UPDATE: What you read below is a significant revision from the original 8/14 version of this piece made necessary by the subsequent essays in this series. –Tasio, 12/24/13
Essay One: Introduction
I. Pansexualism1 in Context
This past year saw quite a bit of boat-rocking in regards to pansexualist advocacy. In France, same-sex marriage was legalized. In the United States, laws preventing the Federal Government from recognizing marriages solely as a monogamous, heterosexual union were declared unconstitutional by that nation’s Supreme Court. In Russia, the legislature passed a law outlawing “homosexual propaganda”. More recently, in Australia, a same-sex marriage law that initially passed in one the country’s territories, was struck down by the High Court. And in India, the Supreme Court has recently upheld a 19th-century law that criminalizes homosexual relations.
The widely-circulated logo of the Human Rights Campaign (which apparently only campaigns for pansexualist causes, and ignores actual human rights issues) implies that same-sex marriage is an issue of basic social equality.
These controversies are the latest battlefronts in the decades-long fight over whether many of the sexual mores that have been the norm throughout the Christianized2 world for centuries should be largely retained, or revised and/or overturned. These “culture wars” are often depicted as being between those on the Right—who oppose efforts to overturn Judeo-Christian society’s traditional concepts of sexuality, marriage, and the family—and those on the Left—who believe that traditional standards of gender and sexuality are anti-egalitarian, and therefore must be struck down.
Thus the disputes that define the culture wars have created “wedge issues”3 easily utilized by a so-called Establishment4 which has apparently played both sides of the controversy in order to keep sincere and rational dialogue muted, actual social progress stunted, and the attention away from much more urgent, existential crises. Thus looking beyond the Establishment’s Left-Right paradigm in order to understand the larger context within which the culture wars take place is crucial.
Although I tend to sympathize more with the so-called Right on this issue (more on that later), I have heard legitimate and rational concerns raised by both sides of this debate. Nonetheless, I still find that representatives of both the Left and the Right have fixated much too obsessively over the particulars and predicates of the issues at hand, and consequently have shown little understanding of their significance for the larger, subsuming problems facing our civilization. In sum, there has been a mistaking of the symptoms for the disease.
- Paradigm-Shifts in Culture, Politics, and Economics –
For society in my native United States (which will be a main focal point of this piece), the cultural paradigm-shift that occurred in the decades following the Second World War also coincided with radical political and economic paradigm-shifts, as well. The relationship between the three is, of course, no coincidence.
In the realm of politics, the United States has all but ceased to be an expression of the democratic republic that her founders intended. Instead, her government has grown into a tool of a growing, fascistic empire. Evidence of this can be observed in the perpetual military adventures abroad–which have little to no reasonable justification whatsoever–and the creeping Orwellian police state at home.5
As for the realm of economics, at home she has suffered from an abandonment of economic nationalism in favor of a post-industrial, consumerism.6 Abroad, the U.S. and other nations which have considerable influence over the World Bank, IMF, and other institutions of globalization, use their power to stifle economic nationalism in other nations, effectively keeping them as underdeveloped, neocolonial satrapies that provide the near-slave labor to produce what the U.S. no longer does.
Characters from the TV drama The Wire, which honestly depicted how the deindustrialization of Baltimore, Maryland helped create a no-future generation.
- Dying Cultural Optimism -
The widespread Bacchanalia–sexual or otherwise–that we observe today can therefore be seen as a symptom of this socioeconomic and political breakdown. It was in this vein, that a former associate of mine recently express some of his insights on the relationship between the present breakdown in sexual morality throughout our present society, and the severe lack of qualified cultural optimism among today’s younger adult generations. The connection may not be so evident to some at first, so some elaboration on what I believe he meant is probably in order.
As this breakdown of our society has accelerated, its members have lost a sense of identity of themselves as producers of lasting value for the next generation or two. The values associated with marriage and the family have then changed accordingly. The cultural outlook associated with securing the blessings of liberty to us and our posterity has given way to the MTV and Facebook generations, with their shortened attention spans and desire for instant gratification. The idea that man’s ingenuity, hard-work, and willpower can actually help him achieve freedom from want and fear through effectively dealing with many of his most stubborn of scourges are heard today only as hollow, feel-good slogans that lack any real depth or substance.
With our society’s sense of mission made amorphous, so too the meaning of romantic, marital, and familial relationships has become confused and muddled. This is evident in the fact that a growing number of today’s young people do not even desire to form their own families, with some even expressing the pessimistic (yet understandable) attitude that it is a mistake to even bring new members of the human race into a modern world they see as cruel and forsaken. Since our young people are without a proper sense of national mission to participate in the creation of a more moral and more fulfilling society, it is therefore no coincidence that sex, relationships, and the family have become cheapened and even commodified, with everything from adultery to prostitution becoming increasingly embraced as acceptable practices. Idle hands are the devil’s playthings indeed.
The “Baby Boomer” generation’s response to the crises of the post-war period was to retreat into irrational and hedonistic fantasies. That cowardly escapism shaped the cultural matrix we have today.
- A Narcissistic God -
The post-war emergence of America as a kind-of post-industrial, parasitic New Rome created the fertile ground for the 1960s-‘70s rock-drug-sex counterculture to flourish amongst the younger, “Baby Boomer” strata of the population in a way that its ideological predecessor, the Beat movement, never could. Those Baby Boomers are now the generation running the world today. Thus from the viewpoint of the “Millenial” generation, wholly raised within the cultural matrix created during their parents’ time, Western society’s “sexual liberation” is simply the way things should be for our modern, progressive society. To them, the sexual attitudes that dominated the pre-World War II period—which celebrated chastity and the nuclear family—are prudish, repressive, and culturally-backward. This outlook should not be not at all surprising, as the values-system brought about by the post-1960s cultural paradigm shift preaches that liberty is equated with hedonism, rights are untethered from real-world responsibilities, and right and wrong are essentially subjective questions that can change depending on the individual and the society in question. The idea of striving to do good for others and oneself takes a backseat to satisfying one’s immediate wants and desires. “I should” never comes before “I want”.
In this cultural climate, the only “morality” when it comes to sex is: as long as it’s done between consenting parties, anything goes.7 Herein lies the core reason why sexual liberationists are hostile to serious religion. The prewar attitudes on sexual conduct are of course due to the influence of Judeo-Christian tradition on the culture of the United States and most of the Western World. Christian morality is philosophically opposed to moral relativism, and it is this uncompromising position that is among the leading factors why seriously adhering to Christianity and the other religions (especially the Abrahamic ones) seems archaic, out of touch, and even intolerant in our modern world.8 The pansexualists preach that ethoi based on anything resembling monotheism have no place in our “liberated” age, (and if there are still those who choose to adhere to such silly anachronisms, then they should simply keep it to themselves and completely out of the public sphere.) Instead, the individual will shall become the only god, and he absolves his followers of any and all responsibility to posterity. This is the god that now largely governs most attitudes not merely about sex, but also about most areas of both public and private life.
This is the god of the consumer-capitalist economy. This is the god of a culture that cares more about Hollywood gossip and the next iPhone, rather than what state their nation will be in a hundred years from now. A constitutional democratic republic depends upon a solid base of intellectually- and morally-sound citizens to function properly. It is not hard to figure out what will eventually happen to a republic like the U.S. if it is denied such citizens for too long.
II. In Defense of Christian Sexual Morality
As mentioned, traditional Christian sexual morality is predominantly viewed today as repressive, prejudiced, and outdated. In most quarters, it is now almost taken as fact that anyone still subscribing to traditional Christian teachings about the immorality and abnormality of the homosexual lifestyle and behavior automatically deserves the label of “bigot”. Indeed, this seems to be the favorite word of the most virulent critics of those holding to traditional Christian sexual morality. Said critics will commonly resort to “strawman” depictions of Christians as insane fanatics on par with the Ku Klux Klan or the Inquisition, who believe that homosexuals are unloved by God and hopelessly damned to hell.
Although that characterization may be true for nominally Christian fringe groups most infamously exemplified by the Westboro Baptist Church, it is certainly not true for anyone adhering to a serious interpretation of Christian sexual morality.
For example, the official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church on the matter is found in the 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church9:
“Homosexuality['s]…psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that ‘homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.’ They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
“The…men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies…do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
“Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.”
Despite media hype implying the contrary, Pope Francis’ attitude on homosexuality does not substantially differ from that of his recent predecessors.
Again, this is the doctrine of the Catholic Church regarding homosexuality. Most other sane Christian denominations preach something nearly identical. In sum, experiencing sexual attraction toward the same sex can be problematic, as all temptation is, but it is not necessarily sinful. Sin occurs from acting upon that attraction to satisfy that temptation. Yet those persons harboring such tendencies deserve to be treated with the same respect and dignity that every other sinner deserves.10 (The Catechism even goes so far to concede that homosexuals do not choose whom they are attracted to, and should also not be victims of unjust discrimination.) The bottom line: hate the sin, but love the sinner.11
As the excerpt indicates, the Church considers homosexual behavior sinful because it is outside the bounds of chastity, which in a Christian sense refers to a kind-of self-mastery of the sex drive so that it is used only in ways that reflect the unique beauty of human nature (the implications of which are discussed in Part II of this series).12 Homosexual behavior is one of many violations of chastity that the Church condemns; other sins of a sexual nature also include rape, fornication, adultery, prostitution, pornography, sodomy, incest, pedophilia, zoophilia, and so on. Thus if one still insists that Christians are bigoted simply if they adhere to the Church’s teaching on homosexuality, then it would follow that they are also bigoted against all the rapists, the fornicators, the adulterers, the prostitutes and their clientele, the pornographers and their audience, the sodomites, the incestuous, the pedophiles, the zoophiles, et al.13
It is indeed true that anti-homosexual bigotry does exist. There are many who not only oppose same-sex marriage and homosexuality, but also ostracize, degrade, and discriminate against persons of homosexual disposition purely out of hatred and fear. Such expressions, like all forms of bigotry, are wrong and should be condemned by all people of goodwill. Nonetheless, it necessarily follows that simply because it is immoral to ostracize, degrade, discriminate against, or even oppress a minority group simply because they are different from the majority, this does not mean that the common practices of that said minority are, as if by default, desirable and acceptable for a healthy society. Thus for rational, civil discourse to take place on this subject, it is necessary for pansexualists to draw a distinction between those who hate homosexuals and harbor an actual bigotry, and those who are against homosexual behavior, based on what very well may be legitimate moral grounds.
Bigotry, by its very nature, is an irrational sentiment. A serious thinker who takes time to at least try to understand the Church’s doctrine on sexual morality is certainly justified in forming and voicing certain criticisms of it, but anyone who concludes that that doctrine is wholly irrational is not being intellectually honest with himself or others. It is ironic that the tactic many pansexualists resort to by branding all of their opponents as unreasonably bigoted yields a lamented casualty: reason itself. Legitimate dissent and rational discourse about the core matter at hand—i.e. whether or not it really is healthy for our society (or any society) to normalize pansexual deviancies—are stifled when even the most sensible and thoughtful opponents of pansexualism are denounced before they’ve even had a chance to make their case.14
- Some Personal Thoughts on Religion and Sexual Morality -
It is perhaps both opportune and useful to conclude this introduction by elaborating on some of my own thoughts on Christian sexual morality, as well as some of my reasons for composing this series of essays.
Although I would probably not be considered devoutly religious in the usual sense,15 I nonetheless still believe that despite her imperfections, the founding and the growth of the Church remains a profoundly positive and indispensable development for the history of human civilization. Furthermore, I also find that much of Christian moral teaching—particularly that of the Roman Catholic Church in which I was brought up—does indeed concord with certain truths about man and nature, and this includes Christian values of sexual morality.
While it is indeed true that in a modern, pluralistic society, no one religious dogma should be allowed to dominate the shaping of public affairs unchallenged, that does not mean that religious teachings should have no place at all in the deliberation process of shaping public policy, and it certainly does not mean that moral principles rooted in religious traditions should be dismissed simply because they were introduced into our culture through religion.16
It is in that spirit, that therefore, although a belief in the “rightness” of Christian morality does underlie my arguments, I nonetheless wish to frame them in ways that can transcend religious predicates, and appeal more to reason than to faith, so that even the secular reader with a healthy willingness to challenge what are perhaps his long-held axioms can follow the points I make, and the rationalizations behind them–and–who knows?–maybe even come to agree with them.
According to polling data, America’s young adults overwhelming support same-sex marriage.
I realize that the position I hold on the question of sexual morality is apparently becoming the minority view amongst my own young adult (i.e. “Millenial”) generation. Supporting same-sex marriage, for example, is considered the common-sense thing to do. Thus, due to the aforementioned growing marginalization of pansexualism’s opponents, there is a necessity for me to convey that there are indeed very sound reasons for being such an opponent.
And so I write this series of essays in order to contribute what are perhaps unique insights about a topic I have been reflecting upon for some time. I offer an effort to encourage further dialogue not simply about homosexuality, but also around the question of what principles by which society’s values of sexual morality truly ought to be governed. Yet I do not assert my arguments as being definitive in any way. Additionally, I wish to make my case with as much humility as possible, and I voice my position with an understanding that I myself am admittedly no ideal example of firmly adhering to the Christian standards of sexual morality. I try my best to harbor no ill prejudices toward any person for any reason, including those who possess homosexual tendencies or orientations.
All that being said, I will merely ask that readers of all opinions continue on to the subsequent essays with a humble soul and an open mind, as well as a good deal of emotional and intellectual maturity.
Continue on to Essay Two: “A Defense of Natural Law’s Decree for Sexual Morality and Marriage”.
- Notes -
1. I propose usage of the term pansexualist and pansexualism in favor of the initialism LGBT (or its seemingly-endless variations such as LGBTQ, LGBTQIA, LGBTQRSTUV, etc.). An explanation of my preference for this term may be required for the reader’s benefit:
As far as I understand its definition in psychoanalytical terminology, pansexualism refers to the Freudian theory that all human behavior is derived from the struggle between Eros (sex, sensual desire) and Thanatos (death, fear of death or pain). Therefore, if man is merely a creature that seeks pleasure and avoids pain, then what is “good” is defined by pleasure-seeking. The objective of sexual activity thus becomes sensual pleasure, with no higher moral purpose attached to it. The “sexologist” Alfred Kinsey (the subject of a later essay in this series) took Freud’s theories further and applied them to conclude that all sexual experiences can be considered to have fundamentally equal value since they all provide pleasure. It is this strain of thought which I think is nicely summed up by the terms pansexualism and pansexualist. As a sociopolitical philosophy, “pansexualism” captures what the LGBT movement and its fellow-travelers advocate: that society should accept an ever-growing list of “alternative” sexual identities and practices as normal and even desirable. Although many LGBT activists may not quite agree with this, I nonetheless think that when extended to their logical terminal, acceptance of the LGBT “lifestyles” (which is a whole different can of worms than accepting persons who identify as LGBT) inevitably leads to the conclusion that all sexual impulses and behaviors are fundamentally equal. I elaborate upon this argument in subsequent essays in this series.
2. “Christianized world” of course refers to those parts of the where Christianity has historically been the dominant religion (regardless of whether or not it remains dominant at the present time).
3. For a classic example of one such “wedge issue”, observe the U.S. media circus over the “homophobic” remarks of Phil Robertson, one of the main stars of the reality TV show Duck Dynasty. Although Robertson’s frankness in revealing his fixation on how vaginal sex “offers more” than anal sex is a bit bizarre, other quotes from him on homosexuality indicate that his overall belief on the matter concurs with that of Time magazine’s “Person of the Year”, Pope Francis. (I.e., love the sinner, but condemn the sin) Yet the media spins Francis as a smiling friend to the gay community, and Robertson as their bigoted enemy. Meanwhile, the denser, more substantial aspects of the issue never get addressed.
4. Representatives of both the political Left and Right are often much too fond of accusing each other of being run by “elites” that harbor a hidden agenda to stifle democracy, but often stop short of questioning how the secret machinations of such a ruling establishment function–perhaps out of fear of being accused of being “paranoid” or “conspiratorial”. As I wrote elsewhere on this topic, the question of whether or not past and present history is being driven by conspiracies really is a simple one: Do the majority of those in public and private institutions of influence work more for the benefit of the commonweal? Or for the benefit of elitist groups of the rich and powerful–namely, an oligarchy…? If the answer is the latter, as an honest observation of the gross inequities in the current state of world affairs overwhelmingly suggests, then is it not reasonable to conclude that such affairs are the result of secret plotting done by groups of such oligarchs?
5. First off, let me say the so-called “American Empire” is not synonymous to the United States of America. This empire–which is, more accurately, an Anglo-American Empire, since it is predominantly just the post-WW2 manifestation of the British Empire–is a parasite on the United States; it uses the United States since she is the most powerful nation on earth, but it obviously does not reflect the republican heritage of the U.S. (For more on these matters, I recommend Treason in America: From Aaron Burr to Averell Harriman by Anton Chaitkin (1999, Sec. ed. E.I.R. Washington.); As He Saw It by Elliot Roosevelt (Duell, Sloan, and Pearce. New York, 1946); and L.Wolfe, “The Other War: FDR’s Battle Against Churchill and the British Empire”, The American Almanac, Aug. 28, 1995; and my entry, “For Independence from Empire: The Spirit of ’76 and Pan-Asian Nationalism”.
For those who still insist that the “War on Terror” is a legitimate war with legitimate objectives need to ask themselves what the hell the U.S. government is doing with things like supporting al-Qaeda-aligned forces in Libya and Syria, or backing the despotic regimes of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states (which are known to be bankrollers of Islamist jihadis). That question should be seen in context with how the “War on Terror” has been used to justify egregious violations of the U.S. constitution at home. Consider, for example, all that has become commonplace in the wake of the September 11th attacks: The U.S. military and intelligence agencies torture detainees (which is explicitly illegal under both U.S. and international law); a president can play judge, jury, and executioner and kill U.S. citizens without any due process whatsoever; the National Security Agency’s massive collection of billions of private communications has been proven to be much worse than George III’s general warrants or East Germany’s Stasi; and so on. Anyone who is not seriously alarmed by these and other facts is living in a fantasy world.
For reading material on the Anglo-American Empire’s history of supporting Islamist terrorists, I recommend the book Devil’s Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam by Robert Dreyfuss (2005, Metropolitan. New York.)
6. “Economic nationalism” refers to a political economy that fosters a society of producers, where high-technology industry and infrastructure are applied for the greatest possible benefit of the living standards of the general population. Policies based on this philosophy were what made the United States of America an industrial superpower in the 19th century, and also influenced Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal. What I refer to here as economic nationalism versus globalization and consumer-capitalism is an issue that goes much deeper than the conventional debate of Marxism versus “capitalism”, but a sufficient discourse at this time is beyond the scope of an already-lengthy footnote. For more on this and related topics, see Anton Chaitkin, “How Ben Franklin Organized Our Economic Independence”, Executive Intelligence Review, Oct. 21, 2011, “The Fraud of Andrew Jackson: Think Like an American–Restore Hamilton’s Bank!”, Executive Intelligence Review, Feb. 10, 2012, and “The American Industrial Revolution that Andrew Jackson Sought to Destroy”, Executive Intelligence Review, Jun. 22, 2012; the article for “The American School (Economics)” on Wikipedia; and my entry, “Why Extremist, Atheistic, Capitalist Ideologues are Just as Evil as Extremist, Atheistic, Communist Ones”
7. Although some readers might wish to add “anything between consenting adults goes”—adults being 18 and over—it’s not uncommon to hear some pansexualists insist that 18 is just an arbitrary number, and that there are teens and pre-teens mentally capable of competently consenting to sex with an adult. There are even advocates of lowering, or even abolishing (!), the legal age of consent altogether. I refer here not simply to groups on the fringes of pansexualism like NAMBLA, but also to the “mainstream” Campaign for Homosexual Equality in the U.K. Similarly, British gay rights activist Peter Tatchell publicly stated that he wants to see the age of consent lowered to 14. More recently, Michelangelo Signorile, editor of The Huffington Post‘s “Gay Voices” web site admitted that “intergenerational sex” is a norm within homosexuality, and that straight people need to learn to accept that. A subsequent essay will discuss much more about the hotly-debated relationship between male homosexuality and pedophilia.
8. To be honest, characterizing Christianity (or even Judaism and Islam) as “intolerant” is not wholly unfair. In fact, some liberals even rightly point out that the pre-Christian pagan religions were much more tolerant of differing religions than Christianity. But then the question must be asked: is Christianity’s “intolerance” really such a bad thing, when one takes into account that some of those pagan cults practiced things such as ritual human sacrifice. As St. Paul made clear to his gentile audience: some aspects of human behavior—even long-held customs and traditions—cannot and should not be tolerated in a civilized society. It’s analogous to how present, 21st century civilization would regard any society today that still practices slavery. It goes beyond mere “difference of opinion” when such practices violate the laws of nature. (See Essay Two for a discussion on sex, marriage, and natural law.)
9. See the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 2357-59.
10. A regrettable reality of today’s “political correctness” is that appealing to one’s reason has taken a backseat to appealing to one’s feelings. In many quarters of polite society, it is considered unacceptable to ever straightforwardly tell someone that they are “wrong”. Thus many people are allowed to indulge in a variety of their own, bizarre fantasy worlds largely unchallenged. In this climate it is no wonder that many have a difficult time grasping the concept that it is indeed possible to have love and compassion for someone and recognize their true human dignity, while at the same time disagree with and oppose their life choices.
11 True Christianity has always held that no human being is beyond redemption, and that no sin—no matter how deplorable or depraved—is beyond God’s forgiveness, as long as the sinner humbly seeks that forgiveness.
One of the most famous remarks attributed to Christ comes from John 8:7, when he commands us to “let he without sin cast the first stone.” It is somewhat common in this culture permeated with moral relativism to interpret this remark as Jesus basically just asking us to mind our own business and be more “tolerant” of others, but that is a rather superficial way of understanding scripture. In a broader sense, the quote means that none of us have the right to treat a sinner as undeserving of basic human dignity, as we are all fallible creatures. As such, it is important to recognize that fallibility in oneself as well as in others in order to gain the required empathy necessary to have solidarity with that fellow sinner and aid him. Although having this sense of empathy means being willing to forgive the sins of others, it does not mean that such sins should ever be condoned; it does not mean that where one observes sin (particularly sin that has grown to the point of being quite destructive), he should simply sit idly by and mind his own business, but rather call attention to the sin and its root causes.
12. Christian sexual morality holds that the only arena in which chaste sexual activity exists only within loving, natural intercourse between a husband and wife. For a thorough defense of this position, see Pope John Paul II’s Love and Responsibility (written when he was still Cardinal Karol Wotylja, translated by Grzegorz Ignatik. Pauline. Boston, 2013.)
13. Granted, it does seem that homosexuals have been specifically singled-out amongst all others (with the possible exception of the pornography lobby) as being the object of fierce opposition from the Church, but it can be argued that this is merely because homosexuals have, in recent decades, organized themselves as a potent political force in a way that others have not. Although if NAMBLA or any other similar organization started to gain significant, mass political clout, they also would be met with opposition just as fierce.
14. Perhaps this tactic is analogous to how the well-funded and powerful lobby of Zionist extremists liberally labels any and all of its critics as “anti-Semites”.
15. I’ve always taken a stronger interest in theology, than religion, per se. I think that the question, “What is the nature of God?” is really a more important one than “Is there a God?” Religion–especially the monotheistic variety–is, among other things, a social expression of showing reverence and piety for an approximated cultural consensus of what that God is. Any religion that builds a community of people united in their mission of doing the Good (what Christians would call “the Lord’s Work”), is a good thing for society.
16. It is a bit unfortunate that a bizarre, yet powerful, ideological movement known as the “Christian Right” has come to dominate the opposition force to pansexualism in the United States. Although I have heard some well-meaning individuals identified with this movement make arguments on social issues which are rather insightful, other positions advanced by this grouping are offensively contrary to Christian morality. For example, much of the Christian Right’s displayed near-unwavering support for President George W. Bush and his administration. I found this abhorrent and indefensible, as I believe any true follower of Christ would consider lying to your country to embark on an unjust war among the greatest of all sins. (Yet another reason for my preference for Catholicism, is that in general, in recent history, she has always come off more temperate and reasonable on most sociopolitical matters than her “Evangelical” counterparts.)
U.S. Rep. Charlie Rangel summed up similar hypocrisy rather well in a December 2012 press conference on a bipartisan resolution he has cosponsored which would declare any president’s going to war without congressional approval an impeachable offense (HCR 3, proposed in response to Obama’s illegal bombing of Libya, and apparent intention to go to war in Syria):
“[I]t’s remarkable–the small number of people [that are here]… [I]f sending men and women off to combat is this important, and I end up in saying, where are the ministers? Where are the rabbis? Where are the imams? Because I hear their voices with same sex marriages… And I know they bless guns… But on this issue, [sending] human beings that are born [off to kill and be killed], I would like to believe that they would think it’s outrageous, immoral, unconstitutional!”