By Bryan Fischer
Let’s not be fooled by Mitch Daniels’ treacly talk about conservatives declaring a “truce” in the culture war. There is and can be no such thing. This is for one simple reason: a truce requires both sides to lay down their arms, and I can flat out guarantee you the raging leftists in our civil war of values aren’t going to do that, not for one single, solitary minute.
We are locked in an all-out war over whether the values of the Founders or the values of rabid secular fundamentalists are going to dominate our cultural mores and our public policies. To lay down arms in such circumstances is to cede ground to the enemy and consign America to the scrap heap of history. Secular fundamentalists are determined to carry out cultural jihad against defenders of the Judeo-Christian tradition, and they will not rest until we are wiped off the map.
That means any “truce” declared by social conservatives will be a one-sided truce, which is just another word for total, abject surrender.
Micheal Barone’s column of today perfectly illustrates the point.
I have great regard for Mr. Barone and his political insights and read virtually everything he writes. But on the subject of his latest column, he’s just plain wrong.
He argues today that we already have a de facto truce right now in the battle over cultural values. But then he almost immediately torpedoes his own argument.
Here is the key paragraph:
On gay rights, we also see something in the nature of a truce. Polls suggest majority support for Congress’s repeal of the ban on open gays in the military, and the Marine Corps commandant, who opposed the change, promised to work hard to implement it.
It is absurd to consider the outcome of this debate as anything other than a defeat for the value system of George Washington (who literally drummed homosexuals out of the military), John Adams, James Madison, and Thomas Jefferson (who authored a law calling for castration as the punishment for the crime of sodomy).
The outcome of the repeal of the ban on homosexual service in the military can hardly be considered a truce or anything like it. It was a huge victory for the deviancy cabal, and the signing ceremony illustrated that. The ceremony was more like a high school pep rally than anything else, with cheering and whooping and hollering. Do they sound like folks who are willing to quit?
A “truce” would have been homosexual activists coming to the FRC and AFA and saying, hey, we won’t push gays in the military, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, anti-bullying legislation, special rights legislation based on gender identity, federal “spousal” benefits for partners of homosexuals, etc. etc. if only you’ll stop pushing for legislation that protects the integrity of the American family.
Folks like Mr. Barone must be living in some kind of fantasy dream world to think that gay activists are going to lay down the axe in this battle. By their own admission, they have been empowered and encouraged by the feminized surrender of eight Republican senators on homosexuals in the military. It would be foolish, in fact, stupid, in the extreme to think even for a moment that they would be open to laying down arms and settling for their current gains.
Their goal is to silence, marginalize, intimidate, and punish those in our culture who share the founders’ allegiance to “the laws of nature and nature’s God.” They won’t stop until truth is officially criminalized as hate speech. They want us wiped off the cultural landscape, and will not rest until that goal is accomplished. There can be no such thing as a truce when your social adversary is determined to carry out cultural genocide on you and your kind.
A truce for homosexual activists would be just what a truce is for Muslims. When Muslims fight, they’re happy to consider a “truce” - called “hudnah” - if they find themselves losing ground. Only a truce for them does not mean what it means for their adversaries. While their adversaries honor the terms of the truce by ceasing hostilities, Muslims simply use the dunderheaded foolishness of their enemies to reload, rearm, and plan for the moment when they are strong enough to abolish the sham truce and obliterate their foes.
The fact that Mitch Daniels is still out there defending his talk about what would amount to craven surrender ought to tell conservatives everywhere that he is not the man for 2012. In fact, were Daniels elevated to the Oval Office, after declaring his intent in advance to completely capitulate to the forces of secular fundamentalism, this would simply make him the most dangerous man in America.
The bare minimum conservatives need in a 2012 standard bearer is someone who holds a deep-seated allegiance to the Judeo-Christian values of the Founders and will fight to defend them, protect them, and advance them. The last thing we need is someone who has already run up the white flag.
(Unless otherwise noted, the opinions expressed are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the views of the American Family Association or American Family Radio.)