Print this page
Friday, August 7, 2015

John Kasich and The Decline of Social Conservatism Featured

By: 
Rate this item
(31 votes)
John Kasich and The Decline of Social Conservatism

At the GOP debates last night Fox News moderator Megyn Kelly asked former Ohio Governor John Kasich the following question:

“Governor Kasich, if you had a son or daughter who was gay or lesbian, how would you explain to them your opposition to same sex marriage?”

Kasich’s response garnered loud applause from the Republican crowd in Cleveland, Ohio as well as accolades across the media:


Business Insider: The GOP debate's hometown candidate just gave a touching answer on gay marriage


New York Times: John Kasich Wins Points on Gay Marriage Answer

The Hill: Kasich at debate: Gay people deserve love and respect

Slate: John Kasich Offers a Gracious, Humane View on Gay Marriage at the GOP Debate

Washington Post: John Kasich’s beliefs didn’t stop him from going to a same-sex wedding


What was Kasich’s answer? Watch below:



Kasich: "Well look, I'm an old-fashioned person here and I happen to believe in traditional marriage. But I've also said the court has ruled … and I said we'll accept it. And guess what? I just went to a wedding of a friend of mine who happens to be gay. Because somebody doesn't think the way I do doesn't mean that I can't care about them or I can't love them. So if one of my daughters happened to be that, of course I would love them and I would accept them. Because you know what? That's what we're taught when we have strong faith. So, issues like that are planted to divide us. I think the simple fact of the matter is — and this is where I would agree with Jeb, and I've been saying it all along — we need to give everybody a chance, treat everybody with respect,  and let them share in this great American dream that we have, Megyn. So, look, I'm going to love my daughters. I'm going to love them no matter what they do. Because you know what? God gives me unconditional love. I'm going to give it to my family, and my friends, and the people around me."

The question Kasich was posed with is not new. It is a typical emotionally charged “gotcha” question asked to socially conservative candidates. (Another of Kelly’s questions to Scott Walker was of the same kind. She asked the Governor, “Would you really let a mother die, rather than have an abortion? Nevermind, that abortion is never medically necessary to save a mother’s life.)

Kasich’s answer was also typical of many so-called “conservatives” on moral and social issues: complete capitulation. From the beginning Kasich apologizes for his position, saying he’s “old-fashioned” and “believes in traditional marriage.” Wow, what a stunning and confident defense of the majority position of the history of civilization! The best Kasich can offer as to why marriage should be defended is because it’s “old fashioned?” Kasich may as well have been advocating the return of Model T Fords or Bowler hats. Then it gets worse.

Mr. Kasich says he is “for traditional marriage” but hey, the Court ruled! Therefore we must “accept” homosexual "marriage" also. In fact, homosexual “marriage” has become so acceptable to Kasich since the June 26th decision that he proudly tells Kelly (as if seeking her absolution) that he just went to a “gay wedding!” Kasich’s logic calls to mind an “old fashioned” abolitionist in 1857 saying he believes in freedom for slaves and then after the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision, attending his friend’s slave auction. In fact, continuing with this analogy shows just how absurd Kasich’s reasoning is.

Let’s imagine Kasich lives in the 1800’s and is talking about a daughter who has decided to own slaves with her husband after the Dred Scott decision. Would the GOP crowd have applauded the following lines?

“Because somebody doesn't think the way I do doesn't mean that I can't care about them or I can't love them. So if one of my daughters happened to be that [a slaveowner], of course I would love them and I would accept them. Because you know what? That's what we're taught when we have strong faith. So, issues like that are planted to divide us. I think the simple fact of the matter is — and this is where I would agree with Jeb, and I've been saying it all along — we need to give everybody a chance, treat everybody with respect,  and let them share in this great American dream that we have, Megyn. So, look, I'm going to love my daughters. I'm going to love them no matter what they do. Because you know what? God gives me unconditional love. I'm going to give it to my family, and my friends, and the people around me."

Not so much. And one can see clearly why. It is because nowhere in this answer did Kasich recognize that his daughter would be participating in something gravely immoral that would have devastating consequences both to her immortal soul, the lives of those around her, and robbing her of peace and true happiness in this life. This recognition is glaringly missing from Kasich’s answer. Thus for Kasich, “hate the sin, love the sinner” has apparently turned into “love the sinner; accept the sin.”

The clear implication of Kelly’s question is that anything short of telling a family member you fully accept and support their homosexual lifestyle is tantamount to hate, rejection, and disrespect. This is precisely why Kasich bends over backwards to repeat that he would “care about,” “love,” “accept” and “respect” his daughter in such a situation. The problem is that Kasich, like most Americans, have a completely false and superficial notion of what true love, acceptance, and respect entails.

As the Angelic Doctor tells us, “To love is to will the good of another.” If we have a family member who is trapped in a serious sin, do we truly love that person by “accepting” or “ignoring” the sin and pretending nothing is wrong? To do so is to completely ignore the horror of sin and to be completely ambivalent to the eternal salvation of your family. Accepting and enabling the mortal sin of your child is the precise opposite of love. It is rather what Satan would want you to do in this situation. Does the devil not do this himself in the mind of the sinner? Does he not convince them to believe their sin is no sin at all and fill them with false rationalization to quiet their conscience? Do we do any different by “accepting” a grave state of sin in our son or daughter? Should we shower them with artificial and emotional signs of endearment so that they will feel comfortable in continuing a lifestyle which leads to damnation?

Of course, Kasich’s answer has partial truth to it, as all good errors do. It envisions a caring parent who is emotionally warm and who does not want to see his child feel isolated or abandoned or rejected and wants to see him or her happy. My reaction to this is, well, of course. Of course you want to approach your family member in charity and out of a deep concern for his or her well-being. But this hardly means endorsing offenses against God and enabling the death of the soul.

I think those on the left imagine two alternatives, most likely brought about by the absurd way “religious” people are portrayed in television and movies. Either complete and total acceptance of a family member’s sinful lifestyle, or else a ridiculous caricature of a rabid, profanity yelling holy roller parent immediately banning their child to the realm of outer darkness upon finding out they are participating in immorality. This is the precise dichotomy Satan wants to portray in my opinion.

In contrast, the only way to be truly compassionate in this situation is to tell the truth. As Christ tells us, “The truth will set you free.” Since Christ loved us enough to tell us the truth, so we should love our children enough, to tell them the truth. To do so is the farthest thing from hate. It is care for the salvation of their eternal soul which is the highest good one can will for another and the solemn mission every parent should have in regards to their children.

In Kasich’s defense, however, it is hardly surprising that the vast majority of Americans no longer recognize the evil and consequences of sin. Protestantism lead the way with the false doctrine of salvation through faith alone. Taken to its logical conclusion, if a family member in this scenario has already been “saved” before entering a homosexual relationship, then what does it matter? Certainly some Protestant parents, perhaps conservative evangelicals, may be alarmed at the behavior, recognize it as sin, and wish the child would stop. However, if the parent truly believes he or she will certainly see the child in Heaven anyway, is the matter really all that spiritually urgent? The mainline Protestants have already answered that question by allowing openly gay clergy and now even “bishops” to their ranks. As we have seen, this Protestant error gradually leads to the diminution of sin, then to indifferentism, then to universal salvation, and then to abandoning religion altogether.

On paper, the Catholic doctrine of salvation, still stands. In practice, however the Church in the United States is hardly distinguishable from Protestantism in many cases. One can still picture the happy faced Cardinal Dolan saying “Good for him!” when football player Michael Sam came out as being in a homosexual relationship. In fact, Cardinal Wuerl recently stated that homosexual “marriage” is “the law of the land” that we should accept as such.

ADolanLaughing1

Also, in a vast majority of American Catholic churches the word “sin” is never mentioned unless it is in reference to politically correct sins that our culture also condemns, such as so-called ecological sins, or the evil sins of “unfettered capitalism.” Besides these PC lecture-homilies, if one received one’s Catholic knowledge solely from one’s diocesan parish, one would not be in the least concerned about mortal sin. In fact, one would be lead to believe, per the giant “risifix”, the celebratory atmosphere, festive music, and hand-holding that we are all just as much “saved” as the Protestants! In this case our Catholic family member’s gravely sinful behaviors seem to offer no more real long term consequence either.

Another irony in our nation is that the very “religious liberty” most conservatives see as an antidote to homosexual “marriage,” is what, in part, lead to homosexual “marriage” being recognized by the Court in the first place. As pope after pope told us, religious liberty is a liberty of “perdition” which leads to an agnostic state and indifferentism among the people. This indifferentism then leads to a marginalization of religion in public life and finally persecution of religion altogether.

Just look at the fruits of religious liberty in America. Even though multiple videos were released catching Planned Parenthood officials discussing the dismembering of babies and the sale of their body parts, we still cannot even pass a law defunding this organization, much less shut it down. In addition, what are socially conservative candidates left to appeal to in their opposition to homosexual “marriage?” Since the United States forbids a state religion (much to the delight of the conciliar popes), we are left at the mercy of whatever traces Christian sentiment are left amongst the American populous. We simply hope enough Christians will vote for candidates who share our view on homosexual “marriage” and who will not be afraid to act on it.

Sadly, I think we have already passed the point where such a candidate can be electable. The reason is that even supposed socially “conservative” candidates such as Kasich, have already abandoned and conceded the issue. Marriage defenders are apparently left with arguments that they are “for traditional marriage” because they are “old-fashioned.” This is what the modern conservative political argument against homosexual “marriage” has been reduced to. I hope George Weigel is proud.

In the final analysis, I do feel badly for John Kasich. He was born and raised a Catholic before gradually drifting from the Faith as he reached adulthood. In a 2010 book, Every Other Monday: Twenty Years of Life, Lunch, Faith, and Friendship, Kasich states that “there's always going to be a part of me that considers myself a Catholic.” Kasich was born in 1952. He was only 13 years old at the close of Vatican II and 17 years old at the introduction of the New Mass. Like many American Catholics his age the Catholic rug was being pulled out from under him just a he entered adulthood.

Tragically, Kasich’s parents were later killed in a car accident by a drunk driver. After this Kasich embraced Anglicanism, though he does not think denomination is all that important. His 2010 book is about a bible study he organized where the theological question the members grapple with the most frequently is why bad things happen to good people.

If you read the first chapter of the book it is evident that Kasich, searching for meaning, is now wandering through the spiritual wilderness of Protestantism. As any Catholic can relate who has ever had the misfortune of joining a Novus Ordo “bible study” with other laymen, it is like the blind leading the blind. It is no different for Kasich and his group of men who stumble over verse after verse struggling to interpret it for themselves and make sense out of it. In doing so they wander unknowingly into various errors and heresies and blasphemies such as discussing whether Jesus’ temptation in the desert involved some consideration on His part of sinning, whether Christ was tempted by Mary Magdalene, and whether Christ doubted his Faith during the crucifixion. This one chapter of Kasich’s “bible study” serves as a perfect example of why the Protestant error of individual interpretation of the Bible is so fraught with danger.

Yet this uncertainty, doubt, and confusion, is all poor John Kasich is left with. He is left struggling in the spiritual darkness with other blind men trying to make sense out of life, the soul, and God, while long since having rejected the only means Christ gave him by which he can make any progress. Thus, until Kasich finds his way back home, he remains where millions of other Americans find themselves today. Lost. And until we all find our way back to the one true religion Jesus Christ founded, both as individuals, and as a nation, this is where we will all remain.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Comment Guidelines - Click to view]
Last modified on Friday, August 7, 2015
Chris Jackson | Remnant Columnist

Latest from Chris Jackson | Remnant Columnist