That’s the opinion of Bruce Wilson of American’s United for the Separation of Church and State. His opinion is formed from two components. The first is his opinion of a decision in Hawaii by governor Linda Lingle:
As she announced her veto of Hawaii’s Civil Unions Bill HB444 on July 6th, Hawaii Governor Linda Lingle echoed a standard argument traditionally advanced by leaders of the Christian right, that the issue of the civil rights of minority groups was so important that it should not be decided by an executive decision but, rather, by popular vote. It was a strange argument for a Jewish politician given the use of the democratic legislative process in pre-World War Two Germany to strip German-Jewish citizens of basic rights. But it also was the height of hypocrisy because that day, prior to announcing her veto, Lingle had sent a clear message of her executive decision: supporters of the civil union bill gathered at the Hawaii State House that day were second class citizens and Lingle was more than happy to use the power of the state to enforce the point. (italics mine)
That makes anyone who disagrees with the homosexual agenda a Nazi. He leaves zero room for disagreement. No dialogue. Just silence. Disagree and you are a Nazi. Period. End of discussion. Oh, he did not use the term “Nazi” but disguised it with “pre-World War Two Germany” as though that makes any difference. The only difference it makes is who can google his name and find it mixed with Nazi accusations. What a strategic slug.
Ok, so he promotes the restructuring of private society by the state to promote a special privilege. Homosexual marriage. What in the world does that have to do with Argentina? Well, it seems that the popular vote, with Wilson denounces as a Nazi strategy, was that nation’s mechanism for instituting homosexual marriage. That makes Argentina a Nazi nation. And now “scarce” (Whoever that is. Some chicken-hearted Leftist who is afraid of the light.) is a Nazi. And John Amato, racist that he is. And the rest of the Left. Oh, that that neat little circle includes
Yes, this was circular. Just a bit. But it shows just how convoluted Leftist logic really is. If you do it one way you are a Nazi. But don’t do it and you’re a theocrat or something similar. The arguments that they employ are framed for convenience — they will win at any cost. After all, without morality or the God behind it, there are no restriction on illogic. (Maybe I’ll follow this up with a VanTil/Plantinga post on naturalism and the absence of substance, with Wilson, Clarkson, Amato, et al, as suitable examples of stupidity.)
July 15th, 2010 | 7:13 pm | #1
“Leftist logic?”
Why not just call it “bad logic” before someone brings up Glenn Beck. As long as you throw back childish barbs, you’re playing the same game of, for lack of a better term, “gotcha politics.” How about a positive account of what marriage is and an argument regarding the new law in Argentina? That would have better served to elevate the discussion.
July 15th, 2010 | 8:11 pm | #2
Ya, I know. But the Left is so much fun to play with. I get like a cat on the nip, so to speak. (Thinking back on how our feline acted the other night when we give her a taste.)
I do think there is a place for “exciting” posts as well as the more intellectual. Each has its place. I’ve done both.
July 15th, 2010 | 8:54 pm | #3
“That makes anyone who disagrees with the homosexual agenda a Nazi. He leaves zero room for disagreement. No dialogue. Just silence. Disagree and you are a Nazi. Period. End of discussion.”
That is progressive/liberal/leftist logic in a nutshell.
July 15th, 2010 | 8:57 pm | #4
“Leftist logic?”
Why not just call it “bad logic”
Interchangeable Synonymous Terms.
Leftist Logic = Bad Logic.
July 15th, 2010 | 9:36 pm | #5
I find it quite funny that the ancient Greeks considered the popular vote very undemocratic, on the ground that it means only a select few capable of getting themselves elected by popular vote will be in positions of leadership, whereas a true democracy involves a rotating lottery for who gets to do what jobs, and thus everyone participates. I hadn’t thought to go them one further and declare the popular vote fascist due to the fascist government of Germany coming to power through it.
In all seriousness, this is a theme independent of the right and the left. The left is worried about religious zealots taking over by becoming the mere majority. The right is worried about social liberalism taking over by becoming the mere majority. Both are thankful for separation of powers, judicial independence, executive abilities to act against electoral promises when it seems right to do so, divided government, and the electoral college — at least when it helps their side. Both can be seen decrying exactly those things (but usually under a different description) when it’s not favoring their side.
Note the flip-flops from senators recently on presidential recess appointments during 10-day Senate recesses. With some exceptions, t’s almost a mirror image of when Bush made some recess appointments, with all the same talking points coming out of the mouths of all the people who complained about those points under the previous administration. You see the same thing with the electoral college, which Democrats tended to hate after 2000 but would probably have loved if Gore had won Florida, with Republicans favoring a move to straight popular vote if Bush had won that but lost the electoral vote.
July 16th, 2010 | 6:08 am | #6
It is interesting to note, however, that in those countries where matters such as gay marriage are actually brought in by majority vote the issue tends to be a lot less politically divisive.
Persuading people of an argument, or at least persuading a majority tends to be less divisive than telling people that you know best and dismissing any disagreement as Nazism. It also involves engaging with critics and compromise.
The most disturbing element of left wing logic as presented here is that it not logic at all, being instead left wing dogma, blindly and hysterically imposed.
This is probably why persuasion is abandoned in such left wing circles. The only arguments for their position are how right it seems intuitively to them, in other words blind emotional dogmatism. Such arguments only persuade the already persuaded.
July 16th, 2010 | 7:09 am | #7
I for one would be really interested in your Van Til follow-up post!
July 16th, 2010 | 8:46 am | #8
While the reference to Nazi Germany is in bad taste, there is a point where I agree with the author. The strategy of leaving it up to the electorat is a throwback to the “popular sovereignty” principle of Stephen Douglas who famously said he didn’t care if slavery was vote up or down. That avoids the necessity of having a truly moral discussion over the nature of marriage. One does not have the right to do the wrong thing, and no majority has the right to make a wrong right no matter how large.
July 16th, 2010 | 9:52 am | #9
Injustices have also been committed by executives. Would that be an argument against executive decisions in general? Painfully absurd.
Adam, I could be mistaken, but I don’t think Wilson’s complaint was that we didn’t have a truly moral discussion on the nature of marriage. I think he just wanted the executive to decide in favor of gay marriage, discussion not required in that event. I followed the link to his opinion piece, and I didn’t see anything there either to suggest he agrees with your desire to have a moral discussion on marriage. I think he’s just unhappy because he didn’t get what he wanted. I appreciate your sense of charity toward him, however.
July 16th, 2010 | 10:26 am | #10
Albert, you are probably right.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact