The Age of Herodias

 

Herodias ought to be regarded as the patroness of the modern era. If you recall the Biblical accounts, She was married to her half-uncle Herod II, divorced him and married his half-brother Herod Antipas. [Forget the Borgias and Julian Roman emperors. For treachery, incest and ugly family power politics at its worst the Judean ruling family in the late first century BC was spectacularly devoid of any redeeming human qualities.]

The scandal of her divorce and incestuous remarriage was a topic of public discussion in whatever was the equivalent of tabloid content at that time. Worse, John the Baptist made her a regular topic in his sermons. She deeply resented being judged; after all, she just a girl forced by a king into a bad marriage, who escaped into a second bad marital situation. What woman in that situation wouldn’t resent criticism and judgment and instead direct her barely teenaged daughter dance seductively for her pervert step-father in order to finagle an order of execution against a popular preacher who’s telling people her mom was a slut? Just another victim fighting back against the patriarchy.

Herodias speaks to the modern era not just for her marital adventures in the sexual cesspool of the Herod extended family but for her insistence that no one is allowed to allude to traditional values in standing in judgment of her.

In the spirit of Herodias, as long as some Christian baker conspicuously fails to endorse sodomy, as long as any business does not cheer daily during Gay Pride Week, as long as any politician or state government fails to support transgender bathroom legislation or as long as there is anyone who does not publicly applaud infanticide as an offering to personal autonomy, there must be executions. No employment, no use of social media, no contact with intuitional of higher learning and furthermore, those heads must be presented on a platter.

It has been a long time since we moved from an ethos of letting others do their own thing to mandatory approval of such choices. The Vox-ish idea that I am not free to be me so long as anyone is allowed to question my choices is a power play that Herodias would wholeheartedly endorse.

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s growing community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

There are 13 comments.

  1. Mark Camp Member

    Outstanding, O.B.

    • #1
    • June 12, 2019, at 8:49 AM PDT
    • 4 likes
  2. Jim McConnell Member

     Well-said, @oldbathos!

    • #2
    • June 12, 2019, at 8:53 AM PDT
    • 3 likes
  3. Hang On Member

    Herodias was clearly a barbarian. Vox is the voice of barbarism. I watched The Skin of Our Teeth yesterday for the first time in a very long time. Kenneth Clark had it right and the modern left are barbarians. Can you imagine that on BBC these days? I can’t.

    • #3
    • June 12, 2019, at 8:55 AM PDT
    • 3 likes
  4. JoelB Member

    Since Herod was an Idumean, IIRC, I think that makes his reign and that of his descendants an argument for Palestinian rule of the land going back 2000 years. Isn’t that a grand heritage? <sarcasm off> 

    • #4
    • June 12, 2019, at 9:19 AM PDT
    • 2 likes
  5. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… Member

    Great post, OB. I have one comment.

    Old Bathos: It has been a long time since we moved from an ethos of letting others do their own thing to mandatory approval of such choices.

    I think that there were several important intermediate steps on this slippery slope.

    We might start with official, legal disapproval and sanction of certain conduct — say homosexuality, or adultery, or fornication generally (defined as any sexual activity outside of marriage). I think that this was generally the rule through the 1920s, gradually declining through the 2000s.

    A first step is to remove the legal sanction on such conduct. This would be one meaning of “letting others do their own thing.” This leaves individuals free to socially sanction such conduct, and leaves the government free to decline to provide benefits to those who engage in such conduct (so, for instance, homosexual or adulterous lovers do not qualify for Social Security survivor’s benefits, and the government could decline to employ persons engaging in such activity).

    A second step is to prohibit the government from “discriminating” on the basis of such conduct.

    A third step is to prohibit private individuals from “discriminating” on the basis of such conduct. It is at this step that the rule of “letting others do their own thing” ceases to apply to individuals who object to such conduct.

    A fourth step is to prohibit private individuals from even objecting to such conduct. Note that, as a practical matter, the third step often has this effect, because of the difficulty of proof of “discrimination.” For example, say that an employer fires an employee having an adulterous affair. The employee claims “discrimination,” and offers at proof that: (1) he was in the protected classification, and (2) the employer objects to adultery, with the implication that this proves the employer’s motivation.

    A fifth step is to require private individuals to publicly endorse such conduct.

     

    • #5
    • June 12, 2019, at 9:21 AM PDT
    • 6 likes
  6. Arahant Member

    Human nature has not changed. If people have the power to do such things, they will.

    Old Bathos: No employment, no use of social media, no contact with intuitional of higher learning and furthermore, those heads must be presented on a platter.

    I think Auto-correct got you there, but if not I think I’m for Intuitionals of Higher Learning.

    • #6
    • June 12, 2019, at 9:53 AM PDT
    • 6 likes
  7. James Gawron Thatcher

    Old Bathos: Just another victim fighting back against the patriarchy.

    John the Baptist, an obvious white male oppressor.

    Regards,

    Jim

    • #7
    • June 12, 2019, at 10:03 AM PDT
    • 4 likes
  8. Joshua Bissey Coolidge

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio&hellip; (View Comment):

    Great post, OB. I have one comment.

    Old Bathos: It has been a long time since we moved from an ethos of letting others do their own thing to mandatory approval of such choices.

    I think that there were several important intermediate steps on this slippery slope.

    We might start with official, legal disapproval and sanction of certain conduct — say homosexuality, or adultery, or fornication generally (defined as any sexual activity outside of marriage). I think that this was generally the rule through the 1920s, gradually declining through the 2000s.

    A first step is to remove the legal sanction on such conduct. This would be one meaning of “letting others do their own thing.” This leaves individuals free to socially sanction such conduct, and leaves the government free to decline to provide benefits to those who engage in such conduct (so, for instance, homosexual or adulterous lovers do not qualify for Social Security survivor’s benefits, and the government could decline to employ persons engaging in such activity).

    A second step is to prohibit the government from “discriminating” on the basis of such conduct.

    A third step is to prohibit private individuals from “discriminating” on the basis of such conduct. It is at this step that the rule of “letting others do their own thing” ceases to apply to individuals who object to such conduct.

    A fourth step is to prohibit private individuals from even objecting to such conduct. Note that, as a practical matter, the third step often has this effect, because of the difficulty of proof of “discrimination.” For example, say that an employer fires an employee having an adulterous affair. The employee claims “discrimination,” and offers at proof that: (1) he was in the protected classification, and (2) the employer objects to adultery, with the implication that this proves the employer’s motivation.

    A fifth step is to require private individuals to publicly endorse such conduct.

     

    And at step six, you’re required to directly participate in the sexual debauchery. 

    • #8
    • June 12, 2019, at 10:12 AM PDT
    • 2 likes
  9. RushBabe49 Thatcher

    The Left’s motto is “No Stigma”. Over the years they have been fighting to remove stigma from every sort of disgusting activity. Sex outside of marriage, adultery, abortion, prostitution, pedophilia, no stigma for anything anymore.

    • #9
    • June 12, 2019, at 10:22 AM PDT
    • 7 likes
  10. Tennessee Patriot Member

    RushBabe49 (View Comment):

    The Left’s motto is “No Stigma”. Over the years they have been fighting to remove stigma from every sort of disgusting activity. Sex outside of marriage, adultery, abortion, prostitution, pedophilia, no stigma for anything anymore.

    Oh, there are plenty of stigmas! Chastity, Christianity, Masculinity, Whiteness, the Constitution, our founding fathers, etc.

    • #10
    • June 12, 2019, at 11:52 AM PDT
    • 8 likes
  11. Joshua Bissey Coolidge

    RushBabe49 (View Comment):

    The Left’s motto is “No Stigma”. Over the years they have been fighting to remove stigma from every sort of disgusting activity. Sex outside of marriage, adultery, abortion, prostitution, pedophilia, no stigma for anything anymore.

    They’ve done such a fine job that the only remaining stigma is not agreeing with them on every point of doctrine.

    • #11
    • June 12, 2019, at 12:00 PM PDT
    • 6 likes
  12. The Reticulator Member

    Old Bathos: Worse, John the Baptist made her a regular topic in his sermons. She deeply resented being judged;

    Imagine having to put up with disapproving glances because of who you love.

    • #12
    • June 12, 2019, at 2:42 PM PDT
    • 2 likes
  13. Old Bathos Member
    Old Bathos Post author

    Arahant (View Comment):

    Human nature has not changed. If people have the power to do such things, they will.

    Old Bathos: No employment, no use of social media, no contact with intuitional of higher learning and furthermore, those heads must be presented on a platter.

    I think Auto-correct got you there, but if not I think I’m for Intuitionals of Higher Learning.

    Like I always say, spell check is my enema.

    • #13
    • June 12, 2019, at 5:27 PM PDT
    • 5 likes