|A futile TFP protest didn’t quite achieve its goal
via The Daily Herald
According to John Horvat II: Achieving Christendom is America’s best chance at overthrowing abortion, LGBT reign of terror. Apparently the quest for equal protection and due process renders us a “reign of terror.” Who could possibly accuse Horvat of being hyperbolic?
John Horvat II is a vice president of the Foundation for a Christian Civilization, better known as the American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property (TFP). The organization’s roots stem from hard-right activism in South America fighting agrarian reforms. TFP was aligned with some very unsavory Latin American dictators like Augusto Pinochet of Chile. In that roll it has advocated for violence and conflated human rights with communism.
Horvat is a true believer. He is quite certain that gay people are “objectively disordered” and that transgender people do not exist.
Grave moral problems are tearing the country apart.
the only real solution … is a return to Christendom.
“Christendom” is an ambiguous term. Horvat means making Catholic Christianity the established religion of the United States of America. The fact that we are a diverse nation does not impress Mr. Horvat. Nor, apparently, is Horvat concerned with the U.S. Constitution which prohibits that from happening.
According to Horvat:
Christendom! It may seem shocking since its days seem long past. We are supposed to be in a post-Christian era. However, the urgency of our times call for it. We need a Christian civilization if we are going to overcome the present crisis. It needs to be at least considered.
It is a self-manufactured “crisis” which exists only in Mr. Horvat’s head and that of like-minded fanatics.
Mr. Horvat is not content to conduct himself according to the teachings of the Catholic Church to traditionalist extremes. No, Horvat believes that he is privileged to impose those same teachings on everyone else:
Because our problems are moral, our solutions must also be moral. The rich treasury of Western thought and traditional Church teaching prove that the natural law and Christian morality are the norms that are best suited to our human and social nature. We find our greatest happiness inside institutions and social structures that take us to the end for which we are created—God.
Thus, we should naturally tend to favor Christendom. Everyone, Christian and non-Christian alike, finds the best conditions for prospering inside a family of nations that facilitates virtue and promotes social harmony in this vale of tears.
“Everyone?” Most rational people believe that John Horvat II is a frenzied religious crackpot. He does not define what prosperity means. It is likely not what we think of as prospering. For a variety of reasons, happiness (according to the United Nations) is most prevalent in Scandinavia. That “family of nations” includes states that are robustly secular and others that are less so.
There is no evidence that people are more prosperous in Christian societies. Aside from happiness, one cannot associate per capita GNP to religiosity, one way or the other.
For radical liberals, the ABC Syndrome [“all but Christendom”] makes sense. They resent any moral limits to their acts and do not care if there are harmful consequences. Individual pleasure reigns supreme regardless of self-destruction or the death of babies. Thus, a Christian moral code represents an unbearable restriction on their desires to do, think and be whatever they want. Their variant of the ABC Syndrome is to allow Everything But Christendom. Use any letter of the LGBTQ+ alphabet, but never use C for Christendom.
“Radical liberals?” About 70% of our citizens support upholding Roe v. Wade. About the same percentage of people support marriage equality. That’s an awful lot of “radical liberals” in our society. TFP has always been virulently anti-LGBTQ because of religious beliefs.
Those on the right have a different approach. We find Christians who truly desire a Ten-Commandment-based moral code, for example. However, they dare not propose Christian morality because the people and media who oppose it appear to be numerous. For them, it has no chance of winning. Thus, they subscribe to the Anything But Christendom approach on how society should be run. Every concession must be made to accommodate others who refuse to accommodate them. Christians dance around all the issues touching on Christendom, but no one dares say the word.
We see this quite often. The reason, according to Horvat, that more people do not share Horvat’s views is because doing so is unpopular. Horvat lives in a very strange bubble. The truth is that very few people would want America to become a theocracy. We do not want to he the Christian version of Iran. We do not want clerics making choices for us.
Imposing the Christian Will Upon Others
Three main fallacies are used to justify the ABC Syndrome. The first is the mistaken belief that proposing Christendom imposes the Faith on non-believers.
Liberals think that establishing any moral limits means imposing Christianity on others. And yet they have no qualms whatsoever with imposing their anti-Christian will on Christians, on Christian feast days such as Christmas, and the Little Sisters of the Poor. They have no scruples about stuffing a Drag Queen Story Hour world of perversion down the throats of society, despite protests from concerned parents.
Horvat is dishonest. He is saying that the Christian imposition is a fallacy. At the same time he is defending the theocracy on the premise that liberals are forcing secularism on everyone else.
It is a ridiculous argument because we are constitutionally a secular society. There is also some false victimhood going on. The Little Sisters of the Poor matter is extremely complicated. Ultimately, they did not want to have to fill out a form to get an exemption from the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive requirements.
As for Drag Queen Story Hour, the argument is absurd. If you disapprove then don’t bring your kids to the event. However, religious zealots do not have the right to try to bar other parents from getting their kids interested in reading. The presence of drag queens does not create a “world of perversion.” Given that no one is compelled to attend a DQSH it is ridiculous to complain that it is being stuffed down anyone’s throat.
Christians cannot impose their Faith on those who do not believe because Faith is a gift from God. It cannot, by its nature, be imposed. However, Christians can and should enact reasonable laws based on the natural law that call for moral restraint to form a just and harmonious society.
If laws defy the establishment clause and impose one religion’s idea of morality on public policy then they are imposing their faith on everyone else. And it’s not just one religion. Horvat wants to impose the beliefs of the most radical and fanatical faction of Christianity on public policy. The overwhelming majority of our citizens do not want that to happen.
Again, more than two-thirds of US citizens support marriage equality. Most of the remaining third are probably indifferent to same-sex marriage even if they do not approve.
In proposing Christendom, we are not imposing but returning to an order that conforms to our human nature and which favors our development and sanctification. In submitting their Everything But Christianity agenda, the left imposes on society a destructive system that brings it to ruin.
“Ruin” according to whom exactly? It’s not “The Left™.” Most rational people do not want to live in a theocracy. Horvat claims that the imposition of Christianity “favors our development and sanctification.” However, he is short on evidence regarding development. Sanctification is the act or process of acquiring sanctity, of being made or becoming holy. Public policy favoring religion does not make people more holy. It certainly does not cause people to conform to Horvat’s set of rules.
The very purpose of religion is to provide a path to an afterlife. That avenue requires people to follow a set of rules. The rules differ from religion to religion, faction to faction and sect to sect. Horvat has the arrogance to claim that his rules are the ones that should be followed.
The second fallacy is that Christendom is so far removed from society’s current state that it is impractical to propose it. The Christian agenda is hopelessly outdated for postmodern times, it is falsely claimed.
Most sane people do not want to regress. “Propose” means impose and our progress is predicated on certain values that Horvat does not appreciate. For example, he thinks that he has a religious duty to treat LGBTQ people unfairly in order to be moral. In point of fact, treating people with cruelty because you do not approve of their God-given sexuality is immoral. Science has progressed a tad since biblical times.
Indeed, most Americans identify with a return to our Christian roots. They have problems adjusting to the latest barbarisms proposed by a neo-pagan culture. The debate should not be centered on the age of the ideas proposed but their merits. The automatic exclusion of ideas because some claim they are outdated is foolish and wrong. The only thing that matters is if they are true or false.
Bullshit. Most Americans do not agree with Mr. Horvat. Furthermore, Horvat defines what is true or false by dogma. In other words, the truth or falsity of something is based on a very narrow belief system which is based, in turn, on faith. In the real world, truth is based on evidence.
Finally, there is the fallacy that it is impossible to change society quickly, especially when most people seem to subscribe to the opposite of a Christian civilization. At best, a Christian restoration is a futile effort, they erroneously claim.
Again this argument sidesteps the merits of ideas. It focuses on the practicality of implementing them. However, this fallacy is as flawed as the other two.
The logical fallacy is called “false dilemma.” It is created by reframing the argument. The real argument has nothing to do with futility. Nor is it related to the practicality of implementation. The real argument is that people don’t want something. People do not want to be subjected to an arbitrary moral code.
Horvat is making fallacious arguments that true convictions are fallacious. It becomes circular logic because he is defining what is true or false by his religious beliefs or faith. Therefore, he is at liberty to make the most preposterous assertions because truth is no longer a function of reality. That is not how most rational people think.
Above all, the failure to debate Christendom is fatal since it means the continued descent into an anti-Christendom of anarchy and unrestraint. This anti-regime is already seen in the dark yearnings of Antifa, anarchists and Satanic movements that call for a world without morality. They advocate the destruction of our nation and the persecution of those who keep the Faith.
Mr. Horvat is claiming that one cannot be moral unless they subscribe to his rules. A failure to adopt his rules plunges us into anarchy. The logical fallacy is called “excluded middle.” Most people who don’t want to follow Horvat’s rules are perfectly moral and no one is advocating for the “destruction of our nation.” Nor is anyone persecuting believers unless persecution is defined as resistance to conservative Christian imposition.
Our framers were masters of simplicity. People are free to believe anything that they want. However laws are not to be based on religious beliefs or even a belief in the “establishment” of religion. We have successfully navigated between belief and conduct for nearly 300 years.
Finally John Horvat II concludes his arrogant polemic:
These topics need to be discussed. We should not be afraid to proclaim our desire to see Christ as King. Numerous popes have described this Christian society as one that affirms the social Kingship of Christ. In his encyclical Quas Primas, Pius XI says that “Once men recognize, both in private and in public life, that Christ is King, society will, at last, receive the great blessings of real liberty, well-ordered discipline, peace and harmony.”
Only Christendom can be a truly just society for all.
Absurd nonsense. Jews and others can never — and will never — accept “Christ as King.” How would a requirement otherwise form a “just society for all?” There is an endless list of logical fallacies associated just with that last paragraph. It is an appeal to hope while, at the same time, an appeal to fear. He is also indulging in an Argumentum ad verecundiam whereby something is true because an authority (in this case a former pope) deems it to be true.
The good news is that Horvat lives in a world that does not exist and never will exist. The bad news is that people like Horvat will continue to attempt to inflict their personal beliefs on everyone else and in doing so they will denigrate people that they disapprove of. Others read Horvat’s crap and that of others and they form the belief that they really are victims of an “LGBT reign of terror” despite the fact that they have suffered no harm at the hands of LGBTQ people.
If people come to falsely believe that they are victims of a minority group they are more apt to be prejudicial and bigoted. Overall, there is the proposition that all good people must agree with Horvat to be good. That is simply false. It is a lie.
A few years have elapsed but this is not the firs time that John Horvat II has insulted the intelligence of most people. Were he really intelligent then he would not be a cultist. That is precisely what he is. Taking religion to the extreme of lining up for the Kool-Aid or donning new Nikes at Heaven’s Gate.