“[David Blankenhorn] suggests that my moral views oppress gays and lesbians. Even though in 2014 I’m powerless to give any legal force to my views.
“Even though my writing these words — homosexual conduct is sinful, and homosexual desires are objectively disordered — makes it very nearly impossible for me to be employed by a Fortune 500 company, become a professor at a major university, get appointed to government office, or in any way receive preferment in establishment institutions in America. Which suggests that gays and lesbians won’t stop feeling put upon until I’m silenced. Which I fear is the goal of those who formulated, promoted, and lobbied for ENDA.
“Creating the powerful legal machinery of civil rights to protect a successful, politically powerful minority from people like me? Is that what it means to be progressive today? Sadly, it is.”
R.R. Reno, “Letters”, First Things, March 2014, pp. 8-9.
Petty Armchair Popery 
That’s very frightening. A quote often attributed to Enlightenment thinker Voltaire is that “to find out who rules over you, simply look at who you can’t criticize”. It’s amazing how a chosen behaviour has now become a protected class. I sometimes fear that I will see the day when practicing Christians are openly shot at. Apparently there are pastors in the United States now warning their congregations to be prepared for property confiscations over this LGBT issue.
LikeLike
I can’t help but wonder if it is whether a Christian outlook that is particularly ostracized, or whether there is now a level of default opprobrium placed on any viewpoint that criticizes anything at all? Even homosexuals who criticize Christians for being bigots are less mainstream than the movements to let everyone be happy-happy-no-negative-thoughts. Not that my scenario is any better, in fact I think it’s much worse, but it does have the distinction of making animosity towards some Christians a side effect, rather than the focus.
LikeLike
Amyclae:
“I can’t help but wonder if it is whether a Christian outlook that is particularly ostracized, or whether there is now a level of default opprobrium placed on any viewpoint that criticizes anything at all?”
Well, someone pointed out recently that liberals/progressives are very critical of cigarette smoking, and doing all they can to stamp it out; while defending pot smoking and doing all they can to legalize it. So my feeling is not that they oppose all criticism. They can be very critical indeed — while nevertheless insisting that their judgments somehow are not judgmental!
LikeLike
Mm, I understand your point and if only to make sure that my intention is not misread I would like to clarify that the default level of animosity for those that criticize is not an insurmountable burden. Christian organizations are allowed to criticize and prevent homosexuals from joining the clergy. New Age-y paternalists are allowed to criticize and prevent smokers from joining public spaces. I don’t think there’s much debate in either case, but there is something of a default skepticism for the New Age-y paternalism. In part that comes out in the hard but simple truth that smoking is an elaborate (and comparatively expensive) way to commit suicide. Yet in spite of the efforts of a rather broad coalition to prevent cigarette smoking of any sort even in California there are still smoking areas in public places and cigarettes are sold to anyone whose over the age of 18.
I hope I clarified things a bit instead of mucking up the waters more.
LikeLike
“… there are still smoking areas in public places and cigarettes are sold to anyone whose over the age of 18.”
I suspect that’s largely due to the fact that a lot of liberals smoke. : )
LikeLike