The Conservative Brotherhood

Mankind it seems was correctly encapsulated in the myth of Sisyphus. We are subjected to tasks that, it seems, can never be completed or resolved. Once again the issue of same-sex marriage is requiring us to debate the primacy of the political or legal process, and the place of the influence of religion in the resolution. To me this is a fascinating topic that touches one of the recurring questions I pose - are we confusing "Christian" with "Conservative". I am sure my efforts will not get the stone to the top of the hill, one reason being, there must first be a consensus on Judeo-Christian doctrine; a difficulty that eluded the best efforts, faith, passion, and intellect of such talents as Augustine and Aquinas, among other gifted thinkers. Still today our inquiries are waylaid before we can focus on the constitutional implications of political and legal decisions by the necessity to argue Biblical questions. As an illustration, it is intriguing the webmaster(s) chose to link, for example, in "The Brotherhood Speaks" section on the left of this screen, a blog from the Conservative Black Woman site entitled, "Abandoned by God". I am foursquare behind everyone's free expression, but I found the video shown to be a wholly and unabashedly religious diatribe. I am not opposed to its inclusion if it is simply meant to demonstrate the variety of opinion in a vibrant community, but I am equally cognizant of the potential danger if the conceit is encouraged that the views expressed are, in a political context, those of God rather than the speaker; since I assume the nature and timing of the presentation is in some way thought pertinent to the same-sex marriage case pending before the California Supreme Court. The only way to respond to the video is, as always, to debate Judeo-Christian doctrine and hope the resulting outcome can merge with secular legal rationalism. The smart money is against Sisyphus- and me.

Back when I was an unwashed conspiracy nut I touted such themes as "The New World Order" and its modus operandi - socialism. Your local outlet of the centralized media probably uses a more palatable terminology (for American audiences)- "A Global New Deal".

Back in my delusional state my real world definition of "socialism" was "fewer capitalist controlling more of the wealth". You may prefer to call it unavoidable action by central banks, nationalization,or the Wharton-friendly "mega-mergers". Call it what you will, but ownership and the money must be going somewhere - and from what I see, it's consolidating into the hands of fewer decision makers. That this is the goal of the mythical New World Order clik is just coincidental.

It perhaps isn't proper for me to burden your attention with my "mood". It is doubtless more appropriate to create a personal website if I want to be a public diarist and display a 'sense of things', feelings, or a series of sensations I can't conjugate or coalesce into a definitive form or craft into an apposite template for the discussion of conservatism. My opinions on matters other than conservatism are not relevant material for this forum, and I try to restrict myself to proper parameters, but once in a while there appear topics that transcend normal boundaries. While I concede that conservatism is colorblind, one such topic is race.

Once again it is necessary to reproach the gangsters who would tyrannize the minds of others, trash the Constitution, and commit genocide of rational human beings while hiding behind the presumed safety of the pulpit. What draws my ire today is a blog dated Feb. 18, 2009 posted by Conservative Black Woman. She submitted a reprint of an article written by Matt Barber (http://conservativeblkwoman.blogspot.com, article entitled "Today's Baal Worshipers") which she characterized as "brilliant". The first paragraph is a paean to the ludicrous subjectivity, anti-intellectualism suited to the Inquisition, hypocrisy, over-all faulty reasoning, and an attempt to somehow equate Christian morality with constitutionality that threads the entire piece. It reads:

I visited the "Booker Rising" site the other day and read something posted by Star Parker. She was decrying the fate of our society and culture because a Minister was prohibited from "counseling", within the immediate environs, women entering an abortion clinic he had staked out.
Her attempt to connect this minister's activity with the economic bailout was lost on me, but I think I did understand and disagree with her reference to the applicability of the First Amendment- you know, the one about freedom of speech. She felt any limitation placed upon him was a violation of this primary Constitutional right, and presumably since it was aired where it was, her stance represented a conservative position. I may be a knot-head, but to me this seems like the all too frequent intellectual malapropism confusing conservatism and morality. And I don't think it does justice to the scholarly vigor applied to the interpretation of the concept of freedom of speech over the years.