Michael Bresciani
Infantophobia and homophobia - - reality vs. perception
By Michael Bresciani
Infantophobia is a neologistic word whose life expectancy may be no more predictable than the unborn-children it makes reference to but, the word homophobia has a life all of its own, even if in reality it does not deserve one.
Recently attention has been focused on the merging lines of reality and perception in the American psyche. Studies show that those lines are both merging and even blending together in our national life. The effects of Hollywood films, TV, gaming, the internet and fictional literature have left some Americans in a hazy middle of the road lurch where reality and perception have overlapped and, in some cases perception has fully overtaken reality.
One study showed that for millions of Americans their knowledge of a historical event is so colored by Hollywood that they would discard the history they learned in classrooms and substitute it completely with an altered Hollywood version of the same event.
The effect of TV is even greater. Entire political preferences and moral stands are often derived from the tube and the prevailing wisdom of the day is reflected in the common verbiage of a nation that seems to have no other underpinnings on which to stand. If we are what we eat then we are also what we have been feeding our brains.
In an online video presentation of Michele Obama speaking to the LBGT (Lesbian, bisexual, gay and transgender) she used the word homophobia to describe anyone's resistance to the general acceptance of any and all of these sexual preferences.
Michele is reinforcing the idea that some untold number of Americans are cringing and trembling in mortal fear of the neighborhood going to pieces because of the un-closeting of the new hordes of emerging homosexuals. Here is where a better definition is needed and where perception should be given a jolt of reality.
Even if, as President Obama has said Americans are, "clinging to their Bibles" and using quotes from an "obscure passage," the use of the word homophobia is hardly appropriate. The indiscriminate use of this word has long since passed out of the realm of reality and is now enjoying its debut in the fantasy world of hyperbole and perception.
The word, homophobia, has already become the dusty and faded bulb we pull out year after year to hang on the Christmas tree; it is no longer a real fruit growing from a real tree planted by any national emerging social trend.
Oddly the passage many are said to be referring to is not obscure but is 30 years newer than the gospels themselves and was penned by the Apostle Paul in his letter to the Romans. Paul wrote, "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient." (Ro 1:26-28)
In spite of this passage it is very hard to find anyone who actually has passed from acquiescence to this verse on to hatred of homosexuals. Since I rarely quote myself and risk crossing the fragile line between journalistic license and pure narcissism I think it is safe to remind my readers of something I've previously written.
In an article entitled The PC Wars of 2010 and Beyond — Spiritual wickedness in high places, I said "In over forty years of discussion with Christians about homosexuals I have never met one single person who said they were afraid of homosexuals. It is that fact that drove me to search for the root cause of the entire debate between the gays and the church."
I didn't include the fact that in that same forty year period I met countless homosexuals that do suffer from theophobia or Christophobia. They are not always afraid of God but rather they fear that Paul and others who are said to have spoken in God's stead were correct and that God meant exactly what he said. They respond to this fear by arguing against the plenary verbal inspiration of scriptures; even though most of them don't even know what this terminology means.
God doesn't have an opinion on anything but he does establish laws that will not be changed by anyone's opinion or dis-belief; be it the LBGT or Michele Obama. The best they can do is to raise the same question that the arch deceiver raised in the Garden of Eden and proposed to Eve which was, "hath God said?" (Ge 3:1) Nothing new here.
The root cause of infantophobia can be easily ascertained by looking at the reams of statistical materials that are readily available since the inception of the 1973 Supreme Court ruling of Roe v Wade. It is not for reasons of incest, birth defects or rape that most women seek an abortion but according to every major study it is the fear that they will not be able to support a child.
Women are afraid that they will not get an education and be denied job opportunities and that an unwanted child would compromise their future chances at getting anywhere above the poverty level in life. The key word here is fear, is there a phobia for this kind of fear? Wait a while; the PC doctors will have one in due season. In the meantime didn't we all assume that the phrase "land of the free and home of the brave" included our women? If ignoring fear is what makes greatness, heroes and amazing Americans then what does a long list of phobias make?
In the search for the root cause of infantophobia one fact consistently rears its ugly head. When encountered, it stifles the search for any further answers. It is such a staggering revelation that it makes the difference between the perceived problems of homophobia look like extraneous nonsense when compared to the realities of this scourge known as abortion.
What is that fact? It is the comparison between the actual real-time results and the disparity that exists between homophobia and infantophobia. The 2007 FBI statistics on "hate crimes" said that gays were called names 335 times; they were shoved or pushed 448 times and were done bodily harm 242 times. This is exactly 1025 times too many for anyone and there is no excuse for it but let's not stop there, let's go on to the comparison and the important question it raises.
Infantophobia resulted in the deaths of 50,000,000 unborn babies in America since 1973. That's fifty million in case you have trouble with commas and zeroes. That is about 4,000 (four thousand) per day on average. Exactly which phobia would you say is costing more?
Did you miss the question? Let me repeat it. "Exactly which phobia would you say is costing more?"
I won't appendage this piece with my usual scriptural selection but rather, I will resort to the language of children, at least those who were allowed citizenship. Phobia-Schmobia: grow up America and return to your senses!
© Michael Bresciani
April 11, 2010
Infantophobia is a neologistic word whose life expectancy may be no more predictable than the unborn-children it makes reference to but, the word homophobia has a life all of its own, even if in reality it does not deserve one.
Recently attention has been focused on the merging lines of reality and perception in the American psyche. Studies show that those lines are both merging and even blending together in our national life. The effects of Hollywood films, TV, gaming, the internet and fictional literature have left some Americans in a hazy middle of the road lurch where reality and perception have overlapped and, in some cases perception has fully overtaken reality.
One study showed that for millions of Americans their knowledge of a historical event is so colored by Hollywood that they would discard the history they learned in classrooms and substitute it completely with an altered Hollywood version of the same event.
The effect of TV is even greater. Entire political preferences and moral stands are often derived from the tube and the prevailing wisdom of the day is reflected in the common verbiage of a nation that seems to have no other underpinnings on which to stand. If we are what we eat then we are also what we have been feeding our brains.
In an online video presentation of Michele Obama speaking to the LBGT (Lesbian, bisexual, gay and transgender) she used the word homophobia to describe anyone's resistance to the general acceptance of any and all of these sexual preferences.
Michele is reinforcing the idea that some untold number of Americans are cringing and trembling in mortal fear of the neighborhood going to pieces because of the un-closeting of the new hordes of emerging homosexuals. Here is where a better definition is needed and where perception should be given a jolt of reality.
Even if, as President Obama has said Americans are, "clinging to their Bibles" and using quotes from an "obscure passage," the use of the word homophobia is hardly appropriate. The indiscriminate use of this word has long since passed out of the realm of reality and is now enjoying its debut in the fantasy world of hyperbole and perception.
The word, homophobia, has already become the dusty and faded bulb we pull out year after year to hang on the Christmas tree; it is no longer a real fruit growing from a real tree planted by any national emerging social trend.
Oddly the passage many are said to be referring to is not obscure but is 30 years newer than the gospels themselves and was penned by the Apostle Paul in his letter to the Romans. Paul wrote, "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient." (Ro 1:26-28)
In spite of this passage it is very hard to find anyone who actually has passed from acquiescence to this verse on to hatred of homosexuals. Since I rarely quote myself and risk crossing the fragile line between journalistic license and pure narcissism I think it is safe to remind my readers of something I've previously written.
In an article entitled The PC Wars of 2010 and Beyond — Spiritual wickedness in high places, I said "In over forty years of discussion with Christians about homosexuals I have never met one single person who said they were afraid of homosexuals. It is that fact that drove me to search for the root cause of the entire debate between the gays and the church."
I didn't include the fact that in that same forty year period I met countless homosexuals that do suffer from theophobia or Christophobia. They are not always afraid of God but rather they fear that Paul and others who are said to have spoken in God's stead were correct and that God meant exactly what he said. They respond to this fear by arguing against the plenary verbal inspiration of scriptures; even though most of them don't even know what this terminology means.
God doesn't have an opinion on anything but he does establish laws that will not be changed by anyone's opinion or dis-belief; be it the LBGT or Michele Obama. The best they can do is to raise the same question that the arch deceiver raised in the Garden of Eden and proposed to Eve which was, "hath God said?" (Ge 3:1) Nothing new here.
The root cause of infantophobia can be easily ascertained by looking at the reams of statistical materials that are readily available since the inception of the 1973 Supreme Court ruling of Roe v Wade. It is not for reasons of incest, birth defects or rape that most women seek an abortion but according to every major study it is the fear that they will not be able to support a child.
Women are afraid that they will not get an education and be denied job opportunities and that an unwanted child would compromise their future chances at getting anywhere above the poverty level in life. The key word here is fear, is there a phobia for this kind of fear? Wait a while; the PC doctors will have one in due season. In the meantime didn't we all assume that the phrase "land of the free and home of the brave" included our women? If ignoring fear is what makes greatness, heroes and amazing Americans then what does a long list of phobias make?
In the search for the root cause of infantophobia one fact consistently rears its ugly head. When encountered, it stifles the search for any further answers. It is such a staggering revelation that it makes the difference between the perceived problems of homophobia look like extraneous nonsense when compared to the realities of this scourge known as abortion.
What is that fact? It is the comparison between the actual real-time results and the disparity that exists between homophobia and infantophobia. The 2007 FBI statistics on "hate crimes" said that gays were called names 335 times; they were shoved or pushed 448 times and were done bodily harm 242 times. This is exactly 1025 times too many for anyone and there is no excuse for it but let's not stop there, let's go on to the comparison and the important question it raises.
Infantophobia resulted in the deaths of 50,000,000 unborn babies in America since 1973. That's fifty million in case you have trouble with commas and zeroes. That is about 4,000 (four thousand) per day on average. Exactly which phobia would you say is costing more?
Did you miss the question? Let me repeat it. "Exactly which phobia would you say is costing more?"
I won't appendage this piece with my usual scriptural selection but rather, I will resort to the language of children, at least those who were allowed citizenship. Phobia-Schmobia: grow up America and return to your senses!
© Michael Bresciani
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
