bigotry that must be stamped out by any means necessary, I feel an obligation to rise in its defense.”
Although McLaughlin hoped “gays and Christians [can] coexist in America,” he added that “without a vigorous defense, believing Christians in this country face a genuine existential threat: that our culture and legal systems will declare the adherence to core Christian doctrines — unchanged for millennia, directly derived from the words of Jesus and the letters of St. Paul, and in the heartland of the legitimacy of Christ’s teachings — to be outside the bounds of civilized society in the way that the Klu [sic] Klux Klan is today. . . .
“Make no mistake: These are the stakes, and trying to quietly keep our heads down and stay out of trouble will not long put off the day of reckoning,” McLaughlin continued. “They are embedded in the legal argument that there is no possible rational basis for ever finding that any distinction at all exists or ever could exist between traditional opposite-sex marriage and same-sex marriage.
“A series of judicial decisions have held that nobody who takes the traditional side of this argument could possibly be rational, reasonable, or motivated by anything but bigotry, and the Supreme Court may be on the cusp within the next few weeks of doing the same,” he wrote.
Those who have watched the elite forcibly mislead this nation step by step may conclude this deformation is more displeasing to God than in a pagan country that always lived in ignorance.
Whose footsteps sound that thunder? Probably not Supreme Court justices but the highest judge. Amid all this imposed idolatry, might He be about finished granting stays?
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress