Skimming some writings and comments on Rod Dreher (The American Conservative) and Volokh’s blogs recently yielded a head-to-head competition to see who can reach the greatest apex of hypocrisy. They were joined by alleged molester and confirmed incestuous pervert Woddy Allen this week.

First Volokh continues his hypocrisy about criticizing Putin for his sound anti “homosexuality propaganda” law (‘The U.S. hypocrisy over Russia’s anti-gay laws’ -February 3 at 3:31 pm). Not too long ago, but before I was banned at Volokh for attacking his liberal “down your throats with homosexuality” views, I had a long exchange about this very subject with one of Volokh’s most ardent pink trolls.

At least one notes that Volokh this time mentioned an European case of censorship regarding suppressing views that oppose normalizing homosexuality (Sweden).

However, I see no complaint from Volokh about France’s law that will severely punish anyone who expresses any opinion that contradicts the state’s imposed view that normalizes homosexuality – an imposition by state force and coercion.

Just in the last few months, Volokh has been incensed in his zeal over his homosexuality speech crusade on his blog:
Censorship of Pro-Gay Movies in Russia; L.A. City Councilman Urges Suspending “Sister City” Relationship with St. Petersburg; Ukrainian Bill Banning “Promotion of Homosexuality” Passes First Reading, with 289 Votes (out of 350 Present); Moscow City Court Upholds Ban on Gay Pride Parades; Ukrainian Legislators Proposing Ban on “Propaganda of Homosexuality”;

Any protests from him regarding the fact that France continues its disgusting government censorship of speech about homosexuality that counters Volokh’s own shoddy “homosexuality is normal” views?

Of course, not.

Not only this, Volokh systematically censored myself and other socially conservative commenters from his blog because we exposed how ignorant and cruddy his liberal views on sexuality were and are. To see a man who constantly censored others with whom he disagrees in a sphere of debate that he controlled then climb on his little soapbox and criticize Putin for analogous behavior is quite hypocritical. To see him blog away about Putin but keep silent about France is just a show of how biased he is. Volokh loves to censor people as much as the next Putin. The only difference is that Volokh’s sphere of censorship power is limited to his menial blog.

I think liberals the world over have shown social conservatives that their proclamations about respect for freedom of speech or for freedom of conscience/religion are nothing but very cheap talk. And Volokh, with his own behavior and blogging, has displayed he is quite good at the latter.

Moving on, but still related to the VC blog, I recently had the amusement of seeing something else unexpected there. Given how many shoddy liberal sycophants Volokh attracts, who spend most of their comment ink on brown-nosing Volokh and each other, I was amused to see someone step out of the brown-nosing lockstep.

One of the women who has perhaps most licked the Volokh latrine, ChrisTS, came out accusing Volokh of being a rape apologist, a call that was seconded by several others.(“The Hyped Campus Rape That Wasn’t” By Eugene Volokh on November 7, 2013 5:05 pm). That doesn’t happen every day at that noxious place.

It’s something we already knew, however: Volokh is an apologist for a plethora of harmful, destructive, and perverted attitudes and behaviors in the sphere of sexuality. But to see a woman who revels in licking his ideological toilet criticize him for one of his many cruddy views was unexpected. Given that ChrisTS shares with Volokh most of his remaining damaging views on sexuality, for some reason her criticism stopped there.

It is my guess that Rod Dreher must have been upset to see so much hypocrisy from Volokh that he just had to get into the fray. Like Putin and Volokh, Dreher also loves to censor critical viewpoints. No market place of ideas with either of these two hypocrites – as long as they control the space.

Dreher is a guy who prides himself in having normalized homosexuality, in its psychological and behavioral spheres, including homosexual civil unions, and, if I remember correctly, for homosexuals to manufacture children any way or to adopt them (although I’d have to check up on this one). So he was sputtering comments about how terrible it was for homosexuals to call their unions “marriage.” If only they would do all their perverted sexual thinking and behavior and call it “civil unions,” all would be OK in perverted Christianity Dreher-land.

On top of this, Dreher puts his foot down when it comes to labeling himself as an Orthodox Christian (with capitalized O and C, mind you!). A serious Christian, is he, you might ask? Well, not such much, unless I and many other sources are mistaken about what the Orthodox Church preaches. Here is one source:

The position of the Orthodox Church toward homosexual acts has been expressed by synodicals, canons and patristic pronouncements from the very first centuries of Orthodox ecclesiastical life. In them, the Orthodox Church condemns unreservedly all expressions of personal sexual experience which prove contrary to the definite and unalterable function ascribed to sex by God’s ordinance and expressed in man’s experience as a law of nature. The Orthodox Church believes that homosexual behavior is a sin.

Below is Dreher’s position – follow the selected comments in the thread (Pushing The Pink Police State, January 24, 2014, 1:29 PM). Dreher appends his replies in brackets and italics at the end of other people’s comments. Then these people quote him back with the brackets (just so you don’t get confused as to who said what).

qasedede says: January 24, 2014 at 3:33 pm

This raises a good question for our host: If you’re fighting for true tolerance for religious traditionalist opponents of homosexuality, how much tolerance are you prepared to offer the other side? If the Arch-chairperson of the Grand High LGBT Conspiracy walked into your kitchen this afternoon and offered to draw up a permanent peace treaty, I have a sense of what you’d want for your side (broad legal immunity for religious people from anti-discrimination prohibitions, a high degree of social tolerance for people who think homosexuality is a sin, and so forth). But what concessions would you be prepared to offer the other side? It sounds like you’re willing to offer at least some opposition to sodomy laws… but anything else? The gays do want to stay out of jail, but they also want to protect their property, their livelihoods, their access to commerce, and the legal positions of their families. What can you offer them?

[NFR: We’ve been over this before. I would offer civil unions — legal marriage in all but name. — RD]

========================

Chris of Providence says: January 24, 2014 at 5:09 pm

I’m a married gay man. I’ve been reading this blog for a month. Here’s how I’m reading RD’s attitudes towards me:

– He likes and respects people like me, although he thinks our relationship is sinful.

– He will hide me and my husband in his basement when the Nigerians come to stone us to death.

– He thinks our marriage is invalid.

– He thinks we should pay more taxes than heterosexual couples.

– He thinks my spouse should not receive social security survivor benefits.

– He thinks my spouse should have to sell our house when I die because he cannot pay the estate taxes a heterosexual spouse would avoid.

– He thinks our children should be taken away from us.

I like and respect you too Rod, but if you can’t understand why the basic unfairness of your position causes people to take a very hard (and sometimes abusive) line against you. I can’t help you. You seem like a pretty empathic person. Try empathizing more.

[NFR: Why on earth do you think I believe your children should be taken from you? I do not. Besides, I have said over and over that I favor civil unions. I’m happy for you to avoid inheritance taxes and SS survivor benefits. — RD]

=========================

JohnE_o says: January 24, 2014 at 5:21 pm

[NFR: We’ve been over this before. I would offer civil unions — legal marriage in all but name. — RD]

If they are both the same in all but name, then what exactly are you fighting for?

=========================

jaybird says:

[NFR: We’ve been over this before. I would offer civil unions — legal marriage in all but name. — RD]

I know this is tangential to the main point of the thread, but I really, truly do not understand this logic. Are we really to believe that all of the prophesied social calamities that are to result from same-sex-”marriage” can be avoided or mitigated if we just don’t call it marriage? Because that seems to be what you’re arguing. And if that’s not what you’re arguing, then why do we hear all of this harping about how same-sex marriage will irreparably damage the social fabric, cause plunging fertility, will stop heterosexuals from marrying, yada, yada, yada? Why wouldn’t the same institution, re-badged as “civil unions” be just as disruptive and under-mining of supposed Judeo-Christian social norms?

[NFR: What I propose is a way to facilitate the inevitable while salvaging what can be saved of our conception of heterosexual marriage and its ideal, and all the protections pertaining to “marriage” as written in our laws. It may be futile. — RD]

====================

Now there’s a hypocrite. Obviously Dreher is not alone. Many “Christians” who have a perverted mind about sexuality have always behaved in a closeted way about their perversions,  and now they want legitimacy. And Dreher just loves sexual perversion in the form of homosexuality and bisexuality. One only needs to look at his behavior and writings.

If the Bible clearly states homosexuality is an abomination, the Drehers of the world will flippantly throw the Bible in the trash and forge ahead with their “normalize homosexuality” agenda, while claiming to be Christians – and in his case, of the “Orthodox” variety!

Well, it’s hard to say who is more hypocrite: the bishops who lied and covered up all kinds of homosexual pederasty crimes in the Catholic Church abuse scandal while standing as a symbol of holiness, that Catholic priest that was caught in a gay orgy/bar scandal published in an Italian magazine recently, or Dreher with his “I’m an Orthodox Christian, but my position is to endorse and support the normalization of perverted sexualities in society,” particularly what appears to be his favorite one: homosexuality.

Don’t think for a second that there is much difference between Dreher and the corrupt Catholic hierarchy. Dreher, with his “normalization of homosexuality” stance, clearly endorses the violence and harm that LGBTs have been doing in society, and he does this mostly by purposefully ignoring the subject and wanting complete silence on the topic. This is the reason I was banned from commenting on TAC.

Dreher wants to silence any talk about harm and violence as much as the Catholic Church, but Dreher wants this in relationship to all LGBTs in general, and especially if the harm and violence is in an adult sphere. Another characteristic he has in common with the current corrupt CC is that he wants sexually perverted people be very powerful in Churches. He won’t admit it, of course, but his plan is for society to have churches infested with corrupt gay mafias.

Lastly, in the thread that meandered into the marriage/civil union question, there was this comment, by a liberal who is  adamant about his homosexuality agenda:

jaybird says: January 24, 2014 at 8:48 pm

[NFR: What I propose is a way to facilitate the inevitable while salvaging what can be saved of our conception of heterosexual marriage and its ideal, and all the protections pertaining to “marriage” as written in our laws. It may be futile. — RD]

I really have no idea what “salvaging what can be saved of our conception of heterosexual marriage and its ideal” would mean in practice, or how allowing homosexuals the same rights and privileges as heterosexual married couples under another name would facilitate that… As much as I disagree with it, I think the M Young/Thursday stance makes more logical sense: “No gay marriage for you, no “civil union” nonsense either, and you’d better hope we don’t decide to start throwing gay people in jail again, just on principle”. Much more direct and to-the-point, anyway.

=====================

That is because Young and Thursday aren’t on the level of hypocrisy that Dreher, Volokh, and Woody Allen are.

Dreher had written: “Orthodoxy is about far more than religious experience; its theology is extraordinarily deep.”

Perhaps that is why Dreher must dump the Bible and its theology in the trash bin to serve his sexually perverted attitudes about homosexuality. It appears Orthodoxy is just a little too ethically challenging for him.

Advertisements