"If You Can Keep It" by Eric Metaxas: Can Democracy Survive the Sexual Revolution?

[John]

John Gravino This is part 2 of my discussion of the new book by Eric Metaxas. The focus is on chapter 1. See the video here: https://www.goodreads.com/videos/1067...

[R.J.]

I have a saying:
"Anarchy amongst noblemen is better than democracy amongst thieves."
The reason is that both bring something to their form of government that transforms it into something else...for better or for worse.

[R.J.]

At about 7 minutes into your video you made a point about generosity. I want to point out that generosity does not require a "giving of money". In fact, generosity does not work without sobriety and awareness. I recently cleaned up a homeless camp where evidence of sexual trafficking was found. There were definitely children involved. I know people see that poor old man on the curb begging for money and think they are helping by giving him gift cards, but if it's something he can barter with, that generosity could be used to buy a whole lot worse than drugs and alcohol.

Likewise, if somebody slams on their brakes and waves for the pedestrian to cross in front of them, they might be causing a lot more disruption to other motorists than the perceived "injustice" of that one waiting pedestrian. They may go home feeling "generous", but everybody else thinks they're an idiot.

[R.J.]

As for the Sexual Revolution, I have to point out that it's not just about liberty anymore. It's about a kind of mental illness that causes people to not only perceive the world differently, but to make decisions (democratically) based on those false perceptions. I've often had to point out that the Kingdom of Heaven is not a democracy. The sheep don't get to vote on whether or not the goats get to stay. The wheat doesn't have an opportunity to tell the farmer "we're okay with the weeds; we've learned tolerance."

I just had a conversation with one of my kids about sexual equality v. sexual orientation today. It seems one of her friends, (who is a PK from a liberal Christian church) has been "flirting" with "fashionable" homosexuality. Our discussion turned to gender definitions, and my own wife was brought into the example. I married a tom-boy who likes to watch This Old House and work on the car. She once dressed up like a man to sneak into our church's men's group because women weren't allowed to a "sportsman's" event. What we have realized as a result of this little adventure was that female "cross dressing" down through the ages is based on a completely different mind-set than male cross-dressing. Women have tried to look like men so they could do things that men would not let them do. Men, on the other hand, only dress like women because they want to look like sexual objects. Essentially, there is only one minor difference between a male transvestite and a male chauvinist pig. They both see women as objects defined entirely by sexuality. The transvestites just want to become that object.

We can use the sexual depravity of our surroundings as teachable moments. Bruce Jenner is a wonderful example. When I point to a trucker's mud-flap and say "Look, it's Bruce Jenner," I don't really need to say more. Every self-respecting woman knows that's not a fully-defined woman on the flap, but apparently Bruce Jenner can't tell the difference.

The scary thing is...he can still vote. So can millions of others who have no idea how to hold their own relationships together. With this kind of flawed perception amongst the majority, it's a wonder we have yet to vote for Edward the Vampire.