The Progressive Nature of Liberalism

Perhaps the most outstanding and dangerous aspect of liberalism is its perpetual progressivism.  Put simply, liberalism is never happy, never finished with its agenda, never content with the “progress” thus far made, and never will be.  There will always be the next liberal step.  And after taking that next step, there will always be another and another and another, all in the same direction.  This relentless progressivism can only be stopped by an unforeseen and dramatic event – a great awakening, a divine intervention, a war, or societal collapse.  Civilization cannot and will not survive the extremes of liberalism.

The liberal politician cannot be known or trusted.  Whatever he or she presents to the public as an agenda is only a portion of a much larger scheme.  And possibly even that politician is unaware of the larger scheme, because liberalism is endless and bottomless.  As a radical social experiment that presses into unknown moral territory, it is by nature ever on the move, always pressing for one objective, achieving it, and then pressing on to the next thus far unmentionable objective.  Can even a devotee keep up?

The most grotesque demonstration of these truths is seen in the sexual revolution.  In the mid-twentieth century, this revolution presented itself as a cause of justice.  Women needed to be liberated from the cruel consequences of intercourse and marriage.  Hence, the liberalization of contraception and divorce.  When these were not sufficient, the next step was abortion. Additional steps included infanticide and the sanitization of pre-marital sex, cohabitation, and homosexuality.  Step, step, step, and liberalism finally arrived at the great cause of same-sex “marriage”.  Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy redefined marriage to include same-sex couples, and yet another giant step was taken.

Are we there yet?  Have we arrived at the magnanimous liberal utopia?  Has the entire agenda been revealed and completed?  Absolutely not.  What are the next steps?  They are polygamy, polyandry, legalized prostitution and pedophilia, incest, bestiality, necrophilia, and the total elimination of the idea of gender.

Now what in the world makes me think I can foresee what’s coming?  Simply, reason.  If a Supreme Court Justice can redefine marriage to include same-sex couples, and if that definition can become legally binding on all citizens, such that wedding cake makers and wedding photographers can be sued for objecting to it, county clerks can be jailed for refusing to issue marriage licenses to homosexual couples, and priests, ministers, and rabbis find themselves performing their ministries in fear of the government, then what reason is there to believe that the same will not happen regarding these other extreme forms of perversity?  Such steps are only a mass of propaganda and the stroke of a pen away.

I remember hearing a certain lesbian comedian once joke, when the same-sex “marriage” debate was only just beginning, that the standard Christian lunatic response was, “Oh sure, once you get gay marriage, then you’ll want to marry your pets as well!”  She and her audience burst out laughing.  Sorry, but it’s the truth and it’s only logical.  Step, step, step.  After all, a Massachusetts justice re-defined marriage as an “evolving paradigm”.  How’s that for a purposefully open-ended all-inclusive notion?  What sort of relationship could not fit into that definition?  Actually, it’s not a definition at all; it’s an anti-definition.

Now let’s follow the reasoning to its natural conclusions.  If marriage is not a pre-defined, concrete, objective reality, if, on the contrary, it is a malleable abstraction that can be re-defined by whatever potentate rules the day and in accord with the spirit of the times, then why should anyone believe that it will not be re-defined again and again to include each of the above-mentioned sexual aberrations?  Again, all it takes is a mass of propaganda by a special-interest group and the stroke of a politician’s pen.  All it takes is another liberal step.

If marriage can be re-defined from a life-long covenant between one man and one woman to that of a life-long covenant between two men or two women, then why can it not be re-defined again to that of a life-long covenant between a man and two women or a woman and two men, or between three women or three men?  What could prevent this from happening – the current definition of Justice Kennedy that doesn’t recognize such relationships as marital?  But wait!  Hey-hey, ho-ho!  Injustice!  Intolerance!  Narrow-mindedness!  Judgmentalism!  Bigotry!  Polygaphobia!  Following the identical tactics that the same-sex “marriage” crusade used against traditional marriage, the next group could just as legitimately ask, what right does anybody else have of imposing their restrictive definition of marriage on us?  What sort of fundamentalist mentality holds that two homosexuals can marry, but not three or more heterosexuals, or a cowboy and his horse, or a brother and his sister, or an adult and a child, or the living and the dead?  Would homosexuals be so narrow-minded, self-righteous, and exclusivist as to withhold from such persons a “civil right” that they now enjoy?  What would be the difference between a Christian who says homosexuals cannot marry, and a homosexual who says polygamists cannot marry?  If the Christian is intolerant, then isn’t the homosexual intolerant as well?  This is the inevitable chaos that will follow from same-sex “marriage”.  It’s only logical in a sick sort of way.

If homosexual relationships can be called marriage, then any relationship can be called marriage.  The logical and inevitable result of re-defining marriage is the ultimate meaningless of marriage.

At this point in the moral collapse of our civilization, the great question is no longer, what is marriage, but rather, what is not marriage?  Is there any consensual relationship on the face of earth that, by its very nature, could not ever be called marriage?  Tragedy of tragedies, we can no longer answer this simple fundamental question, so essential to our happiness, dignity, and survival.  Perhaps a Neanderthal could help us out?

Advertisements

22 thoughts on “The Progressive Nature of Liberalism

  1. Michael –

    My guess is that the author of that New York Times screed intended to publish those Bible passages just to further rile up Sodom and Gomorrah. It’s a part of the general call to arms, meant to produce the eventual illegalization of the Bible, the Catechism, and the faith of the Church.

    An objective and non-religious response to his claims is easy enough. Rome reserved for itself the right to execute criminals. This is why the Jews had to invent a political charge against Christ; they couldn’t execute Him on their own authority, but could only persuade Rome to do it for them. Jews could not execute whomever they wanted, nor could Christians; nor did Christians want to execute homosexuals, due to a doctrine of mercy for sinners. So, apply all this to the false claims about St. Paul regarding homosexuals and Christians in the ancient world, and the NYT author is shown to be an anti-Christian ignoramus who apparently doesn’t put a whole lot of research into his anti-Christian rants.

    And of course, since Islam is looking quite “homophobic” these days, the left – which adores Islam – has to cover for it by drawing everyone’s attention away to the alleged “homophobia” of Christianity. But it isn’t Christians who throw homosexuals off of high buildings, is it? Nor is anyone living in fear that Catholics, coming from Eucharistic Benediction or a Good Friday service, will go on a killing spree. Nevermind, in the warped mind of a NYT “journalist,” the real danger today is coming from Christians. Can anyone say, “Christianophobia”?

    Like

    1. This is nothing new, except for the degree to which Christians are gullible enough to succumb to it. It’s pure New Age spirituality, which supplants belief in a transcendent God Who reveals absolute and eternal truth, with the New Age almighty self, the conveying of positive and negative energies, the denial of truth, and the equality of all spiritual paths. It’s one more example of the paganization of Christendom.

      Liked by 1 person

    1. Yup – it only makes sense. I’ll say it until the day I die: liberalism is atheism in disguise. Only, the liberal will never admit it. This could be seen coming a hundred miles back; but we don’t think – we only feel.

      The answer to the rise of militant atheism is the domestic Church. And we must form our young people to be rock-solid intelligent Catholics, not confused potheads like their parents and grand parents. If Christianity is to rise again after these dark ages of unbelief and liberal tyranny, then it will be because fidelity to Catholic teaching was restored and men and women became, not limp-wristed pacifists, but courageous soldiers of Christ. Short of that, we’re finished.

      Like

  2. So much for science’s perpetual quest for observable facts and natural truths. In mingling with politics and economics, it has become a tool of the rich and powerful. And when threatened with contrary data, it slashes away like a lioness protecting her cubs. Pope John Paul II referred to this as “scientism,” science become ideological.

    Like

  3. Breitbart News has been an excellent conservative news source, but it’s being destroyed by Milo and his “conservative” homosexuality. It’s a good reminder that conservativism should never be presumed to be the Christian position on issues. Nor should liberalism. There is a third way, and I don’t refer to libertarianism. I refer to the Catholic way, which often differs from them all.

    Like

  4. It would be an interesting topic for discussion: Catholic, neither liberal nor conservative, just Catholic. By this, I don’t at all mean that a Catholic may sometimes choose the liberal position and other times the conservative. No, I mean that the truly Catholic position is a third way. It is not liberal or conservative; it is orthodox, it is “right teaching.”

    Meanwhile, Milo over at Breitbart is gaining flagrant homosexualism a respectability among conservatives. If anyone needs proof that conservativism can be both erroneous and unchristian, there it is.

    Like

  5. Excellent! So our pastors do know how to apply a little firm discipline. Now could they bring that into the sanctuary and apply it to proper respect for the Holy Eucharist? As in the confession of grave sins, the hour-long fast, proper dress, genuflecting in front of the tabernacle, and at least bowing before receiving the Host and the Precious Blood? Why are we rigorous with sports but lackadaisical with the Blessed Sacrament?

    Like

  6. In solidarity with all those deeply concerned about global warming, and in a frantic effort to immediately reduce my own carbon footprint, I’ve decided not to attend this affair, since doing so will only spew carbon monoxide into the environment, as well as possibly crush a frog or salamander. Think globally, act locally.

    STOP GOING TO GLOBAL WARMING MEETINGS! THEY’RE DESTROYING THE ENVIRONMENT! AND STOP GIVING B+M BAKED BEABS TO COWS!

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s