Those of us who rejoiced in the retirement of liberal columnist Donald Kaul (who expressed anti–Biblical sentiments, not to mention anti–common sense) on virtually every issue he discussed, had a brief period of exuberance. Almost immediately he was replaced by another writer of the same ilk, Robyn Blumner.
Her column of August 30th in the Denton Record–Chronicle discussed the subject of marriage from a strictly social viewpoint. Her perspective is set forth fairly clearly in this paragraph:
Social taboos are the goosestep of values. Collectively we are brainwashed to follow rules set out for us by our religion, ethnic traditions or social circle without questioning whether they truly will make us better, more decent people (12A).
What arrogance she demonstrates by assuming that no one else has ever evaluataed rules and traditions–except her! Are these reckless statements to be regarded as product of careful thinking? To make a blanket statement that ties conformity to Hitler’s Nazi party reflects shallow thinking and total irresponsibility. It seems to be extremely fashionable these days for liberals to shout the name Nazi at anyone who does not conform to their ideology. And the ironic thing is that Hitler mostly practiced what they “preach”: abortion, euthanasia, and the “survival of the fittest” (the doctrine of evolutionary atheism).
The charge of brainwashing is ridiculous. The current divorce rate, the number of single–parent homes, and the number of couples living together apart from marriage reveal that few, if any, are bound by religion or social customs. Many have decided to abide by the now nearly sacred philosophy of, “If it feels good, do it.”
In fact, Blumner writes this column as a kind of defense for living with her boyfriend seven years before marriage to avoid the marriage tax. She could not abide readers telling her that she was “living in sin.” She will abide it when God tells her so on the day of judgment, but she refuses to hear it before then.
Blumner blunders in defending herself:
Without knowing whether I was a good neighbor, a diligent employee, a dependable friend, a loving and loyal partner or a dutiful daughter, without knowing anything more about me beyond marital status, these readers had marked me immoral (12A).
As well they should! Her argument is entirely without merit. What did David know about Goliath except that he was uncircumcised and taunted the armies of the living God? Goliath may have been a loving son and a great brother. Perhaps he had saved his comrades’ lives, carried two wounded men to safety, and won a purple heart. But the fact is that he defied God, just as Robyn does. Some former military heroes have been tried and imprisoned for their crimes. Should they be given immunity from prosecution because of their past heroism? If a rapist or a pedophile is a good neighbor (he always travels across town to find victims), should people therefore not regard him as immoral? People who commit immoral acts are known for their immoralities. Is Blumner really surprised?
Or is her own situation just a pretext to rail against those things that are generally regarded as beneficial to society? She says she had broken “a social taboo” and did not have “the state’s blessing” (12A). Really? Is that what her readers said? They told her she was “living in sin” because she had violated a social taboo and did not have the state’s blessing? It sounds more as if they said she violated the laws of God.
She should come to grips with the issue. In the final analysis, social customs do not matter; the morality of God does. Before the law of Moses was ever given, Joseph recognized that it is wrong to have (sexually) someone to whom he was not married. Potiphar’s wife had a husband; she was entitled to him and no one else. Under the law of Moses both adultery and fornication were defined as sin. In the Christian system, moral values have not changed. Paul wrote: “Flee sexual immorality [fornication, KJV]. Every sin that a man does is outside the body, but he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body” (1 Cor. 6:18). In other words, fornication has been wrong since the world began, whether in 2000 B.C. or in A.D. 2000.
Blumner thinks that departing from the morality taught in the Holy Scriptures “marked a defining moment in human enlightenment” (12A). To anyone who knows the Bible, this statement is so ludicrous as to not even need an explanation. But someone besides Blumner may not know the Bible; so following are a few comments on “enlightenment.”
The people of Sodom and Gomorrah were certainly “enlightened.” They refused to goosestep to heterosexual values. They made lifestyle choices that resulted in their being buried under fire and brimstone (Gen. 19). The Israelites profited from Egyptian influence; while Moses was on the mount receiving the ten commandments, they were down below playing sexual games (Ex. 32:6). For this “enlightenment” 3,000 people were put to death. The Israelites never could learn for long the lesson that they were to be a holy people: “They were like well–fed lusty stallions; every one neighed after his neighbor’s wife” (Jer. 5:8). Their “enlightened” idolatry and immorality were rewarded by Babylonian captivity. Of course, the point is obvious: what Blumner regards as “enlightenment” is nothing more than the same old immorality, spruced up with a cheap coat of glittering paint. Anyone with a sense of history would know better than to swallow this swill.
As is characteristic of most liberals, she “spins” her viewpoint to turn black into white and bitter into sweet. Challenging society’s taboos, as she and her boyfriend did, is what caused us to “advance as moral beings.” Why, it is what led to “the moral superiority of liberating women from their consigned role as wife and mother” (12A). Who else would define day care centers for homeless children as “moral advancement” except this columnist and a few hundred feminists?
The myth of “quality time” has been burst; women are learning that careers and children are not that compatible; it is equally true that “no woman can serve two masters,” and many are tired of being torn between family responsibilities and job requirements. Some may style this unenviable position as liberating, but many are opting out in order to preserve their sanity.
At a time when men and women often wait until their 30s to marry and reproduction is easily controlled, a blanket demand for virgin brides no longer makes sense…. This acceptance has made us more civically virtuous (12A).
“Were they ashamed when they committed abomination? No! They were not at all ashamed; nor did they know how to blush” (Jer. 6:16a). What Blumner describes is no morality whatsoever. One wonders what standards are adopted in place of God’s? Is it all right to have casual sex with 100 members of the opposite sex prior to marriage? Would 101 be going too far? No, the liberal columnist does not denounce promiscuity. But if she did, where would the line be drawn between “meaningful affairs” and “playing around”?
And why should those who are married goosestep to society’s conventions? If her husband had had five flings since they had been married, would not such conduct be considered “enlightened”? And how many extramarital trysts has this columnist been involved in? If men are not interested in a virgin bride, why should they be concerned with purity after they have obtained “the state’s blessing”? Is it any wonder that syphilis, gonorrhea, genital herpes, and AIDS have become a part of the lives of so many people? “Enlightenment” can be painful.
The reader would expect to find the obligatory endorsement of homosexuality; Blumner does not fail:
Of course, social condemnation still keeps many gay and lesbian Americans from living openly as their natures intended…. The question hanging out there is whether intolerance toward gay and lesbian relationships is the morally superior position (12A).
Lasciviousness and perversion do not come by nature. They are choices made by those who have rejected God (Rom. 1:18-32). Bisexuality demonstrates that it is by choice–or are they born that way, too? No one is homosexual by nature any more than he would be a polygamist or a pedophile by nature. Liberals tend not to believe that people are responsible for their actions–unless they do something that even liberals cannot stomach. The columnist falsely equates tolerance with acceptance. To call something the sin that it is scarcely corresponds with torturing or murdering a fellow human being. God calls fornication, adultery, and homosexuality sins, along with stealing and murder. Christians will therefore continue to call them sins and stand on upon firm ground when we do so.
Blumner then offers this false dilemma in a vain effort to make her case:
If you had a choice between two neighbors with these guaranteed qualities, which would you choose? Someone who is considerate, quiet, friendly and gay? Or someone who is heterosexual with a prison record? We all want good decent people in our communities (12A).
This columnist may be a product of “values clarification,” but the rest of us are not buying in to such hogwash. First of all, this kind of thinking insults the person with a prison record. People who have made mistakes deserve a second chance (even columnists). But the choice itself is irrelevant; who has control over one’s neighbors? If they have the money to buy a house, they have the right to move in. We all hope the people on the block where we live will be friendly, but some are obnoxious and selfish.
In one community in which this writer lived, he heard the guy across the street verbally abuse his wife because she blocked the driveway when she parked her car and entered the house. After about 20 minutes of yelling at each other, she left and walked to the store, leaving her car where it was. He promptly got into one of his cars and bashed her car repeatedly until he had moved it up the street. [Try explaining the damage to the insurance company.] Then he left and did not return for several hours. Nobody wants such neighbors, but one either endures them or moves. Blumner’s hypothetical question is irrelevant and does not in any way establish her case.
Blumner blathers on:
Social taboos work best when the population is economically and culturally insular, hierarchical and uneducated. People have to be willing to blindly conform or taboos tend to whither [sic] under their own groundless absurdity. Happily, in most regions of our country, individualism, diversity and mobility make for a taboo graveyard (12A).
This is the kind of “fair and impartial” analysis that most of us have grown to expect from liberal columnists. Those who uphold Biblical morality are not only Nazis; they are uneducated. The men are stupid country bumpkins (who probably keep their wives pregnant and make them go barefoot) living in “flyover” country, and their wives are merely compliant milksops. This tactic is called “prejudicing the audience.” One characterizes those who oppose “politically correct” views as ignorant and then asks, “Now, does anyone disagree?” The reader should realize that the columnist is no longer dealing with ideas; she is insulting people. She has impugned both their intelligence and their motives, and she does it unapologetically and unashamedly–based on base, baseless assumptions.
In the course of writing her column, Blumner cites an assistant professor of psychology who has been studying “why we all care what other people do when it doesn’t affect us.” This is the foundation for the libertarian philosophy, as well as liberal thinking. “It’s nobody’s business what I do with my body.” “It’s nobody’s business what consenting adults do behind closed doors.”
If we all lived in a vacuum, perhaps a case could be made for these sentiments; people ought to see the obvious flaws. Consider homosexuality. Because of our society’s current openness, how many young people might be encouraged along those lines who would not have otherwise been tempted? And what happens when they become a majority? As in the case of Sodom, consent becomes irrelevant when they have the power to exercise force. It takes time for unopposed evil to infiltrate a society thoroughly, but if “the wickedness of man was great in the earth,” so that “every intent of the thoughts of this heart was only evil continually” (Gen. 6:5), then how much easier would it be to corrupt one community or one segment of it?
Adultery is another issue that people are willing to ignore–until it happens to them. We ought to know better than to fall for the “It’s his private life” line. No, he is violating his wedding vows, which makes him a liar and therefore untrustworthy, period. He has hurt his wife (assuming that she finds out eventually) and forever changed their relationship. Children are devastated if a divorce ensues, often blaming themselves for the marriage’s failure. Actions, like ideas, have consequences. It is the height of naivete to think that what we do will not have an effect on others.
Geraldo Rivera, appearing on Jay Leno’s program Monday evening (September 11), said, “I’m a good father. I’m a lousy husband.” Rivera just obtained his fourth divorce (showing the extent of his enlightenment). He is wrong. One is not a good father when he divorces his wife because he chooses not to be faithful to her, causing everyone grief. He may provide for the child’s physical needs and give of his time, but he is out of the home because of his actions. The child had two parents at birth, but now one is not there–not because of a tragedy (war, accident, murder)–but because of selfishness and immorality.
Other examples are abundant. If a man is caught stealing, he may have done it in his private life (with hopes of evading detection), but his whole family will be disgraced. Influence cannot be ignored. People will think well of us or ill of us, depending on our behavior. They may misjudge us in some cases, but they are right to tell us we are living in sin (if such is the case) because they are in agreement with an objective standard–the one that does not change with each succeeding generations, the one that is always correct regardless of circumstance, the one by which we shall be judged.