Crystal Griner, described unfortunately as a black, lesbian law enforcement officer in a same-sex marriage, was one of two Capitol Police officers last week that bravely saved the lives of Louisiana Congressman Steve Scalise and a number of other Republican lawmakers practicing for a charity baseball game against congressional Democrats. And now liberal progressives are making hay because the officer saved someone that doesn’t share her political views. She was doing her job, as she should, where it should never be a consideration that law enforcement consider the political or moral views of the person(s) they are protecting. If this were in reverse, where a conservative law enforcement officer was protecting a lesbian congresswoman, would conservatives criticize that law enforcement officer for protecting someone with political or moral views that didn’t align with theirs? Hardly. In fact, this is the case the majority of the time, since law enforcement officers overwhelmingly tend to be conservative leaning. To expect the moral or political views of a law enforcement officer to be the same as the people they are protecting is as idiotic as it is disingenuous, but that obviously doesn’t deter some. There would be many people who would go unprotected as such an ethic would destroy all trust in law enforcement.
What is most interesting to me is how illogical otherwise intelligent liberal progressives are on this issue. Liberal progressives make the moral claim that Scalise is “bigoted” and “homophobic.” But why do they make moral claims when they believe morality is relative? Somehow they believe they have a right to make moral claims which are superior to those of Scalise. But how can their claims be superior if morality is relative? At the same time they believe Scalise himself does not have or deserve the right to make a moral claim that is different from theirs based on his Christian faith, knowing that Scalise’s moral claim about same-sex marriage comes from his Christian faith. The story of the Jews and Christianity is well-documented historical fact. Jesus Christ was a historical figure that actually walked this earth. The only dispute is if Christ raised from the dead. If he raised from the dead, then that authenticates his claim to be the son of God, and thus this makes Scalise’s morality objectively grounded. If Christ didn’t raise from the dead, then even the Bible itself notes that Scalise’s faith is misplaced. But for all we know his faith is perfectly reasonable even though it is possible he is wrong.
Now the moral claims liberal progressives make, they say, are something that have evolved over time and are grounded in society. Well, in a recent Barna survey, which does note how younger people are becoming more and more relativist in their moral leanings, 44% believe morality is relative, 35% believe morality is absolute, and 21% haven’t thought much about it. So it is not pervasive in society that morality is relative, though it certainly appears we are headed in that direction. Thus, liberal progressives truly have no basis on which to call Scalise bigoted or homophobic from a societal standard and they certainly have no grounding that objectifies their stance. They are really no more than intolerant, bigoted, people themselves who can’t accept that other people can have legitimate views that differ from theirs. And to me, these people are not adults. They are children in adult bodies that have not grown up but have learned to manipulate language and hurl unseemly, immature, and infantile epithets at others when they don’t get their way. Moreover, they feel they must demonize and dehumanize those who disagree with them, instead of simply attacking the ideas of others and engaging in debate. The way of the conservative is to attack ideas, not the person, and to foster open dialogue without attempting to suppress the views of others as liberal progressives do. If liberal progressives would grow up and behave as adults, we could have the profitable and productive political discourse we need.
In closing, I think it’s important to point out, based on comments from friends on Facebook, is the fact that Scalise had to have placed his full trust in this officer, since she was guarding his life. Certainly, he knew her family situation and probably her political leanings, but he allowed her to protect him anyway. If he were a “homophobe,” he would hardly place his life in the hands of, or spend time continually around, someone who caused “a persistent, irrational fear of a specific object… that leads to a compelling desire to avoid it.” That is the definition of a phobia, according to Dictionary.com. So perhaps liberal progressives need to also learn the meanings of the pejoratives they use so capriciously.
Comments on this entry are closed.