What Does Rod Dreher, Scalia, and Lincoln Have in Common

It appears that Damon Linker now joined by Andrew Sullivan are on the attack on Rod Dreher.

See Damon Linker and "The Gay Fixation" and Nine days vs. three months. As Rod points out:

When Andrew and Damon accuse me of having a "fixation," what they must mean, what they could only mean, is that I refuse to agree with their position on gay marriage, and refuse to be silent about it. Note what is being done here, though: By casting the ordinary defense of normative Christian doctrine about homosexual relations as though it were a sort of mental illness, the pro-SSM side engages the issue not in a fair-minded discussion and debate about legitimate issues related to gay marriage and the normalization of homosexuality in our society, but as an ideological war to be won by any means necessary. Any critique of the pro-SSM side is to be treated as a sign of pathology.

As a short-term rhetorical strategy, it's probably smart, given that most of the news media already agree with it. But walling yourself off in an ideological bubble, where you make no effort to try to understand why your opponents believe what they believe, and to try to grasp if they have a point, is neither fair, nor honorable, nor, in the long term, wise.

We have seen Scalia attacked this week and in the past as to this issue unjustly. He was boycotted for instance by Professors at Amherst because he referenced a homosexual agenda in one of his opinions. Is there not a homosexual agenda. I mean are activists oriented to a random mean of ends. If there is a activist there must be a plan of litigation, a scheme, or plan. They said Scalia's writings were similar to HITLER when he talked of a Jewish Conspiracy

But what this people imagined was perhaps a hint of moral disapproval (though I can't see how they find that in his opinions). It is the same with Rod where that is more evident.

What does this have to do with Lincoln? In Lincoln's famous Cooper Union Address speaking of the slave interest he said:


The question recurs, what will satisfy them? Simply this: We must not only let them alone, but we must somehow, convince them that we do let them alone. This, we know by experience, is no easy task. We have been so trying to convince them from the very beginning of our organization, but with no success.

In all our platforms and speeches we have constantly protested our purpose to let them alone; but this has had no tendency to convince them. Alike unavailing to convince them, is the fact that they have never detected a man of us in any attempt to disturb them.

These natural, and apparently adequate means all failing, what will convince them? This, and this only: cease to call slavery wrong, and join them in calling it right. And this must be done thoroughly - done in acts as well as in words. Silence will not be tolerated - we must place ourselves avowedly with them. Senator Douglas' new sedition law must be enacted and enforced, suppressing all declarations that slavery is wrong, whether made in politics, in presses, in pulpits, or in private. We must arrest and return their fugitive slaves with greedy pleasure.

We must pull down our Free State constitutions. The whole atmosphere must be disinfected from all taint of opposition to slavery, before they will cease to believe that all their troubles proceed from us.

I am quite aware they do not state their case precisely in this way. Most of them would probably say to us, "Let us alone, do nothing to us, and say what you please about slavery." But we do let them alone - have never disturbed them - so that, after all, it is what we say, which dissatisfies them. They will continue to accuse us of doing, until we cease saying.

Our Silence is not enough. WE MUST BE WITH THEM IN ALL THINGS .