Based upon another post directed at this one of mine, Citizen Crain seems a bit cranky today.
Dandy Dan's diatribe
"Dandy"? How cliche. I'd of hoped for better, something a bit more creative with some flair, perhaps. But that aside, we do get to glimpse Crain's either, twisted, or lack of, logic I suspect he uses to justify his non-sexual positions, somehow.
Rather than read what I actually wrote in response, Riehl vented in one of those rambling, indignant blog-atribes that give the web a bad name — second only to the "Amen corner" commenters who of course high-fived him for standing up to the sissy.
In "Confession: I've Been Gay Bashed," Riehl accuses me of calling him a "Christianist," which is funny because (a) I only used the word in quotes to relate back to an Andrew Sullivan post and (b) never at all about Riehl. In my concluding paragraph, I did use the phrase "conservative Christians," which I prefer to Sully's "Christianist," but I was summing up the whole post, not labeling Riehl, whatever he believes.
Here's what Crain wrote, which I read in full, before responding:
the real reason conservative Christians, who Andrew calls "Christianists," oppose adding gays to hate crime legislation ... I agree entirely with him
I am conservative. I am a Christian. I oppose adding any group, including Gays, to existing HC legislation ... oh, but Crain wasn't talking about me? Crain's clarity of thought (read thoughtlessness) boggles the mind.
I was raised in a church-going, deeply religious, loving Southern family. He assumes I have no respect for Judeo-Christian values: wrong, I am a firm believer in many of them, though I do loathe how they have been and are being twisted to justify all sorts of division. He labels me on the Left: wrong, I am recovering Republican now proudly independent, though like Andrew I am forever being pushed Left by the likes of Riehl.
Okay, precious, I apologize. Typical of the kind of "we so special" viktum mentality pulling you to the Left, you need someone to blame, so, let it be me. It's a daunting responsibility, but I accept. Lord knows, we wouldn't want you roaming the streets at night with no one but yourself to blame for how you think, feel, or act.
Finally, there it is. If we'd spend less time flaunting and — God forbid — enjoying ourselves, then maybe I wouldn't have wound up with a broken nose and two black eyes. Nice. Kiss your mother with that mouth?
I said nothing at all of flaunting, or anything of the sort. Really, Chris, I imagine you're a fine fellow and I might even like you if we met. But come on ... the guilt and embarrassment you carry as a result of being Gay and brought up within a religiously oppressive home drips from every word of your prose. And your use of "Amen corner" only drives home the point.
From where else would the concept of flaunting come? It's in your head and I am truly sorry for that. I would fully agree with you that a too oppressive religious upbringing can do tremendous damage to one's psyche. But I also believe it is ultimately one's own responsibility to deal with that and not project it across society as a whole. And that is precisely what Sullivan, and now you are doing with this whole Christian-ist thing.
As straight-forwardly as I can be, here is my point in that general regard. You and Sullivan rail against the source of moral instruction as, for who knows why, you've come to view it as the primary source of societal division. I strongly disagree, believing that contemporary, as opposed to classical, liberalism is the source of such divide because of its unending addiction to grouped-ness.
It's whole point of existence is to tear societies apart. It prefers people in these myopic little groups with special needs, then promises legislation to serve those needs and it uses that offer as its lever to power - its actual ultimate goal. If we aren't going to tear down all hate crimes legislation, adding one, or another, or any group to it simply broadens our divide by further legitimizing today's prevailing liberal doctrine.
In your case you were beaten up by thugs hanging on the street at 2AM, obviously you were out and about in what can only be defined as a less than desirable area, otherwise there would be no "thugs."
And to solve this problem you propose what? More liberalism.
And you strike back, lashing out, at what? The very source of moral education I view as the only effective counter to the creation of more undesirable areas and more thugs to roam the streets at night - the source of moral-ism in the West, Judeo-Christian belief. That makes no sense.
What I see you and Sullivan saying by attacking so-called Christian-ists is this: We want no rules, we want no standards, we want no morals-based values in our society and when, in our wanderings, we happen into an immoral (read undesirable) place and get our asses kicked, we want big Daddy government to rush in and put a band aide on our boo boo because, Gosh Darn it, we're special and we like ourselves.
Get over it, Crain. If you don't want to get beaten up by street thugs at 2AM, try not walking through the neighborhoods they're in in the middle of the night. That's what I do. It works for me and I don't need one more act of needless Liberal legislation to pull it off. Imagine that.
You want a band aide? Try CVS. Many are now open 24/7 from what I understand.
