Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Celebrating the Seven Cardinal Sins
One of my gay friends (“Chad”) posts repeated rainbow-colored memes and pictures on his Facebook feed, every day during “Pride Month.” He views gays as a civil rights group: Why should someone be treated differently simply because they were born differently? At first, I found it odd that Chad insisted on celebrating his pride in, well, in simply being born different. Nothing he accomplished, but just the way he was born. That seems like me spending a month every year celebrating my pride in being born with brown hair. I mean, brown hair is nice, but it seems like an inadequate reason for parades.
Anyway, after a while, it occurred to me that Chad’s celebration of pride could serve as a model for other holiday months. Perhaps we should have a celebratory month for each of the Seven Cardinal (Deadly) Sins: Pride, Greed, Lust, Envy, Gluttony, Wrath, and Sloth. (Obviously, we would not celebrate The Seven Heavenly Virtues. That’s no fun.) Fortunately, the LGBTQQIP2SAA+ founding, um, fathers had the foresight to observe Pride Month in June, so each of the remaining six months of the year could be used to observe the six remaining Cardinal Sins. It works out so perfectly, I can’t believe that it’s a coincidence. This must have been the plan all along.
August will be fun – an entire month celebrating Lust! Woohoo! And I’m not sure exactly how some of our neighbors will observe the months celebrating Gluttony and Sloth. What, exactly, would they do differently? And, if I’m being brutally honest, I’m not sure what I would do differently in some of these months.
The Seven Cardinal Sins have always been commonplace in society. But they’ve moved beyond commonplace. Now they have become not just accepted but even admired in our society, to the point that we can have a month celebrating one of them and no one notices anything odd. You might think that somebody in their initial planning meetings might have said, “Hey, guys – er – people: You think maybe we should choose a different word? This is technically one of the Seven Cardinal Sins, ya know. This would be easy for some right-wing Christian hate-filled bigot to misinterpret and make a stink about it. How about, say, ‘confidence’ or something less potentially inflammatory?”
But we are a post-Christian society. Those in that meeting likely don’t know what the Cardinal Sins are, and it never occurred to them that Pride was one of them. Throughout history, religion has always been overlooked at times. Now it’s irrelevant. To many of us, anyway. So this concern probably never came up.
Imagine if I showed up to a Pride Parade, dressed in rainbow colors, carrying the following sign (with PRIDE in rainbow colors):
- Proverbs 16:18 – PRIDE goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.
I think most people wouldn’t even understand my point. Although I’m fairly certain that any quote from the Bible would be met with hostility, whether they understood it or not. They don’t have to understand something to hate it. In fact, it’s much easier to hate something you don’t understand.
This is why I fear our new culture, which intentionally does not teach children about Judeo-Christian ethics, and teaches that Western Civilization in general (and America in particular) is evil. This lack of understanding enables people to hate that which has done so much good in the world. The leftist desire for power requires them to destroy other sources of authority. They destroy them at their peril.
Actually, they destroy them at everyone else’s peril, as well.
The Judeo-Christian ethic teaches that we are all God’s children and that we all have value. We are important to God. And He expects a lot from us. We do our best to please him, although we frequently fail. But God loves us despite our shortcomings, so we continue to try.
The fact that we are all God’s children helped lead to the concept of personal liberties, property rights, and the rule of law – not just for royalty, but even for lowly peasants. If God loves each of us, then we all have some value, and thus, some rights. All of us. Personal liberty is a wonderful thing.
But with personal liberty, comes personal responsibility. Liberty does not mean ‘just do whatever you want.’ Only a virtuous people can handle liberty, without disastrous consequences. There are external authorities on virtue, like God, for example. But what if we don’t care for some of His outdated opinions on virtue? Surely we can just agree amongst ourselves what virtue is. That way we can change it to suit our tastes, as times change.
This has not turned out well. Why even try to follow rules, if we can change the rules whenever we want? Plus, it makes no sense, unless there is no God.
If there is no God, then some will conclude that their existence has no deeper meaning beyond amusing themselves. Hunter S. Thompson could explain this better than I, but without the guardrails provided by an overseeing God, you can go from liberty to chaos to misery very, very quickly.
Unbridled liberty should lead to happiness. It really should. Believe me, I wish it did.
But it doesn’t. For whatever reasons, it just doesn’t. It creates a hole in your soul that can never be filled. There are a lot of reasons for this. Many books have been written about this, including the book quoted above. But regardless of what those reasons are, this is just the way it is. Aristotle had a point with his discussions of logos. Man’s Search for Meaning sounds simple, but it can be complex.
Humans are funny creatures.
We’d rather not think about that, however. We’re having a wonderful time. So we march in parades and try to enjoy the moment, while trying not to think about where we’re all going.
And trying not to wonder why we have this nagging feeling, way deep inside, that something is just not quite right. We don’t want to search for meaning. We just want to have fun. So if we’re having so much fun, why are we so miserable? What’s wrong? What’s missing?
“It must be someone else’s fault. Those people over there. With their Bibles and their churches and crap. Man, I hate them, and everything they stand for. Whatever the heck that is. We must destroy them. Then, we’ll finally be happy.”
Leftist control of our educational and religious institutions has been an incredible success for them. Their fostering of ignorance, hate, and intolerance has put into motion things which will be difficult to undo.
I don’t see how this ends well. I don’t think that the left will see that they’ve won until we’ve all lost.
NOTE: Credit for the colorfully modified quote from Proverbs above, and for part of the inspiration for this post, goes to the indispensable Babylon Bee.
This was also partially inspired by stories told to me by my two kids in college. Their descriptions of their friends’ fun-filled misery added a lot to this as well. Many of their friends are having so much fun that they need Prozac and weekly counseling sessions.
Published in General
That was partly what I was asking, though with marriage equality you’ve focused on the process rather than the outcome.
What about the other half of the question?
Or to rephrase, now that this moral disapproval is no longer a default for popular culture?
If I remember correctly, Jerry Lee Lewis married his 13-year-old cousin. It was legal where he lived. Were other states required to give full faith and credit? Serious question. I have no idea what the answer is.
It increases my contempt for popular culture, but I don’t lie awake at night worrying about it.
But you have to do the theme lyrics to the music of stairway to heaven
@drbastiat This snarky post is ignorant and mean. The reason gay people celebrate “pride” is simple – for anyone who actually cares to understand it rather than spew snark at it. For much of human history, shame – the opposite of pride – was the primary social sanction used to destroy the lives of gay people – to prevent us from forming relationships, forming families, getting decent work, and just generally being honest about ourselves. In short, it created and forced us into the closet. I’m sure you have no idea what that means but the life of loneliness and lies that the closet represented was a life of misery. There were legal sanctions used to immiserate gay people on top of that but the choice “pride” to celebrate has more to do with rejecting the more pervasive and effective social shaming gay people endured and the consequences of it. Celebrating “pride” is simply a way of saying “I’m no longer going to feel the shame that the government, and the churches and the culture are telling me I should feel because I was born this way. I refuse delivery on it and I’m going to live my life as the person I am, so FU.” The celebration is particularly intense this year because it is the 50th anniversary of the Stonewall insurrection in which a bunch of gay men finally fought back against the police – who were accustomed to raiding their bars, booking gay men on “morals” charges, and publicizing their names to deprive them of jobs, social relationships, apartments, etc. It is indeed a milestone in the history of making live livable for your fellow citizens who were born gay. As far as I’m concerned we should add Stonewall and MLK’s March on Washington to the things we celebrate on Independence Day. Maybe you should learn something about your subject before you prattle on about it. Happy 4th and Happy Pride.
@catorand, before I start, let me thank you for your thoughtful response to my post.
I’m sorry you took it that way, although I can see how you might. If you’ve read my other material, you know that while I am sometimes ignorant, I am rarely mean.
Allow me to attempt to defend myself from that accusation, although I concede from the start that your perspective has merit.
This is a really good point.
If you notice, and if you read some of the previous comments, I was very careful in my post not to criticize or defend homosexuality itself. This started when I found it odd to be celebrating one of the Seven Cardinal Sins – Pride (not homosexuality). If the parades had been for “Gay Rights,” I would not be writing critical posts, I would be supporting them.
You’re right. I don’t.
I was born in 1968, and grew up in the ’70’s and ’80’s, which were not known for sexual restraint. I think I came along after the worst of the discrimination you describe. Although I may have just been oblivious in my younger years. But I feel sort of like my kids, who don’t understand white against black racism, because they’ve never seen it.
But such history would probably be more meaningful to me if I were gay. So I see your point.
I’ve heard stories about such things. I’ve never understood such discrimination. But again, I came along too late.
But then I’d have nothing to write about!
I’m sorry I offended you. I really am. And I see your point.
But Pride is a dangerous vice. I know – I suffer from it myself. I believe that we disregard the warnings from the ancients about pride (and greed, and gluttony, etc) at our peril. That is the point of my post.
In terms of your points about homosexuality, I agree with you. But that’s not what my post was about.
But parading one’s sexuality isn’t quite the same as ladies of the Daughters of the American Revolution parading in period dress, is it?
It’s good and right that gays aren’t mistreated the way they once were. But, I think even you would agree that gay pride has often taken a turn toward the provocative, if not the profane. It’s like almost any cause — once its righteous goals are achieved, the activists just can’t seem to help but go radical. This is what societal norms need to push against. Some things (behaviors) are shameful in public, like wearing a leather thong and doing the bump and grind on a parade float.
On the OP: What a clever idea, though I’m pretty sure that June covers both Pride and Lust.
On a common theme in the comments: I know that I sound like a broken record on this one. The “born that way” argument is both logically fallacious and factually unsupported. I posted about this at length back in March, including quite a detailed discussion of the literature.
I did a total of 6 posts, of which the the first and the third addressed the “born that way” argument. The first (here) generally debunked the “born that way” claim; the third (here) specifically addressed the Fraternal Birth Order effect.
It is troubling that so many people disregard well-established facts, but not surprising, as the truth is suppressed in both the media and academia, and anyone who reports the truth is vilified.
Incidentally — as I said in my prior posts — the conclusion that the “born that way” argument is both logically fallacious and factually unsupported does not resolve the issue of whether homosexuality is good or bad, right or wrong. It simply undermines one of the most common arguments used in support of a pro-homosexuality view.
I admit, Jerry, I don’t have the attention span to read those posts. But, I do believe homosexuality in men can be an affliction one is born with due to various causes (like my girls have rare congenital medical problems). I believe homosexual women are more likely to have been sexually abused as children and to have bad relationships with men as adults (anecdotal observation).
What I prefer to argue is moral agency in one’s behaviors and that sodomy isn’t good for anyone. That’s simply medical/scientific fact.
I want to comment on the exchange between Cato and Dr. B above. I think that this illustrates the difficulty of this issue.
Homosexuality may be an issue on which there can be no compromise or accommodation. “Live and let live” doesn’t seem to be working. The pro-homosexuality side demands celebration and acknowledgement of homosexuality as a morally good.
I think that Cato made an excellent point that the purpose of homosexual “pride” is to counter the history of “shame.” But this begs the question of whether homosexuality is right or wrong. If it is morally right, or even morally neutral, then shame is inappropriate. But if it is morally wrong, then shame is appropriate and pride is inappropriate.
I do object to the tone of Cato’s comment, which is reminiscent of the Leftist tactic of asserting personal offense in order to stifle debate and delegitimize the opposing viewpoint. This is unfortunate, though I do not believe that Cato’s claim of offense is imagined in any way. I believe that he is legitimately offended at the idea that others would consider homosexuality to be immoral.
This is why I fear we are in a “House Divided” situation on this issue.
Rarely deliberately mean.
This time I think you achieved it without intent.
Better? Worse? Immaterial? I don’t know.
As far as I know that answer would be “yes.” Remember, the idea of teen marriage was to preserve the girl’s “virtue.”
Why?
Fair point.
However, I would point out that the only way to never offend anyone is to never say anything.
And it’s hard to grow without offending and being offended. Only when we are challenged do we grow and improve.
For example, I learned from Cato in the exchange above. That’s why I’m here. To learn.
Sometimes I get pissed off about something. But I keep my anger to myself, because personal attacks tend to shut down communication, and thus, learning.
I said something that offended Cato. He said so, and explained why. I responded in good faith, attempting to clarify my point, while apologizing for offending him.
No problem. That’s how it’s supposed to work. We’re all grown ups here.
I love Ricochet.
If you really don’t understand why you shouldn’t mistreat those who are different from you, then you’ve been in college too long. Go get a job in the private sector, and work with some people who don’t see everything exactly the way you do.
If you’re trying to insult someone else’s point of view without understanding it, or explaining your own opinion, then you’re not really helping the conversation here.
If it’s neither of the above, then I apologize for misinterpreting your comment.
Thank you for asking, I have stopped beating my wife. Are we good?
Re: why?
Theology was a justification for ‘you’ to mistreat ‘us’, and still is in many parts of the world.
What’s changed? Why is that no longer okay in (most of) America?
I think it’s an expression of the same thing that drives Pride Parades, but it was a genuine question.
Why is it good to treat gay people decently today when it was totally acceptable to treat us badly twenty years ago?
Thank you for your response and I’m sorry I went off. I haven’t been to a pride parade in nearly 20 years and I kind of think they’ve outlived their usefulness. These days they’re mostly about advertising beer and vodka and politician virtue signaling. But still, there’s something central about claiming the right to be proud of who you are that is central to the experience of gay people claiming a place at the table and I don’t regret it, even if the word itself overlaps with one of the Catholic Church’s seven deadly sins.
I couldn’t give a rats ass what someone who thinks homosexuality is morally wrong and worthy of shame thinks. You are precisely the problem. You are the cop who harassed the patrons of the Stonewall bar until they couldn’t take it anymore.
Zafar, I think he’s saying it was never ok, just that he was less conscious of the issue 20 years ago.
Look, I couldn’t give a rat’s what they think of me today either – which is precisely the loss of cultural authority I was talking about earlier – but I do care that they’re still damaging their children with these assumptions.
Cato, you are exactly correct. It was wrong to discriminate against people in the past. It still is, of course, there’s just less of it. In America at least. Less. Not none.
Cato, thank you so much for your response. I still feel bad about offending you, but I feel a little better now.
And don’t be sorry. You didn’t ‘go off.’ You told me that you were offended, and you explained why, in a very reasonable response. You could have just attacked me, but you didn’t. You explained why you felt the way you did. Thank you for taking the time to explain your point of view.
I’m here to learn. Thanks for teaching me something.
And as for your section above that I bolded, I see your point.
When Dr. Bastiat posted this, I tried to care that he hadn’t attributed the concept to me, but couldn’t work up the energy. I had posted Seven Deadly Months on Ratburger back on June 20, and if the idea spread further without my help, that’s fine with me.
I had heard all this talk about “Pride Month” and soon gathered that it included “Gay Pride,” but was not sure that it was exclusively about Gay Pride. One point is, though, if it is mainly about Gay Pride, then it’s not very honest to just call it Pride Month. The word “Pride” has a lot of meanings, some of them barely overlapping if at all, and if other people are hiding behind the ambiguity of the term, then I can play with it, too. So there.
Couldn’t agree more Zafar. That attitude still does harm, even if it’s not as universal as it once was. For some kid somewhere, what mom and dad think is what really matters, even if much of the larger culture has improved.
Well, I did attack you a little. You were just polite enough not to quote those sentences back to me and address the substance of my argument instead.
Sorry about that Reticulator. Never heard of Ratburger. My mistake.
Good point. Similar to marching for “Choice”. Why not just say you’re marching for abortion?
And there it is: the attack on the traditional family that is at the root of this issue. Particularly the attack on parental rights. And the simultaneous attack on the world’s religions (pretty much all of them) that back up the family. A lot of us former moderates thought that there was a middle ground. That doesn’t seem to be happening.
As for the bolded section: approval of homosexual lifestyles is not a new thing in this world. Social approval and condemnation alternate through thousands of years of history, in multi-decadal and multi-century arcs. The further the pendulum swings towards approval, the more terrible the backlash in decades to follow. The hoped-for middle ground held the promise of an end to the pendulum. But if the traditional family is destroyed, our culture dies by simple demographics, and the replacement family-friendly culture of the future will not be so tolerant.
Why? Because every person is made in the image and likeness of God and acting with justice means giving people what they are due — treating like things alike. Were there Christians who persecuted gays? Probably. Was it ever the teachings of Christ that lead them to it? Definitely not. Both the closeting of gays and the tolerance of gays occurred in the Judeo-Christian West. Where are gays persecuted today? In the Muslim East and elsewhere. I dispute the use of “theology” to explain it, but will admit a misunderstanding of Christian anthropology probably played a role.
Here’s what I teach my kids about authentic love and human sexuality: authentic love is willing the good of the other as other — especially when it costs you. And the purpose of human sexuality is total self-giving of husband and wife in a way that cooperates with God’s creative enterprise — being open to new life. This implies (traditional) marriage and that sex outside of it is unloving as it is selfish, not selfless. If the notion of sodomy ever came up, I would say it is in violation of the purpose of human sexuality and therefore not good for anyone engaging in it. Penises were not meant for anuses and vice versa, just like lungs were not meant to breathe water.
Now, I know discussing sodomy is not popular, but it’s impossible to discuss the morality or societal normalization of homosexuality without addressing it. I think society is better when it tolerates people who engage in homosexual acts, but doesn’t celebrate them.
P.S. I knew a gay bartender back in the 80’s when I was a cocktail waitress at a country club for very wealthy, conservative Texans. He was badly beaten in the parking lot many years earlier and had a steel plate in his head. No one I knew was okay with it (even though Rick was kind of a bitter jerk to be around oftentimes) and the owners paid his medical bills and kept him employed. So I wouldn’t advise attributing gay persecution to either Christianity or conservatism.
It doesn’t end well. It won’t end well. May God have mercy on us.