The Intellectualism of Stupidity Pt 1

By Andy Torbett

As the “Delicates” scatter towards their safe place to furtively suck on a pacifier while feverishly kneading handfuls of play dough, let me explain that the title of this column refers to the denotative meaning of stupidity and not the connotative. Stupidity is derived from the root word stupor. Think of it as an aura, a fog, similar to how this construction guy feels after a hot day, baking on a roof while shingling. In simple terms, after getting fried all day at work, one prefers to sit on the couch staring at the television or computer in a state of stupidity.

But where the intellectualism? The state of our nation is this, that we have pontificated, debated, and at all points elevated our speech to such a place that the common place, common sense, and the common man is disdained, lampooned, and mocked as irrelevant, not worthy of the modern man. The Apostle Paul described it as, “Ever learning and never coming to the knowledge of truth”. Solomon observed in The Ecclesiastes and Proverbs that after all his learning, acquisition of treasure, and accomplishments that it was all “vanity” and the only final necessity was to “get wisdom”.

Could it be that in all our quests for high-minded words and soliloquy that befuddle the simple man, we dull ourselves to the basic innate powers of perception, which comes so naturally to the simple man? Can we possibly have become so churlish and bigoted in our lofty pursuits of intellectualism that what we call reasoning is nothing more then self-indulgent prattle rife with circular reasoning which has withered what was once the nation’s greatest resource, common sense, into a fallow wasteland? Like the Greek philosophers of old, Americans are walking about with a lantern searching for a honest man, a discerning man, a common man and, like the civilizations of old, we follow blindly in their wake wanting and wasting to “get wisdom” as we decline.

As the debate on our foundational structure of marriage has raged on, to which I am party, I have noticed some curious threads woven through the debate that I find fascinating. One would think as ideological barbs are cast back and forth that the only heterosexuals who have developed a marriage construct are Christians. Again, one would think that through the haze of charges of intolerance hurled so flippantly about that only Christians have built a civilization upon the foundation of their marriage construct. Finally, in our age of enlightenment, one would think that it is a small thing to dismantle and redefine the marriage construct upon which your nation is built, that moving, twisting, and reshaping this foundation upon which we for generations so labored to build will have no negative impact upon the civilization, and the mountains of evidence to the contrary which are blazed throughout history do not apply to us.

A common man with common sense could look at this list of modern arguments and say no to all of them, but since we are now intellectuals with our noses too far inclined to see anything which resembles common, it’s necessary to breaks things back down to the basics. What is the most basic building block of a civilization? Life! Yes, babies are the most basic building block of a civilization. You can’t have one without them.

The very basic essence of a civilization is the secure propagation of life. Our Constitution describes it as “to insure the domestic tranquility”. It has become a matter of debate for our civilization as to whether it is Constitutional to defend the traditional structure of marriage. I would counter that the whole of the Constitution was designed to defend that structure. You cannot ensure the domestic tranquility unless you have a domestic to insure.

  • The first in all multi-part series on the marriage structure as a national security issue.

Life Adrift

 

Known as the “Weeping Prophet”, Jeremiah witnessed the destruction of Jerusalem and the magnificent Temple of Solomon. Despite his repeated warnings to the people of Judah to change their ways and return to their foundation, which had built and strengthened their Nation, the people continued in their downward spiral of moral decay. After the death of King Josiah, Jeremiah watched the quick plunge back into paganism of his fellow citizens and foresaw their doom and, despite his many emotional warnings, the nation of Judah stubbornly quickened toward the fulfillment of Jeremiah’s prophecies at the sword of a predatory empire.

Jeremiah’s writings in the Bible hold special significance to the Christian of today. He recounts in Jeremiah 1:4-5 an assurance of his call from God, “Then the word of the Lord came to me, saying: ‘Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; before you were born I sanctified you; I ordained you a prophet to the nations.” This scripture encapsulates to a great degree the view of life that Christians embrace.

It is to the Christian that life is formed by the very hand of God. Our Founders used the word endowed. Life is written into the fabric of our foundational documents, of this there can be no denial.

But the protection of life is not necessarily exclusive to a Christian pursuit or endeavor. Most of the greatest civilizations established traditions to promote life among their civilization to ensure their safe and prosperous propagation. Traditions of birth and marriage were established usually in the context of that civilization’s religion. These formed the foundation on which that civilization was built.

This discussion is basic grade school social studies to many but it is important to reaffirm, in light of our nation’s perilous course, the basics of world history. What destroys a nation? What makes it live?

If we as a people do not protect and cherish life, how can we live? As each civilization grows in power, its fear for survival lessens giving way to a desire for personal gain, pleasure, and indulgence. Life holds inevitable repercussions for personal choices, which the selfish work to circumvent. Wants outweigh what is worthy as the people so stalwart to build now wallow in decadence.

Civilization to civilization, the same weakness persists. We strive to build an empire but have not the moral fortitude to maintain it. The path for national decay is well worn for all have followed it.

The decline that Jeremiah wept against for his nation was not new then and happening before our eyes now. A nation grows strong on its zeal for life and desire to survive against all odds. It succeeds and becomes a power to the world and the envy of all nations. Soon, secure in its power, the people began to flock to pleasure and decadence. The constraints of life, the responsibilities thereof, are tossed aside as obstructions in the path towards a new and better nation. We sacrifice our children like nations of old and destroy the structure which raised them and built our society.

We wonder now at our depravity like there was no herald to warn of us of this demise, forgetting those we mocked and shouted down. The sanctity of life and the tradition of marriage is more than just a Christian tradition. It is the very essence and necessity of a nation’s security and survival.

Still, we will ignore the fate in the ruins of time and mindlessly walk towards our doom. It stands to reason, if we could reason, that the value of life could build a civilization and the devaluing of life destroys a civilization. But some will wonder in the end how we got here?

It’s not that complicated. It’s as simple as common sense. When you cut free of the mooring, you simply keep drifting…

  • Andy Torbett

The Anti-Celebration: It’s All Inclusive

 

I recently read a post by another activist here in Maine that brought out a point to this anti-Christian gay-rights fervor that is sweeping our nation, which was something I had never really given much thought to. Genie Jennings asked, “Why would anyone want to force anyone else to attend or approve of their day of celebration if they don’t approve or want to attend?” The quotation marks are there to provide some sense of syntax but those words are more of a paraphrase then a direct quote. I was surprised, first, because this is an issue she doesn’t generally get involved with or speak about, and secondly, the direct simple question provided one of those “stop and think about that” moments.

I have worked with Genie on several different issues and she is always very thoughtful. She consistently provides unique perspective, so the insight was not the surprise. I just had one of those very selfish “whydidn’tIthinkofthat” intraflections…I think I made that word up.

When I was in college, there were certain events that required all students and staff from the school to be in attendance. All of us knew this. This was a very strict school and we had signed an advisement when we enrolled that clearly stated that there would be required attendance at certain events. Still, it didn’t prevent many of us from making wry and cynical remarks about having to engage in “mandatory fun”.

The reason for this rule, as it was explained to me, was to promote a feeling of unity and togetherness within the campus community. What it really did, in my observations, was create two groups of people at the “mandatory fun” banquet: those who wanted to be there and those who couldn’t wait to get out of there. Quite frankly, it was a relief to those who were enjoying the banquet when the others had fulfilled their “mandatory fun” quotas and bailed out of there, taking their killjoy attitudes with them.

So, again, why would you want anyone associated with your party, your celebration, your wedding that doesn’t want to be there? Why would you want flowers or a cake provided or delivered by a business under duress, with an “I don’t believe in what your doing, it violates my faith, but if I don’t do this the government is going to take away my business, take all my life savings, destroy everything I have, and force me to take reeducation classes” look on their face with the fury of the persecuted and aggrieved simmering just below the surface. Is this truly a moment of celebration or a moment to inflict punishment on those who will not willingly affirm your expression, so then they must be forced?

The “new freedom” is beginning its conquest of the American tradition and it’s starting with the basic foundation of that tradition: marriage. The “new freedom”, the freedom to sex, demands that all other freedoms affirm its sovereignty with their allegiance. If the Freedom of Speech speaks against it: Speech is silenced. If the Freedom of Religion preaches against it: Faith is punished. If the Freedom of the Press reports against it: Reports are crushed. If Commerce disagrees with it: Commerce is blocked.

Once again I ask do we value sex above all other freedoms? Is it more important to affirm lifestyle choices than maintain our personal freedoms? And how did we get here?

The Last Stand: The Issue

 

“If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth.” -Ronald Reagan

There are two fallacies connected with the traditional marriage versus same-sex marriage debate that we will deal with in this column. The first misconception is that love is the basic reason for marriage. The second widely propagated lie is that marriage is strictly a Christian tradition. Both have contributed greatly to the folly and contention we have today.

We should immediately dispense with the idea that marriage belongs to Christianity. Common sense tells us that Christianity is not the only religion that has had its imprint upon the rites of marriage. Not every Empire has been Christian, but every Empire has had a marriage structure by which to insure the stability of their generations in hopes to insure the longevity of their Kingdoms.

The pervasive thought that marriage tradition is rooted in Christianity comes from the fact that the United States is a Nation built on the foundation of a Judea-Christian faith. This must be tempered by the realization that we are a melting pot and not all peoples represented in this Country have their rites and traditions rooted in the same faith. While influenced by the Christian teaching of love, the origins of many of these various marital rites are very different from Christianity.

The proponents of same-sex marriage have tried to affix the label of Christianity to traditional marriage because it makes for a much easier and popular target. It is no secret that the political establishment has long resented and wanted Christianity removed from having any impact on society. Hollywood elites have longed disdained the teachings of morality and fidelity, and corporate tycoons have loathed the constant reminders to check their greed. Emboldened by the populace perception of Christianity as the evil menace to society, homosexuals have seized the opportunity to target and persecute Christians.

The prevailing argument is that homosexuals are loving couples that wish to have a marital relationship and therefore should not be denied this affirmation of love. This idea that a loving relationship is the fundamental basis for marriage is simple not correct. The institution of marriage was not created in any culture to validate a couple’s love and physical intimacy. No, the first and primary reason for the rite of marriage in every civilization throughout time was for the propagation and protection of the most fundamental and basic building block of society: babies.

The idea of a loving relationship as a prerequisite to marriage is a Western concept that has descended down from European lore and exacerbated by the modern Hollywood culture of today. In some Eastern marriage traditions, the idea of love is viewed as “bonus” that may come with time after the vows have been consummated. The one constant in every civilization is the purposing of marriage tradition as the vehicle by which children are brought into the world, raised, and taught the tenants of that society.

Not every marriage structure has demanded that physical intimacy be kept exclusively for marriage as Christianity and Islam do, but all the marriage rites of every civilization have agreed that the primary purpose of marriage was and is procreation. If a society is to survive it must have a stable structure in which to produce and raise children. The issue of marriage is simply about babies.

Even in the face of our hedonistic society the overarching truth still remains, marriage was created first for procreation not for love. It is a societal and religious rite created by heterosexuals for this primary purpose. Homosexuals did not create the rites of marriage represented in our Country and passed down by the various ethnic groups. The cold truth is homosexuals cannot procreate and, therefore, do not qualify for the purpose of marriage. Love does not qualify one’s relationship for marriage.

Marriage was not created for romance, love, or even sexual pleasure. While those ideals are not excluded, the harsh reality is that marriage was created by heterosexuals for heterosexuals who could, if they desired, create children. Marriage is exclusive for that purpose. Sadly, we are willing as a Nation, to target and revoke the rights and liberties of certain people groups based on reasoning that does not even exist.