You Will Be Made To Care Chronicles: Religious speech in the crosshairs


Erick has written extensively on the subject of “you will be made to care.” The idea is simple. You no longer have the ability to ignore sexual perversion and cultural rot. That is not good enough. For social pathologies, like “transgender rights” and “homosexual marriage” (bestiality, incest, and pedophilia along with abortion and euthanasia are being supported by the same people who have succeeded in mainstreaming homosexuality) to succeed it isn’t sufficient that you avert your eyes, no, you must cheer them on. You must bake their cakes, make their floral arrangements, and document their immorality for eternity on pain of your financial destruction.


The ugly runty sibling of “you will be made to care” is  “you will be made to shut up.” Because once they shut you up, once the discussion of deviancy is forbidden, then you have no way to organize and fight. We see it going on now with the “marriage equality” bull****, with equating the civil rights movement with homosexual marriage as though being born black is the same as freely choosing to engage in homosexual activity and therefore meriting of special rights. Or as the man said on Twitter, I don’t need a bumper sticker to tell you I’m black.

The Marquette University example

This is how shutting up leads to caring. This comes from Marquette University — at least nominally a Catholic university.

The Atlantic reports that the controversy began on October 28, 2014 when Cheryl Abbate, a graduate student in philosophy, was teaching a course about John Rawls and asked students for examples of current events to which Rawlsian philosophy could be applied. According to Abbate’s own blog, “When one student rightly suggested that a ban on gay marriage would violate Rawls’s Equal Liberty Principle, I wrote on the board, noted that this was the correct way to apply Rawls’s principle to a ban on gay marriage and then moved on to more nuanced examples.”

Maybe not. According to The Atlantic and other media reports, Professor Abbate did not “move on” quite so quickly. Rather, Abbate added that “if anyone did not agree that gay marriage was an example of something that fits the Rawls’ Equal Liberty Principle, they should see her after class.” She made it clear that the classroom was not a “safe space” for dissent on the value of same-sex “marriage.” Such conversations had to be held in secret so as not to offend others.

One student in the class decided to pursue this issue with Abbate after class—secretly recording the exchange. According to published transcripts, the student said:

I have to be completely honest with you, I don’t agree with gay marriage. There have been studies that show that children that are brought up in gay households do a lot worse in life such as test scores, in school, and in the real world. So, when you completely dismiss an entire argument based off of your personal views, it sets a precedent for the classroom that “oh my God, this is so wrong; you can’t agree with this, you’re a horrible person if you agree with this.” And that’s what came off. And I have to say I am very personally offended by that. And I would stress for you in your professional career going forward, you’re going to be teaching for many more years, that you watch how you approach those issues because when you set a precedent like that because you are the authority figure in the classroom, people truly do listen to you … it’s wrong for the teacher of a class to completely discredit one person’s opinion when they may have different opinions.

Professor Abbate replied:

Ok, there are some opinions that are not appropriate, that are harmful, such as racist opinions, sexist opinions, and quite honestly, do you know if anyone in the class is homosexual? And, don’t you think that would be offensive to them if you were to raise your hand and challenge this?

When the student replied: “If I choose to challenge this, it’s my right as an American citizen,” Abbate responded: “Well, actually you don’t have a right in this class … to make homophobic comments, racist comments, sexist comments…. This is about restricting rights and liberties of individuals … and just as I would take offense if women cannot serve in XYZ positions because that is a sexist comment…. You can have whatever opinions you want but I can tell you right now, in this class homophobic comments, racist comments and sexist comments will not be tolerated. If you don’t like that you are more than free to drop this class.”


I don’t know if the student dropped the course but a TENURED professor who blogged about the issue was stripped of tenure and now the university is in the process of firing him. He didn’t shut up. Now he has been made to care.

Next phase: religion is meany-pants because it doesn’t agree everything is okay

To see where this is going in the long run, one need only to follow this exchange. Two evangelical ministers were responding to an essay by the house homosexual at Religion New Service, a little fellow named Eliel Cruz. Cruz was holding forth on parenting. It is always interesting the these guys, who are not now and never will be parents, give parenting advice:

At RNS, Eliel Cruz went so far as to say that “If you’re unwilling to raise, support, and affirm an LGBT child—you shouldn’t be having children. If you’re a Christian who has an LGBT child please affirm them for who God made them to be.” Cruz believes “the church has failed to equip parents with the resources to affirm their transgender children. Indeed, if the church has done anything, it has contributed to a fear-mongering narrative that led to the Alcorn’s rejecting Leelah. And there are serious implications of being rejected by your family.”

Of course this is nonsense. As a parent the worst thing you can do is “affirm” your child when they are going down the wrong path. And he creates the strawman of there being no middle ground between rejection and affirmation. The pastors conclude by saying:

In today’s world, Christians might be tempted to apologize for the Bible. But we must not do that. Instead, we must lovingly tell our LGBT neighbors that there is a better way for them. We must lovingly walk beside them, rejecting the awkward labels and discomfort that may follow from having these new friends in our congregations. We must dispel the perception that a disagreement with a person’s lived experiences means the only recourse is suicide. We must not isolate those who struggle with their sexual identity and desires. We must not be embarrassed by them. We must love them, as our neighbors.

The church cannot sit idly by. We must offer a real alternative to the false dilemma of affirmation or abandonment, learning how to be Christ to all who came to us full of both grace and truth! (John 1:14) We must recognize people’s internal struggles—as well as our own—and point them toward resources that counsel them, not toward repression and self-hate, but a deeper understanding of biblical sexuality and God’s intentions for them. We must passionately fight, both for these particular neighbors and against these issues at hand. Deal with people with grace and the issues in truth.


The response from this Eliel Cruz character is instructive. It is headlined Why insensitive evangelical rhetoric on LGBT youth is toxic.

Here are verifiable facts about LGBT youth suicide rates: In a 2011 report, the CDC stated that LGB youth are four times more likely to commit suicide than their straight peers. In a 2007 report on transgender youth, The American Association of Suicidology stated that nearly half of transgender people reported to having suicidal thoughts and a large portion of them have attempted suicide.

What’s perhaps the most alarming statistic, according to a report published in the Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing, LGBT youth who come from families who reject them are 8.4 times more likely to attempt suicide than LGBT youth who experience coming from low levels of family rejection. These statistics are only confirmed by the heartbreaking stories showcased such as a story in Rolling Stone expose on the rising number of LGBT youth who have been cast out by religious families.

You can see where this is going. But let’s take these “facts.” Mentally ill people are always more prone to committing suicide than the non-mentally ill. Arguably, this is more due to there estrangement from religion than because of religion. Likewise, there is no evidence that religious families are anymore likely to cast out a mentally disturbed child than a secular family. And most of us don’t rely on Rolling Stone for our science. Predictably, the article wails onward to a full-bore panty-twisting rant:

They scoff at the idea of a welcoming and affirming family environment for LGBT youth. They even cite to mock Eliel Cruz’s piece calling for Christian parents to affirm their LGBT children. Yet those are the family environments that keep LGBT children alive. Stanton and Walker prioritize their sincerely held beliefs over the lives of LGBT youth.

It’s exactly this type of misguided advice that allows Christian parents to believe they are in the right to disown their LGBT children.

It’s exactly this type of spiritual malpractice given by Stanton and Walker that lead to the death of LGBT youth.

This is why evangelical teaching on sexuality, like that articulated by Walker and Stanton, is most definitely harmful.


ISWYDDT. Notice how he starts with a premise. Ignores counter evidence. Presents hokum on his behalf. Then goes straight on to misrepresenting the opposing side and classifying their speech as harmful. This is exactly how the racial grievance mongers work. This is how the global warming alarmists work. This is how feminists work. And now, having vanquished or co-opted the secular opposition they are setting their sights on the religious opposition.

Connecting the dots

When you go back to the conversation the nice little fascist, Cheryl Abbate had with a student:

[D]o you know if anyone in the class is homosexual? And, don’t you think that would be offensive to them if you were to raise your hand and challenge this

and enter the cloud-cuckoo land of academia where the only truth that is important is the politically correct slogan of the day, you can see where Christian witnessing becomes offensive. Not only to people struggling with homosexual tendencies or laboring under the Bruce-Jenner-esqe delusion that the gender they were born with is somehow the wrong one for them quickly, but to anyone. And in the hands of the morons who gave us speech codes and the rape crisis it is quickly made an offense and banned from campus. If orthodox Christianity’s position on human sexuality is “malpractice” and “harmful” there is really no good reason why is shouldn’t be banned. Right?

Mission accomplished: they have shut up the opposition

At that point a student will have to choose between remaining silent — which is acquiescence — or putting their education at risk by speaking up. Debate in the classroom with be over how bad religion is and how the First Amendment thing doesn’t really mean what people think it means.


Philadelphia Archbiship Charles Chaput in his 2013 Lenten reflection had this to say:

My point is this: Evil talks about tolerance only when it’s weak. When it gains the upper hand, its vanity always requires the destruction of the good and the innocent, because the example of good and innocent lives is an ongoing witness against it.  So it always has been.  So it always will be.  And America has no special immunity to becoming an enemy of its own founding beliefs about human freedom, human dignity, the limited power of the state, and the sovereignty of God.

That is where we are today. Now that evil has attained tolerance it is dead set on nothing less than the destruction of good.



Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Trending on RedState Videos