Monty Python Spanish Inquisition

“Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!”

This was the launch phrase for my favorite recurring skit on Monty Python’s Flying Circus.

In most of its appearances, The Inquisition would intrude suddenly on unrelated sketches in which one character, expressing frustration with another, would announce “I didn’t expect the Spanish Inquisition!” Right on cue, the Inquisition would burst onto the scene as its leader proclaimed, “Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!” This bold entry-line would be followed by other beauts, including, “Amongst our weaponry are such diverse elements as fear, surprise, ruthless efficiency, an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope, and nice red uniforms!”

Over the past two weeks, I’ve been thinking about this Spanish Inquisition a whole lot.

Van Jones…Jimmy Carter…nine out of ten so-called “journalists” within the mainstream media…whether it’s gun-control, taxes, Obamacare or ACORN, the one thing we all know by now is that anyone who opposes the “progressive” liberal agenda is, underneath it all and way deep down inside, a racist.


At this point, everybody expects the Liberal Inquisition. Before one can even finish the thought preceding any pronouncement critical of anything “progressive”, they must resign themselves to the knowledge that, should they actually let their politically incorrect words fly, they will be branded.

The Scarlet R will be upon them.

Right now, literally tens of millions of “racists” in America are getting more than a little angry with the whole thing, and rightfully so. But what happens when this “progressive” enthusiasim for the race card is combined with the well-established liberal hatred of orthodox Christianity?

Just ask Sarah Palin.

“..even apart from its political implications, the rollout of the Sarah Palin vice presidential candidacy may be regarded decades from now as a nationally shared Rorschach test of enormous cultural significance.”

This was Jeffrey Bell’s observation as recorded in The Weekly Standard just seventeen days after Alaska Governor Sarah Palin was selected to become Senator John McCain’s running mate in the 2008 presidential campaign. He went on to describe what was rapidly becoming a perfect storm of political paranoia:

“From the instant of Palin’s designation on Friday, August 29, the American left went into a collective mass seizure from which it shows no sign of emerging. The left blogosphere and elite media have, for the moment, joined forces and become indistinguishable from each other, and from the supermarket tabloids, in their desire to find and use anything that will criminalize and/or humiliate Palin and her family…

“In her acceptance speech last Wednesday night, anyone could see the poise and skill that undoubtedly attracted McCain’s attention months ago, when few others were even aware that he was looking. But it was precisely the venom of the left’s assault that heightened the drama and made it a riveting television event. Palin benefited from her ability to project full awareness of the volume and relentlessness of the attacks without showing a scintilla of resentment or self-pity.

This is a rare talent, one shared by Franklin D. Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan. For this quality to have even a chance to develop, there must be something real to serve as an emotional backdrop: disproportionate, crazy-seeming rage by one’s political enemies. Roosevelt was on his party’s national ticket five times and Reagan sought the presidency four times. Each became governor of what at the time was the nation’s most populous state. It took Roosevelt and Reagan decades of national prominence and pitched ideological combat to achieve the gift of enemies like these. Yet the American left awarded Sarah Palin this gift seemingly within a microsecond of her appearance on the national stage in Dayton, Ohio. Why?”

For the American left, reasons for fear and loathing of Sarah Palin are legion; almost too numerous to list. But we’ll try anyway:

She is a woman (which would normally be a plus). She is a fiscal conservative (which offsets much of the aforementioned benefit of being female). She is a social conservative (this more than finishes off any remaining ‘female benefit’). She comes from humble roots and embraces a worldview that is at least identifiably Judeo-Christian. She is a generally happy wife and mother of five. Making matters worse on the last point, the youngest of her children, Trig, was prenatally diagnosed with Down syndrome. The problem for the secular left wasn’t the diagnosis itself; it was that Mrs. Palin had subsequently allowed her son to live.

For this crime she could not be forgiven.

Little Trig became something of an unintended lightning rod as a result. The sweet little boy born to a loving, honorable Christian mother presented to the American left a clear and present threat to the very heart of its liberal orthodoxy…by simply living.

With their foundations shaken and insecurities exposed, ‘progressive’ women lashed out, leading the charge in a wild attempt to eviscerate Sarah Palin. Their seething hatred was proudly and forcefully displayed at every opportunity.

South Carolina Democrat Party chairwoman Carol Fowler pronounced that John McCain had chosen a running mate “whose primary qualification seems to be that she hasn’t had an abortion.”  The Washington Post’s Wendy Doniger observed that Palin’s “greatest hypocrisy is in her pretense that she is a woman.” ‘Comedian’ Margaret Cho joined the crowd of merry, blissfully content feminists by chiming in with:

“They shouldn’t have the right to call themselves Christian, for they have no Christ-like attributes. I am a feminist and a Christian, and when I see Sarah Palin, I see neither. And it’s official: She is evil.”

Through this parade of insult and vilification, our nation was exposed to the full force and character of secular liberal womanhood. And it wasn’t pretty. Then again, secular feminism rarely is or wants to be.

Eight months after Sarah Palin’s acceptance speech at the Republican Party National Convention in Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota, Americans were given another revealing glimpse into the philosophy shaping our nation’s culture.

This moment came when a young woman from the American West committed the unpardonable sin of politically incorrect public speech. This violation of the new American speech code inspired the unrestrained wrath of vigilant thought police across the nation. The whole episode began on April 19th of 2009, when the following question echoed through the Theatre for the Performing Arts in Planet Hollywood Resort and Casino in Las Vegas, Nevada:

“Vermont recently became the first state to legalize same-sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit? Why or why not?”

This was the question asked of Carrie Prejean, representing the state of California in the Miss USA pageant. The question was asked by openly gay pageant judge Perez Hilton as a part of the Miss USA selection process.

Miss Prejean answered Hilton’s politically and religiously motivated question as follows:

“I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land that you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. And, you know what? In my country and in my family, I think that – I believe that – a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that’s how I was raised and that’s how I think that it should be: Between a man and a woman. Thank you.”

While for many of us it may be difficult to imagine a more respectful, defensive, kind and even sheepish defense of the actual institution of marriage than that which Miss Prejean offered, the simple fact that she affirmed a personal belief, when asked, that marriage was to be “between a man and a woman”, was enough for impartial, unbiased, politically and religiously neutral judge Perez Hilton to come completely unglued.

As a result of honestly answering the question put to her in an excruciatingly polite manner consistent with the well-reasoned and time-tested beliefs of the overwhelming majority of American citizens since the founding of the republic, Carrie Prejean was denied the Miss USA crown and Perez Hilton went into full blown offended drama queen mode.

Hilton immediately recorded a video blog for release on YouTube, which included the following fabulous commentary:

“Hello…okay…so…Miss USA literally just finished and I have to make a video blog. Everybody’s gonna be talking about it! I was the YouTube moment of the show – the pageant – when I asked Miss California her question, and when she gave the…worst…answer…in pageant history! She got booed! I think that was the first time in Miss USA e-ver that a contestant has been booed. Now, lemme explain to you: She lost, not because she doesn’t believe in gay marriage. Miss California lost because she’s a dumb b***h, okay? This is how a person with half a brain answers the question I posed to her, which is: ‘Vermont recently legalized same-sex marriages. Do you think other states should follow suit? Why or why not?’ Well, if I was Miss California, with half a brain, I would have said, ‘hmm…Perez, that’s a great question! That’s a very hot topic in our country right now, and I think that that is a question that each state should decide for themselves, because that’s how our forefathers designed our government, you know. The states rule themselves, and then there’s certain laws which are federal.’ She could have said something along those lines, but she didn’t! She gave an awful, awful answer which alienated so many people, and Miss California – Miss USA – she doesn’t alienate, she unites! She inspires! I am so disappointed in Miss California representing my country, not because she doesn’t believe in gay marriage, but because she doesn’t inspire and she doesn’t unite! And that is what a Miss California and a Miss USA should. And I could not believe when she became first runner up! If that girl would have won Miss USA – California – I would have gone up on stage – I s**t you not – I would have gone up on stage, snatched that tiara off her head and run out the door. And then I probably would have been arrested, but you know what? So be it! Ooooh! Thank goodness Miss South Carolina won – or North Carolina – whichever one won, because she deserved it so much more! Okay…I need a cocktail now.”

In a subsequent appearance on NBC’s Today Show, the lovely and gracious Mr. Hilton went on to further elaborate on his open-minded, inclusive philosophy of kindness and tolerance: “I personally would have appreciated it, had she left her politics and her religion out, because Miss USA represents all Americans. I think I gave her the easy way out. She could have answered that question so many different ways. She could have said, ‘Well, I wanna leave my politics out of the question and I think that it’s important for the states to make those decisions for themselves, and I think that would have been a better answer than the one that she gave, because the answer she gave alienated myself, millions of gays and lesbians, their friends, their family, their coworkers, and their supporters. And Miss USA is not a person that’s alienating. Miss USA is not a person that’s politically incorrect! Miss USA is someone who represents me, who represents all America and is inclusive.”

After pausing for a moment of intermission to digest those bits of brilliance and purge any thoughts of Perez Hilton as Miss California from our temporarily scarred minds, we are well served to consider a question of our own:

Throughout this incident and the firestorm of controversy that followed, Carrie Prejean’s position was painted as suspiciously defensive in most Statist media presentations, while the Perez Hilton position was generally treated as normative and therefore worthy of less scrutiny or criticism than Miss Prejean’s. Why is this so?

The answer to this question as well as many related issues swirling about the perpetual conspiracy to assassinate Sarah Palin are found in the very nature and identity of the counter-Christian culture in which we live. In an America teetering on the brink of a shift from post-Christian to anti-Christian state, the Secular Inquisition has begun.

While Carrie Prejean’s tepid, defensive, limp-wristed (and she didn’t even get points for that), ever-so polite response to Perez Hilton’s question did indeed cost her the title of Miss USA, it also managed to reap a wealth of useful information.  However flamboyant a representative of contemporary American leftism Mr. Hilton may be, his views are largely representative of the hyper-relativistic brand of secular humanism that currently dictates the course and rate of decline for our culture. Sadly, Hilton’s is the favored position, at least from the perspective of the secular forces driving our nation. This makes the Prejean/Hilton exchange worthy of further consideration.

I’d like to begin this examination by offering a list of post-Christian American truths made plain through Perez Hilton’s response to Carrie Prejean:

  1. Biblically submissive Christians cannot represent America. “All of America” includes ridiculous living caricatures of homosexuality; it does not include biblically submissive Christians.
  2. Biblically submissive Christians can be excluded in the name of inclusiveness. Put another way, alienating Christians is perfectly acceptable for the simple reason that they are perceived to alienate others.
  3. Political expression is reserved exclusively for those expressing politically correct views.
  4. Religious expressions, if they must be made at all, are allowed only insofar as they conform completely to anti-Christian standards, thus rendering the Christian silent.
  5. Political and religious questions, when asked of a Christian by an anti-Christian, cannot be answered honestly or accurately, as the Christian response must universally conform to anti-Christian standards and is therefore impossible. In this light, anti-Christians really do not ask Christians questions at all – they merely use a question format to inform the Christian of truth from and anti-Christian perspective. It’s kind of like a satanic twist on Jeopardy!
  6. So complete is the subjugation of the liberal lemming’s mind that they are literally incapable of noticing their own flagrantly religious and political expressions as anything but the completely benign norm for all of humanity. They literally do not realize that their opinion is an opinion. As William F. Buckley, Jr. put it, “Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”
  7. Expressing an anti-Christian opinion in the promotion of tolerance, acceptance and unity is a natural and good thing, while expressing a Christian opinion on the same matter is almost always an open violation of goodness and decency at every level.
  8. Perez and Paris Hilton are of roughly equal value to western civilization.

There are many more useful points that could be listed, to be sure, but the true nature of the new American thought police is revealed clearly enough by these alone. In a nutshell: Bible believing Christians are, by definition, wrong and must be silent. This is the guiding principle of the Secular Inquisition.

This movement has been underway in America for some time now. It continues to gather steam, having moved beyond its base of Statist media support and into the deeper fabric of the culture, primarily through the public education system. Its goal is, for now, the silence and suppression of Christian thought. As such, every Common Believer is a threat and legitimate target of the Secular Inquisition.

Any public expression of distinctly Christian thought must be met. It must be countered. It must be crushed.

And soon, it must be banned.

There are those who would say that the above contention paints an overdramatic picture, that the author here is presenting a skewed take on reality for the sake of promoting alarm and implying the existence of an evil conspiracy against liberty where in reality there is no such thing to be found. To these critics we need only reply with a simple point north…to Canada, where the Liberal Inquisition has been at work for just a little bit longer…

(Continued in Part 2, which you can read by clicking here.)


If you know of anyone who might be interested in this post, please share it.

Please “like” us on Facebook (using the convenient button in the upper left corner) Thank you for your support!


See also:

Problem>Reaction>Solution: Why we will beg to have our freedoms taken away and go to war forever.

The America Idol (Or: How I Learned To Stop Worrying and Love The Almighty State)

US raises terror threat level to “Orwellian”: Citizens line up to hand over more freedoms

Singing Sweet, Sweet Lies in the “Land of the Free” and the Home of the NSA

Why Americans don’t do repentance.

7 Empowering Truths for Politically Active Christians

Politics, Religion, and the Threat of Spontaneous Combustion

The (church built) Zombie Apocalypse is upon us…


© 2009, 2014 Scott Alan Buss – All Rights Reserved.

16 Responses

  1. Logic, rationality and genuine intellectual curiosity will always trump superstition, myth, magic and charlatanism, as well as their perpetual attendees: religiosity, racism, sexism, greed, war, death—I could be here all day….

    You are in error. Enlightenment is the key.

  2. I think you're missing the point. The liberals aren't freaked out for the reasons that you say. There are many conservative women who don't freak the left out for many reasons. The liberals are freaked out simply because Sarah Palin is *an idiot*.

  3. As to Ms. Prejean, I do agree that she was vilified for her views and that was wrong. Her response was a simple, elegant and to the point response which demonstrated poise in the face of a very politically awkward question. Those that would villify her for her view belong in the same class as you, i.e. both the tendency to require others to have the same view as you have, and to be punished for not having those views or expressing differnet views.

    We are a country founded on the Judeo-Christian ethic. Ideas shold never a source of obliquy, even when different from our own. But the real issue is that of action, conduct, behavior. I don't care what you or Ms. Prejean believe. I only care how you act and what efforts you assert to control people's action. to limit people's rights and to dictate people's thoughts. When you tell me that a woman or her doctor should go to jail for abortion, or that spousal or child support are unavailable on the basis of your definition of marriage, you overstop the bounds of the American spirit and freedom of religion by imposing your religion on others. That is wrong. That is unamerican.

    1. Telling someone God expects us to be responsible for all our actions or that he says that life is precious and marriage his gift is not the same as vicious personal attacks.

      Note that despite the MAJORITY preference, MINORITIES supported laws are still being passed. So if we're being so intolerant, exactly how are these laws getting passed?

  4. just a quick comment on Sarah Palin. I"m an independent. I actually would have voted for the John McCain of 2000 but unfortunately, the primary was after the Bush travesty in South Carolina. But back to Sarah Palin. I don't dislike her fiscal views, I love that she is a well spoken good looking woman. I think she is a politcial joke because she is a dishonest vengeful politician who isn't very bright. And she made Obama look like a veteran. Hey we can all applaud her policy views while not ignoring her abillities.

    But my real objection to her and to your message is your premise that anyone who doesn't want their political lives controlled by the Christian agenda is a liberal Christian hater. The reality is that is a product of your own insecurity. One can be a Christian and understand that the bible, written by different men with divine inspiration, is not without inconsisitencies. One can be a Christian and believe that a homosexual is not damned. One can be a Christian can believe that abortion is not fatal to living a good Christian life.

    But those of you who take their own interpretation and narrow reading of individual passages and require all Christians to have exactly the same interpretation, do not serve God or Christ but their own ego. The bible was writtin in many different languages and has been translated and interpreted and retranslated a host of times. While I will defend to the death your right to take your current version of that book as literally as you wish to take it, I will fight to the death any effort to require me to live my life by your interpretation.

    I truly feel very sorry for you and your efforts to convert sacred words into fodder for hate.

    1. amateurpol
      "One can be a Christian can believe that abortion is not fatal to living a good Christian life"
      HAHAHA yeah you would have voted for McCain instead of Obama
      by the way do you have a clue what her message is? Or did you get that information from cnn and the likes?

    2. amateurpol: “One can be a Christian can believe that abortion is not fatal to living a good Christian life”

      "You shall not murder" (Exodus 20:13 NIV) is not compatible with "Pro-Choice". While it may be true abortion is not fatal to this "life"; unrepented abortion is fatal to the next one.

      Luke 17:1-2 (NIV) Jesus said to his disciples: "Things that cause people to sin are bound to come, >>>> but woe to that person through whom they come <<<<. (2) It would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around his neck than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin. (Matthew 18:5-9, Mark 9:41-48)

  5. Oh that list is perfect..and hideously true. I shall print it off and read it back at the next Current Truth Marxist critical theory drone that tries to do their little control freak fascist routine on me. Thanks. Great stuff. Colonel Neville.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *