The pseudonym "Philo Vaihinger" has been abandoned. All posts have been and are written by me, Joseph Auclair.

Wednesday, April 17, 2013

A rhetorical question, surely?



Need one ask?

As I wrote elsewhere,

“Islamophobia” is a liberal taboo-word coined to do the same propaganda work as their other creation, “homophobia.”

Each does a kind of Orwellian double duty.

The latter term serves to indiscriminately damn any and all negative beliefs about or attitudes toward either gays or homosexuality, and public expressions of them.

The former does the same to negative beliefs about or attitudes toward Muslims or Islam, and their public expression.

Both are modeled on the equally taboo-laden terms, “racism” and “anti-Semitism.”

And all are trotted out to support liberal political, cultural, or other positions or goals by licensing even the most vicious efforts to silence and punish any who utter such thoughts or manifest such attitudes by, for example, getting them fired (in America) or legally punished (in Europe).

So, even if, contrary to fact, Christianity’s negative handling of homosexuality had historically been no worse than the nuns’ attitude toward chewing gum during Lent, it would have counted as homophobia.

That’s the Orwellian beauty of the word.

But in fact Christianity’s history with regard to homosexuality is all too comparable to its history with regard to the Jews.

As for the details recounted in PB’s article, what is striking is how successful the liberal, post-Christian morality has been.

Still, when you are done reading you have to wonder what disobedience, and to what hypothesized laws, he is talking about.

No comments:

Post a Comment