Dealing with the Decadent Day of Silence
April, 2008
Before discussing very briefly a thought about the Day of Silence, it seems good to clarify appropriate terminology for discussing the topic of homosexuals and the proper way to treat them in the public school: whether with disdain and aloofness on the one hand or indifference and toleration on the other.
Let us establish some lexical understanding. For three decades, apologists for the goodness and the decriminalization of homoerotic behavior have successfully established the use of a new propaganda term to describe what has been medically and legally known for centuries by the name “sodomy.” Historic slang terms for that behavior have included familiar pejoratives such as faggot and queer. Our British forefathers have used “bugger” even to this day. The Germans use the curious expression which would translate, “a warm brother.” Every culture, we would wager, has its own slang term to describe that group, and in all cases, they are regarded as deviant from what is natural and good.
The established term, “sodomy” (with the cognates “sodomite” or “sodomist” in reference to the practitioner) hearkens back four millennia to the time of Abraham. Its application by the Christian Roman emperors as a legal term derived from ecclesiastical terminology and canon law. And it continued to the present in popular parlance as well as literature. Dante’s fearsome inclusion of “sodomites” among the residents in one of the several rings of the Inferno serves to illustrate. They are among the unfortunate souls excluded from the joy of the residents of paradise.
In contrast to the use of this term, the broadly used neologism which has effectively supplanted the historic term is “gay.” The appropriation of this term has become crucial to the propagandizing efforts of those who have sought to de-criminalize and normalize sodomy not only in the United States but throughout the world. The zeal for such transformation is carried out with an imperialist frenzy such that all institutions are under pressure to accept this new doctrine, a doctrine which flies in the face of law, history, culture and health (spiritual as well as physical).
It is with a profound appreciation for Western civilization and its primary religious influence, historic (Biblical) Christianity, that we prefer to use the established literary and legal term, sodomy; we cannot bow to popular demand for the new propaganda.
In our times a most poignant rebuke has been delivered by Nature (or Nature’s God) against this unfortunate lifestyle with the current scourge of AIDS. Yes, the rebuke has spread into the general population just as “rain falls upon the just as well as the unjust.” And it may well be divine justice which rebukes a whole society which tolerates and even approves this decadent and “God-dissing” behavior.
This, then, is my thought: the effort to force students to regard sodomy as “just another personal choice” is to indoctrinate them with no standard so that they fail to discriminate between good and evil and to choose the right over the wrong; the healthy over the harmful.
Godless, the modern American school does not have much in the way of ethics that it may teach, except “Respect!” and “Tolerate!” and “Act Safely!” – to the best of my recall from walking the school halls and reading the commandments on the walls. (Quite an abridgment of the Big Ten that guided “The Greatest Generation” and their ancesters, incidentally.)
Perhaps it is a finer distinction that the District must seek to teach. In the effort to apply one of its ill-defined, posted dicta, it could well teach students to “respect” and be kind to sodomites (be they gay or disagreeably melancholy) while holding their behavior in healthy contempt. That is about as far as we can bend in dealing with public school decadence.
Comments are currently closed.