Insight into the Oppression of the Majority

The powerful feel picked on and dissed.   And they resent it.

The Hillary Clinton wing of the Democratic Party is leading a movement of identity politics, gathering up the resentments of women, blacks, Hispanics, and gays against the laws traditionally enforced against their interests.   Each group has faced formal and informal legal discrimination or moral disapproval by the traditional majority.    Attitudes are in uneasy transition.   Now only a  few Americans openly defend white legal privilege (segregated drinking fountains or colleges) or prohibitions on the full integration of women in the workforce or public life (it is the Saudis who are condemned for this).  But the integration of immigrants from outside northern Europe, especially Spanish speakers from Latin America or Muslims from the Middle East, remain controversial.   And a great many people feel disgust and moral disapproval of homosexuality, believing it to be proscribed by holy texts.

Hillary Clinton is the public symbol for the continued effort to empower those groups.   It has created a backlash.   The traditional majority feels pressured by the mainstream culture, backed by judicially created law, to accept cultural norms they do not share.   The mismatch between the Roe vs. Wade constitutional protection for a woman's reproductive autonomy and the military's integration of gay and lesbian service members are examples of where the formal institutional power is in conflict with the attitudes of many people in the traditional majority.

The majority resents it.   The majority feels that it is the oppressed group, forced to accept the unacceptable in the form of abortions, homosexuality, multicultural acceptance, and race mixing.

I asked one of the readers of this blog, a white male heterosexual married Christian, a prosperous attorney from Florida to express his own view of the political landscape.  Progressive readers would profit by a close reading.   It helps explain the power of Trump's criticism of "political correctness".   Robert Guyer does not feel like an oppressor; he feels oppressed.  He does not consider his moral disapproval of homosexuality to be a form of self serving racism; he considers it sanctioned and required by his Christian faith.   He does not consider Christianity to be celebrating triumphant oppression; he considers Christianity to be oppressed.

He does not pussyfoot around in his language.  He refers to "moral mutants", the murder of babies in the womb, and cultural annihilation.    I consider his comment to me to be a primary source, so hear it from him directly.     

Robert Guyer is an attorney in Florida with a practice involving teaching people how better to influence policy at the state and local level.  He runs seminars and has a popular how-to book:              Here's his website: http://www.learn-to-lobby.com

Robert Guyer

Robert Guyer:  Some thoughts from a Bible-based southerner.

When evangelicals are “talking Jesus” to each other, you find considerable agreement among them without regard to race, class, income, state, political party, education level etc. It becomes “God said, I believe it, that settles it.” That commonality of view can explain how both white and black evangelicals can be 95% per cent in agreement on a few topics especially on issues of morality such as homosexuality and abortion. If you can show them a strong Biblical reason to go along with something they probably will. 

And if you show them that something is wrong from a Biblical view they will oppose it. Gay marriage is a good example. Black, white, rural, urban, PhD or barely literate, they will object to it. On the other hand if you show them it’s something they ought to do, like run soup kitchens, give to the poor via “benevolent funds”, etc. they will do that too. I think that the church last time I read remains by far the number one benevolent group in America. If evangelicals are giving 10% of their money to the church there is a lot of cash helping others. Here in Palm Beach County Christ Fellowship distributes 10,000 complete Thanksgiving dinners to anyone in need. Salvation Army boxes are everywhere.

Christianity brings consensus among seemingly disparate populations. However, the judiciary has pretty well been the vanguard for destroying of cultural consensus by not only substituting a destructive morality but by attacking those who oppose them, especially the evangelical church. Judges can rightly take credit for their atomization of society.

Judicial zealotry for homosexuals, abortionists, capital child molesters, pornographers, adult entertainment, fleeing felons, and miscreants of every kind is only matched by its hostility to Christianity. The courts have shattered cultural consensus and sow lawlessness. I see the country inundated with lawlessness because few know what is good/bad right wrong. Right and wrong are more than moral sensibilities, morality determines whether or not a society will work optimally, as for example how corruption is such a problem in China.  When a police department becomes corrupt public safety is diminished.

And of course as a Christian I am absolutely convinced that New Testament Christianity establishes the tone that makes people free. 

John Adams said, “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution.”[1] Samuel Adams also noted, “He therefore is the truest friend to the liberty of his country who tries most to promote its virtue, and who, so far as his power and influence extend, will not suffer a man to be chosen into any office of power and trust who is not a wise and virtuous man. . . . We must not conclude merely upon a man’s haranguing upon liberty, and using the charming sound, that he is fit to be trusted with the liberties of his country.”[2]

[1] From a letter to the Officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massachusetts (October 11, 1798), John Adams Quotes. See  Click here ; 2 From an essay published in The Advertiser (1748). See https://www.thefederalistpapers.org/founders/samuel-adams/samuel-adams-he-is-the-truest-friend-to-the-liberty-who-tries-most-to-promote-virtue Click here

I graduated from the University of Florida which on its seal states, “The welfare of the state rests upon the character of its people.” The Florida seal itself reads, “In God We Trust.” The major achievement of the Federal Government, specifically the courts, has to been to shatter the underpinning of American cultural consensus, that is Christianity. 

 

It’s not only the tens of million babies killed in their mothers’ wombs of which the court can boast. They can boast that they have supplanted morality itself and reduced opposition to themselves by creating a society of moral mutants. Romania’s Nicolae Ceaușescuused the orphanages, where there was no moral training, to produce moral mutants who without a sense or right or wrong became his Securitate. He produced an efficient police state to carry out his wishes. Click here This is happening in America especially if a Christian baker refuses to bake a cake.  Or a state legislature thinks as a matter of public decency that sexually confused men should not be watching little girls pee. 

Judicial lawlessness which it sows in society is founded not upon law or morality but upon raw power. 

Justice Rehnquist said Roe v. Wade was an exercise in “raw judicial power.” In Roe the Supreme Court held a “penumbra” of rights flows from the Constitution. A penumbra is the haze around a street light on a foggy night. By fabricating a “penumbra” constitutional standard, the judiciary awarded itself unlimited power based upon literally hazy constitutional thinking. Yale’s John Hart Ely said Roe was “a very bad decision…. [B]ad because it is bad constitutional law, or rather it is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be.” 

Justice Scalia said the Court’s Windsor v US gay marriage decision made supporters of traditional marriage “enemies of humanity.”  The Court in Lawrence v. Texas struck down states’ sodomy laws  it upheld 17 years earlier in Bowers v. Hardwick. Their reversal was based on “evolving standards of decency”. Whose decency? Do judges’ new decency trump the people’s old decency? Have judges become America’s new moral teachers? In Kennedy v. Louisiana the court saved child rapists by creating a “best interests” constitutional standard. Justice Alito said the Eighth Amendment “does not authorize this court to strike down federal or state criminal laws on the ground that they are not in the best interests of crime victims or the broader society.”

In  Obergefell v. Hodges the striking down of the laws of 40 (?) states affirming that marriage is between a man and a woman CJ Roberts wrote: “The majority’s decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court’s precedent.” 

We lawyers, as the now priests of society, preach beliefs that sow the seeds of our own illegitimacy. Current case law is a blank check for judicial imaginations, judges’ favored groups du jour, and imaginative word use. One can support judicial results while decrying a momentary five-judge majority dreaming up self-justifying constitutional standards -  a majority that may change with the next President. Maybe the Kentucky clerk isn’t the one who’s wrong, at least legally. That is, unless the law is only what a court says it is.

The court’s lawlessness increasingly permeates society. And because Biblically based religion is at odds with judicial dictators, judges at all levels are hostile to religion generally and Christianity specifically.  Christianity has a pretty clear set of things one should do and not do. But courts dictate anomie and many embrace lawlessness modeled by the courts. This permeates society whether it’s President Obama, Secretary Clinton, embrace judicial fiats despite there being no history or legal precedent for   and have seemingly no better arguments than to say opponents – Christians - who oppose her are mentally ill or filled with hate? “Hillary Clinton: Trump Supporters Energized By Xenophobia, Misogyny, Homophobia, and Islamophobia”   Click here  Can she be opposed because her view of a healthy society is morally mutant? 

She reflects the Democratic party, a party whose anti-Christian values are largely repudiated in the Red States. It’s Christianity that colors much of the country red. It’s not that red states are filled with good people. Country music attests to how screwed up people can be as do drugs, divorce, and maybe even obesity (a la gluttony). It’s that the people have a sense of how “it ought to be” even if they aren’t living that way themselves. People are corrupt. 

Christianity doesn’t make people good. It just makes them much better than they would otherwise be. 

“Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith.” “Society is endangered not by the great profligacy of a few, but by the laxity of morals amongst all.” Alexis De Tocqueville 

And so the courts and those who hate Christianity – as so pronounced in the Democratic party -  those who value inclusivity more highly than that which is being included, lead the county to moral and consequential cultural annihilation.