After being desensitized to homosexuality by popular culture for the past two decades, the American people were promised by the Left that allowing the sexual revolution to reach its climax wouldn’t change anything. Now that our brave, new world of anything goes has arrived, the American people are beginning to realize this actually threatens to change everything.
Free speech, your own conscience, and religious freedom — rights as old as our republic itself — are now threatened more than ever before. Those God-given rights aren’t being threatened by jihadists or the Redcoats. They’re being threatened by a new fascism that calls itself “tolerance.”
Except it’s tolerance for me, but not for thee.
Many Americans who previously couldn’t care less about the battle to preserve marriage are suddenly waking up and wondering how we’ve managed to find ourselves embarking down this totalitarian path.
How is it the co-founder of Mozilla could be forced out of his own company for donating money to a marriage initiative in California that more than 7 million people voted for 6 years ago?
How is it that Christian business owners are now being compelled by government to do things their religion says is wrong?
Why was the patriarch of “Duck Dynasty,” one of the most popular television series in the country, temporarily taken off the air simply for affirming the birds and the bees?
None of this is happening by accident. In fact this was the plan all along. Read After the Ball sometime. It is the manifesto of the new fascism. What you’re witnessing from the “tolerance” mobocracy at the moment is ripped right from its very pages.
Those who pleaded for “tolerance” and demanded “equality” only intended to do so until they acquired supremacy. Then, when they had the advantage, they would make sure their opponents understood that it’s not any fun once the rabbit has the gun. This reconstruction of previously agreed upon terminology and values is always the first step towards totalitarianism, as George Orwell pointed out in Animal Farm and 1984.
A brief history lesson for those wondering how “tolerance” turned into fascism.
When sodomy laws were nullified by controversial Supreme Court precedents like 2003’s Lawrence v. Texas, the Left and the Republican Party’s surrender caucus promised us this was only about consenting adults’ private behavior, and this wouldn’t lead to a fight over marriage. But that’s exactly what it did.
While we were winning the fight to preserve marriage in 31 of the 35 states it was contested, the Left and the Republican Party’s surrender caucus promised us that redefining marriage and granting new rights based on behavior wouldn’t cost anybody their previously acknowledged God-given rights.
But that’s exactly what it’s doing, as it was intended to do. Statists are cheering on the fascism because their ultimate goal has always been to silence the church in America, for it’s the church that preaches the sovereignty of God and not government.
See, Christians didn’t just fight to defend the definition of marriage because they believe homosexuality is a sin, which is true. Christians also believe adultery is a sin, but there is no organized Christian effort to criminalize it. Why? Because adulterers don’t have a political lobby demanding you change your values to accept theirs, and teach your children the same.
Furthermore, we didn’t just fight to defend marriage because the natural human family is what’s best for children, which is true. We also fought to defend the definition of marriage because we knew redefining it could cost us our rights to call out sin and preach the salvation offered through Jesus Christ, and also define right from wrong in a culture spiraling out of control. Because that is exactly what has happened in every other country that has already gone down this road.
For example, if you disagree with homosexual behavior and pro-homosexual propaganda in Canada, you could face a human rights “tribunal.” Because nothing says “liberty” like a tribunal, except for maybe an Inquisition. Perhaps those are next.
Christians now find ourselves in the position of having to debate our very existence in a country that wouldn’t have existed without our Christian forefathers, who came here for religious freedom in the first place. Can we hold jobs and still believe the Bible and church teachings? Can we own businesses? Will we be blacklisted from certain industries? Will they try to stop us from passing these teachings down to our children at home, since they’re already indoctrinating our kids against us in the schools as it is? And so on, and so forth.
Not every homosexual is a fascist. I know there are same-sex couples who feel deeply committed to each other, and simply want that human relationship validated. I don’t agree with their morality, but as a fellow human I empathize with that desire. Nevertheless, if you’re going to argue that you deserve new “rights,” you have to first make the case that won’t cost anybody else their old ones. So far, the tolerance movement has been unable to do so. Maybe in its zeal to silence all opposition it’s simply unwilling to? I’ve had more than one of these fascists tell me that, since I believe the Bible, I’m a “bigot.” Thus, I don’t deserve free speech and tolerance anymore.
How convenient. Just call those who disagree with you names to make them seem sub-human, and then you no longer have to tolerate their dissent. Every fascist movement in human history would be proud.
But don’t just take my word for it. Here’s what veteran LGBT activist Andrew Sullivan recently wrote on his blog about the rising tide of fascism in his own movement: “If this is the gay rights movement today — hounding our opponents with fanaticism — then count me out. If we are about intimidating the free speech of others, we are no better than the anti-gay bullies who came before us.”
The new tolerance has become the new fascism. How fabulous.
“The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again: but it was impossible to say which was which.” — George Orwell, Animal Farm
The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Barb Wire.