I'm About To Post My Political Opinion On Social Media (Again)

I’m about to post my political opinion on social media. Again. I realize that there have only been a few sunsets since I did this last—the news cycle just keeps churning up the rage within me, and I HAVE TO RESPOND. But I know you’ll indulge me because Woke People post stuff on Social media.

Yeah, I’m about to post a political opinion that is valid because…well…it’s MY opinion. It doesn’t need to have any basis in fact, or history, or constitutionalism, or shared definitions of terms. Because my opinion came from the Rage Churner within me, it’s valid because I’m valid. And no…I don’t need to hear any “pushback” from anyone about how there are other ways of viewing this same issue. If you disagree with what I’m about to post on social media, you are a racist, misogynistic bigot who should be made to bake cakes for transgendered, kneeling football players who are married to NBA stars. And you will sit there and read my post because FREEDOM OF SPEECH, you cis-hetero patriarchy monkey!

I’m not really interested in your concept of “real discourse.” That would require me physically sitting in a room with you, having to listen to you, then carefully responding to what you said (instead of what I imagine you are saying). It would involve all the enfleshed aspects of human communication, including body language, vocal inflection, hand gestures, and actual words—all while breaking bread together in some physical setting. Who has time for that? Besides, I’m not sure I could maintain any self-control if I had to sit physically in a room with you and listen to the hate you spew anyhow. “Real discourse” is for oldsters like Gen-Xers. We can say all what we have to say from behind a phone screen. The Gnostics were onto something about the over-rated-ness of an enfleshed existence.

I think I should also point out, before I post my political opinion on social media, that I am also not interested in anyone’s antiquated notions of “knowledge,” especially “authoritative knowledge.” The internet gives me all the knowledge I need, and all the people who are right agree with me anyhow. Every political issue that arises is a new adventure for me, since I am not bogged down in anything so 20^th-century as a consistent political worldview. I will remark on each new adventure through the lens of my own definition of “fairness,” and you will either agree with me or I’ll yell louder on social media. These issues don’t have anything to do with the Constitution (unless I feel like my own rights under the Constitution are being violated). In fact, “rights” are just “stuff I think people should have,” and therefore the Constitution is no longer necessary. GIVE PEOPLE STUFF, YOU BIGOT—DON’T @ ME! I will rage against stuff that is “systemic” and “institutional” without understanding what those words actually mean…and if you disagree with me, you are most definitely One Of Those People.

It is irrelevant whether or not my opinion may be proven to be consistent with a universally accepted body of knowledge arrived at by consensus. I already told you—I am valid, and therefore my opinion is valid. Deal with it, you Windows-using, Non-Placard-Waving Rejecter of Toms Shoes! Moreover, I’d like you to know, prior to my posting my political opinion on social media, that I hate religion in all its forms. That’s why I think YOU should believe in stuff I believe in, under penalty of seeing me wave a placard angrily in a march somewhere. So, just to recap: make sure you believe in my definition of fairness, my theory about the end of the world, my narrowly construed theory of the definition of “justice,” and my theory about who the real villains are in our culture. If you don’t, you can be certain that there’ll be a Supreme Court case soon that deals with you! The mob and I will change the meaning of words—and then we’ll repeat them over and over again until the words have lost meaning, even for you….you SUV-driving, racist homophobe who doesn’t even wear ironic t-shirts or sit earnestly in coffee shops listening to whiny white kids sing earnestly about the horrors of life!

When I do finally get around to posting my political opinion on social media, you may be certain that it will change the world. All the right people will “like” it, and most of them will re-post it on some social media platform. It will go viral, there will be marches and protests, and then the Supreme Court will Do Its Thing. I don’t have time to do that stuff that some of you hetero-normative non-hashtaggers think is important—I’m not going to go to a city council meeting, or a school board meeting, or vote in the local mayoral election, or attend a local precinct meeting. That stuff is dumb. The only politics that matters is on the national level, and I am the Defarge-ian voice of the angry mob! You will listen and heed, You Foul Protector of the Status Quo. When I think about your failure to agree with me and join in my Manichean posting on social media, I am stunned by your lack of wokeness…and I.CAN’T.EVEN.

Yes, I’m about to post my political opinion on social media again. And if you know what’s good for you, you’ll “like” it. If you don’t….well, who’s really left in my Friends List who would dare disagree? All reasonable people see this stuff the way that I do, and the rest are just knuckledraggers who can’t even get a real smartphone.

Peace and love, everyone!

AREA CHRISTIAN NOT GIVING UP ON LORD OF THE RINGS REFERENCES

Local Christian college student John Slapihedren reports a deep satisfaction in making Lord of the Rings references in conversations on varying topics. Having never read any other literature, the Tolkien theme took root in his high school years and continues now that he is in college.

Carefully shielded from Chaucer, Shakespeare, Ovid, Dante, Virgil, Milton or Dickens, Mr. Slapihedren gleefully drops mentions of Gandalf, Aragorn, or Gollum in every conversation he has, hoping to make others believe that he is a well-read person. Sporting a t-shirt featuring Ian McKellen’s Gandalf from the film, Slapihedren explains, “It’s such a great story of Christian experience, and I’m so thankful that my youth pastor introduced us to it all those years ago.” He gestured toward a faux medieval sword hanging on his wall, saying, “the collection of accoutrements from LOTR movies and book conferences is part of true Christian authenticity. People know I’m for real because I’ve read, like, some fiction.” He proudly displayed a set of autographs from Orlando Bloom, Elijah Wood, Sean Astin and John Rhys-Davies. “I got the Rhys-Davies at a Wizard Is Never Late Conference. He was in full costume and everything…and of course, so was I!”

A half-finished game of Dungeons and Dragons sat on the coffee table, and the lava lamp nearby shone a smattering of light on a dog-eared copy of Donita Paul’s Dragonspell. A dirty bowl of half-eaten Ramen adorned the corner of the coffee table, and the strains of David Crowder wafted through the incense-laden atmosphere as Slapihedren further explained his obsession.

“I was reading a lot of Harry Potter, originally, and then I just sort of grew up. The next natural phase of my maturation was to discover Tolkien. Now I’m totally there already! I’m even going to take up smoking a pipe as soon I can come up with rent. We authentic believers have to keep it edgy every chance we get.”

When asked if he had read Faulkner, Emerson or Whitman, Mr. Slapihedren seemed puzzled and replied, “Are they part of the Kane Chronicles series? Are there wizards, dragons, maidens or magic involved?” He agreed to check with his old youth pastor to see if any of those authors were on the approved Bible College reading list.

Slapihedren briefly excused himself during the interview to change clothes, and upon his return he was wearing an authentic medieval outfit, replete with ruffled shirt, drawstring breeches, cloth boots and a large-buckled belt. “We’re headed to Scarborough Faire, and you’re welcome to come. This is the best place to meet girls!” When asked how his authentic LOTR references helped him in the “girl department,” he explained, “Obviously, I’m not talking about normal college girls. They are impure, of course. I mean Renaissance festival chicks. You have to know….girls respect a man who has read literature and can be comfortable in a period costume. Especially if there is a sword involved.” When pressed further, his eyes narrowed and he hissed in his best Alan Rickman voice, “A young man’s way is kept pure by the way of Frodo.”

Though it was certain that no girl-related impurity would besmirch Slapihedren any time soon, he still left for Scarborough Faire, determined to succeed in his quest. As he exited his front screen door, a single gold ring hung around his neck. He strapped on his safety helmet, mounted his Vespa, and sped softly away, the ring dangling innocently against his carefully shaved chest. 

Justice For The Christian Lefty

In 1998, Patricia Ireland, President of the National Organization for Women, refused to condemn the openly misogynous behavior of the sitting President of the United States. Though the whole world recognized his behavior as exceedingly reductionist and inappropriate toward women, the organization that claimed moral superiority in the alleged cultural battle against such acts was strangely silent. It was no secret, politically, why this was the case: NOW was not nearly as interested in the fate of women such as Monica Lewinsky as it was the future of abortion—an issue with which Clinton agreed with them. From that day to this, no student of political discourse has taken their mission statement seriously. NOW lost its credibility during the brouhaha, and has never won it back. The whole world knows that “feminism” is a myth now, and that only certain types of “feminists” are welcome in the tent. No longer a voice crying in the wilderness for justice, the militant feminist movement is now just more noise in an already-cacophonous environment.

A similar destiny awaits that most precious of creatures in our current discourse—the Christian Lefty. Perhaps too many Christians spend an inordinate amount of time at work, or with their families, or in their house of worship, or otherwise trying to live out the gospel in a hostile world. These Christians simply don’t have the time or the inclination to hang around graduate sociology departments, or “forward-thinking” seminaries. Because this is the natural habitat of the Christian Lefty, most Christians simply won’t run across too many examples of her—except on Facebook and Twitter, where she has recently developed quite the loud voice in pursuit of “justice.” The Christian Lefty fancies herself a postmodern Voice in the Wilderness—a prophetic song being sung against the discordant strains of demagoguery, nativism, sexism, xenophobia, and racism. But in reality, she is the prejudicial demagogue—the injustice that rolls inexorably over the skulls of the faithful. She doesn’t know it yet, but this is how history will adjudicate her use of her “voice.” There are several reasons why.

First, she enjoys the most docetic of existences. She spends her days cossetted with other academics who do not rub daily elbows with the faithful. She can Tweet with abandon from her climate-controlled office while never having to pay a home visit to a couple from the church who can’t pay their rent or keep their heat on for the winter. She stands in front of the class, lecturing the next generation of ministers about “the poor” without ever having come into contact with any actual poor in her own church family. She lives out her faith in a bubble that is completely friendly to her counter-intuitive babblings, and because of the nature of social media never has to reconcile her worldview with reality. She is a spirit divorced from the Body, and she must be lauded in spirit and in truth. This existence is meaningful to her fellow academics, and is useful to the godless socialists in the media who exploit her “voice” to drive a wedge in the American confessing churches—but outside the walls of this Lefty Reich, she is no Bonhoeffer. Bonhoeffer had, at least, a body to give for the cause of confessional integrity; she would have to descend from her Olympian heights and engage the rabble she so flippantly spurns in order to be an enfleshed participant in the current conflict. Until then, she only seems to exist. Her thoughts flit out like nerve pains, sharp and focused, then dissipating into a dull torpor, awaiting the next moment a synapse misfires.

Second, her silence for the past eight years serves as a mitigating muffler on her current credibility. Where was her plaintive wail when President Obama’s Justice Department walked automatic weapons across the border of Mexico and ensured that they would end up in the hands of drug cartels? She seems overly interested in détente with Mexico now; how many Mexican innocents might reasonably wonder where her sympathies lay in 2010 when that same Justice Department claimed “executive privilege” in open court rather than tell the truth about the scandal? What she loathed in Nixon she tolerated in Obama. And where was her Voice in the Wilderness when President Obama violated the rules of the Senate to shove the ACA through committee by making easily breakable promises—and having the legislation pass without a single opposition vote? She certainly seems in favor of compromise now…but where was her empathy for “the other” during that session?

Why was Christian Lefty silent when the Obama Administration was caught—redhanded, too!—weaponizing the IRS to punish Christian 501c(3) organizations? Why was she openly cheering the Senate approval of two Supreme Court justices who were ardently pro-abortion? Truly, 34 million unborn children deserve to know where her Voice of Justice was then. As those same SCOTUS justices proceeded to write law—in contradistinction to the precise method of law-writing prescribed by the U.S. Constitution—why was her voice not lifted in support of the law of the land, rather than the outcome of the decision? As innocent American civilians were slaughtered by Islamic terrorists, why did she not demand an accounting from the Obama Administration regarding its feckless policy toward a scourge whose name it dared not mention? As the media whipped up a social-media hysteria against law enforcement in the past 5 years, contra the demonstrably provable facts, where was her voice then? Does she not speak for those we’ve appointed to enforce our laws, or just those who blatantly defy them? And where was her Voice For Justice during the GOP primaries, when there were several perfectly good candidates who represented the American prioritization of individual liberties? She was nowhere to be found until after You-Know-Who had been nominated--and her silence helped make it happen.

She claims an empathy toward “immigrants,” but where was her empathetic voice when hundreds of thousands of them came to our country legally and in good faith? She lifted not a whisper for them….but has spoken in support of those who hold them in contempt. And—perhaps most egregiously—how, in an age in which we have peer-reviewed research that conclusively demonstrates the damage that centralized government largesse does to the poor, does she continue to frame her support for paternalism as a Christ-centered concern for the poor? How can one so learned not know the same facts that the rest of the world already knows—that socialism is a failed and murderous experiment that has been abandoned every place it’s been tried?

She spends her days issuing jeremiadic lectures to future theologians on the small-minded theocratic thinking of the Christian Right in the 80’s—those rubes voting for people who shared their values!—and her nights advocating resistance to the same group of people today because, in her view, they failed to vote for someone who shared their values. Just like the “Christian Right” she despises more than the devil himself, she sees her government as a theocracy—but with a different God. A redistribution scheme that perpetualizes the poor, an academic system that infantilizes the adults of tomorrow, an immigration system that is predicated on her own eisegetical understanding of scriptural empathy—she has constructed a God Who looks remarkably like Her—so naturally, she’s “with Her.” 

Christian Lefty will go the way of the dodo, the passively obedient national churches during the Third Reich, and NOW. And the real reason why is because she was silent when it mattered most. Her “Voice in the Wilderness” schtick is not believable in the face of the supreme injustices that have been tolerated in the name of “diversity” and “being on the right side of history” for the last eight years. She is on the side of the baby-killers, not the angels. She lifts her voice for the property-takers, not the poor. She would sacrifice the security of the citizens of her own country rather than take steps to secure our border—all in the service of “empathy.” She has “empathy,” alright—just not with American Christians, for whom she reserves her darkest disdain. It never dawned on her to raise her voice in defense of individual liberties because such constitutionalism is not as Twitter-friendly and sexy as a Christian wearing a rainbow frock and tweeting insults toward Baptist churches. She is as interested in “compromise” and “dialogue” as she ever was—which is to say, not at all. Her real religion is the state, and her real church the media who make her feel that she is “in the majority” and “on the right side.” She is a Lefty first and a Christian as an identity-related afterthought.

When, at last, the state she has so lovingly championed finally comes for her—as it always does—she will doubtless look around for someone to raise their voice for justice on her behalf. But those who could have done so will be long gone—crushed under the weight of her own misplaced empathies and the Leviathian whom her voice supported.

Justice, indeed.