‘Gay Marriage’ Ruling: Evil With A Silver Lining

Well, that was predictable. On Friday, with its majority opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges, five judicial imperialists perched high atop the U.S. Supreme Court bench called the Supreme Being a liar. They presumed to invent, out of thin air and through judicial fiat, a “constitutional right” to sin-based “gay marriage.” (Father God, as you exact Your perfect justice on America, please have mercy upon Your faithful.)

The horrific nature of this illegitimate decision cannot be overstated. It makes a mockery of the institution of marriage, something of which God alone has the authority to design and define. It represents a level of judicial activism unmatched since Dred Scott, Buck v. Bell or Roe v. Wade.

Man-woman marriage, as He designed it, is the metaphor God uses for the relationship between Christ and His Church. In addition to mocking marriage, this decision mocks God.

Which is by spiritual design.

Satan is laughing himself silly right now. His demonic minions, both above and below, are popping the bubbly and clinking the champagne flutes.

Evil has triumphed.

For now, at least.

But not in the end.

Because God will not be mocked.

And victory is His.

Still, on top of being an arrogant affront to Almighty God, this opinion of five unelected and unaccountable justices is also a constitutional disaster. “The Court’s decision fundamentally rewrites the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution to radically redefine the cornerstone institution of marriage, which is older than the Court itself,” said Mat Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel.

The decision also drew sharp criticism from the Court’s four dissenting justices. Chief Justice John Roberts, for example, rightly observed that the activist majority opinion hijacks the democratic process and is not based on the rule of law: “[D]o not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it,” wrote Roberts.

Justice Scalia similarly called the ruling a “threat to American democracy.” The “pretentious” and “egotistic” decision, he railed, “robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.”

But I promised a silver lining, and there is one. One that is sure to infuriate the anti-Christian left. The majority opinion emphasized that this newfangled “right” to “gay marriage” should not be construed to trump religious liberty:

“Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons.”

I’m not naïve. We’ll have to see what this actually means in coming years; but when filtered through any honest reading of the First Amendment’s “free exercise” clause, what it means is that Christians cannot be forced to violate their conscience through compulsory participation in, or recognition of, counterfeit “gay weddings” or “marriages.”

Ever.

Of course, there’s nothing honest about the five liberals on this court; and Chief Justice Roberts makes that point in his dissent. He expresses skepticism as to the majority’s sincerity: “The majority graciously suggests that religious believers may continue to ‘advocate’ and ‘teach’ their views of marriage,” he writes. “The First Amendment guarantees, however, the freedom to ‘exercise‘ religion. Ominously, that is not a word the majority uses.”

“Hard questions arise when people of faith exercise religion in ways that may be seen to conflict with the new right to same-sex marriage,” he continues. “[W]hen, for example, a religious college provides married student housing only to opposite-sex married couples, or a religious adoption agency declines to place children with same-sex married couples. Indeed, the Solicitor General candidly acknowledged that the tax exemptions of some religious institutions would be in question if they opposed same-sex marriage. There is little doubt that these and similar questions will soon be before this Court.”

Little doubt indeed.

As many of us have long warned, all this “gay marriage” nonsense was never about “marriage equality.” It was, and remains, a spiritual battle camouflaged in the formal attire of judicial and public policy wrangling. It was always about forcing Christ’s faithful followers, under penalty of law, to abandon biblical truth and embrace sexual sin. The goal of “LGBT” activists and secular progressives has long been to pit the government directly against the free exercise of religion – Christianity in particular – and to silence all dissent.

Let me be clear. You will never silence us, and we Christians don’t need liberty crumbs tossed down from some temporal bench on high. Christians, faithful Christians (as opposed to the apostate variety) will not, indeed cannot, have anything whatsoever to do with the wickedness that is “gay marriage”; and we will disobey any man-made law or ruling that presumes to make us do otherwise.

That said, it does provide some consolation to have, in the spirit of Hobby Lobby, this court at least pay lip service, inelegant though it may be, to every American’s God-given constitutional right to freedom of conscience. The one positive thing that came from this ruling is the reaffirmation of First Amendment protections guaranteeing, for instance, that the Christian baker, florist, photographer, et al., cannot be penalized by the government for refusing to participate in sin – for declining to provide goods or services for “gay weddings,” or for otherwise refusing to recognize “gay marriage” for anything other than the evil it represents.

Even so, let us not don our rose-colored glasses. Friday’s ruling comes straight from the pit of Hell. Even with its religious liberty “silver lining,” it has not ended the debate; it has only just launched it. It has opened the floodgates to anti-Christian persecution. Leftist lawsuit abuse against Christian individuals and organizations will now flow hot like the River Styx.

But don’t despair, my brothers and sisters in Christ. For we who are God’s children have already overcome.

Because greater is He Who is in us, than he who is in the world.

And greater is He who created marriage, than he who perverts it.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

TransWhatever

Hold on.

Courage, Matt, courage.

Breathe.

OK, I’m ready.

This is it. I’m coming out. I want the world to know. I’m a black, lesbian platypus trapped in a white, straight guy’s body. This is my truth. It’s my experience. It’s how I identify. It’s my reality (actual reality notwithstanding). Transracial, transgender, and transpecies lives matter (#TransLivesMatter); and I’m declaring myself an out and proud member of the LGBTTT community.

Crazy, you say? Don’t judge me, hater. This is my race-species-gender identity and expression, whether real or perceived; and if you refuse to play along, then you’re violating my civil rights.

This is my struggle. I demand admission to the wrong bathrooms and showers, the right to play for the other sports teams, and unfettered access to your children so I can indoctrinate them till they can’t see straight–or I’ll ruin you.

Identify me by whichever stupid pronoun I invent, you cisgender, cisracial, cisspecies bigot–or I’ll glitter bomb you so bad that you’ll be slightly inconvenienced.

Move over, ‘Caitlyn’ Jenner.

You’re yesterday’s news, Rachel Dolezal.

I’m here! I’m, er, whatever! Get used to it!

It’s my turn. I want my reality show. I want my heavily-Photoshopped, little duckbilled mug on the cover of National Geographic posthaste.

Call me Mrs. Wiggles.

Oh, and transwealthy. I’m that, too. I really need to get my mortgage transpaidoff, so, yeah, I’m transwealthy.

Well? Don’t just sit there. Get busy. Suspend disbelief. Bend the space-time continuum and otherwise adjust your life to accommodate my moonbat pathologies, you microagressive transphobe–or I’ll have your job.

Black, lesbian platypi of the world, unite!

Merriam Webster defines “reductio ad absurdum” as “disproof of a proposition by showing an absurdity to which it leads when carried to its logical conclusion.”

You’ve just experienced reductio ad absurdum. “Species identity,” “racial identity,” and, to no lesser extent, “gender identity” each represent comically absurd contrivances.

Yet here we are.

Seriously, thank you Bruce and Rachel for making this rant possible. Thank you, secular “progressives” and mainstream media for overplaying your hand on the whole “transwhatever” twaddle to the extent that Americans at large are beginning to sit up and, with a bold, unified voice, declare: “Um, say what?”

These past three weeks have served to set your extremist agenda back years, and that’s fantastic. People get it. Putting the “trans” prefix ahead of some objective truth that you oh-so-very-much-wish weren’t so does not reverse that truth and make your personal fantasy become everyone’s reality.

Ever heard of a “transabled” person? “Transgender” activists have long distanced themselves from the “transabled” community because the two clinical psychoses are effectively different manifestations of the same disorder. The “transabled” person has a sincere, deep-seated belief that he or she is a disabled person trapped in a perfectly healthy and able body. In an effort to align their false identity with objective reality, “transabled” people have amputated healthy limbs, intentionally blinded themselves, had their legs crushed, and worse.

Ironically, the transabled person who saws off a perfectly healthy arm, pokes out an eye, or deliberately cripples healthy legs can actually achieve success. If he does one or more of these things, he will, in fact, become disabled.

The “transgender” person, on the other hand, can never enjoy this same success. If one who tragically believes that he or she is trapped in the wrong-sexed body goes through with cosmetic “gender reassignment” surgery and maims his or her body by mutilating perfectly healthy reproductive organs (or by having healthy breasts cut off if female), then that person remains as that person began – male or female. “But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female (Mark 10:6).”

The pitiful paradox here is that, rather than being transformed to the opposite sex (or “gender” as “progressives” prefer), the “transgendered” will, like his or her similarly situated “transabled” counterpart, simply become physically disabled (and sterilized).

Or consider the anorexic. This is the emaciated person who, misperceiving herself to be grossly overweight, will starve herself to death. You don’t help the anorexic by affirming her delusion, calling her “transfat” and giving her liposuction. You feed her. And then you get her therapy.

Leftists love to say that race and “gender” are social constructs. Clever little buggers, aren’t they? This is a classic example of George Orwell’s doublethink. It’s a deliberate tactic by which relativists are able, with a straight face, to call up down, white black, and male female. They muddy fixed, objective truths by labeling them “social constructs,” while, at the same time, socially constructing the rhetorical tools needed for fascism. Pretendoids like “gender identity,” “transphobia,” “sexual orientation,” and “homophobia” are just a few examples of such social constructs (yes, I made up “pretendoids.” If they can do it, then so can I).

For relativism to work – and that’s what we’re talking about here – reality must be undone, adherents to objective truth pilloried, and all dissent stifled.

This is classic cultural Marxism. It’s a bizarre and despotic world in which the left’s upside-down version of “inclusivity” trumps authenticity – a society wherein any recognition of objective truths that “progressives” cannot (more properly, will not) abide are labeled offensive “microagressions” that, when uttered even offhandedly, demand swift punitive measures.

While penning the infamous majority decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, a decision that upheld the phantom “constitutional right” for a mother to have her own child dismembered alive, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote: “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”

This, of course, is abject nonsense. Still, it is illuminating. It’s the rationale that undergirds, to the extent that anything devoid of substance can undergird anything else, the moral relativist worldview responsible for the postmodern “trans” phenomenon.

But it’s much more than all that.

Justice Kennedy is widely expected to be the swing vote in the Supreme Court’s imminent “gay marriage” decision, Obergefell v. Hodges, which will come down within the next couple of weeks. He will presume to dictate whether black is white, up is down, and whether we must all pretend, under penalty of law, that a man can somehow “marry” another man.

Kennedy thinks people have the “right” to redefine the universe.

This is “transsane.”

Which does not bode well for marriage.

Or reality.

 

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Surprise! Scientists ‘Crack Code’ To Happiness

I love this quote by illustrious NASA scientist Dr. Robert Jastrow (1925-2008): “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”

I would just add to Dr. Jastrow’s keen insight that it’s not merely theologians at large who have long lounged atop Mount Understanding. It is, more precisely, Judeo-Christian theologians. Indeed, with time and chance, even science can eventually catch up to God’s Word.

Case in point: Minnesota’s Mayo Clinic is one of the world’s most prestigious health institutions. With much fanfare, researchers there announced last week that they have “cracked the code to being happy.” “Imagine scientists coming up with an actual formula for happiness – a specific recipe for lifelong contentment and joy,” they tease.

Well, my forlorn little friends, imagine no more. These scientists boast of having “created just such a formula based on neuroscience and psychology.” For a mere $15.95 – less than your daily dose of Zoloft and vodka – they’ll rush off to you “The Mayo Clinic Handbook for Happiness,” a “four-step self-help process” to finding “a lifetime of joy and contentment.”

“Happiness is a habit,” says the study’s chief researcher, Dr. Amit Sood, in the Daily Mail. “Some of us are born with it; others have to choose it.”

“Previous research has shown that our minds are hard-wired to focus on negative experiences. For our ancestors,” continues the report, being perpetually PO’ed, “helped them stay alive, providing an evolutionary advantage in the face of danger.” (Some of us attribute this to mankind’s fallen, selfish, sinful nature; but we can go with that whole evolution thingy if it makes them feel better.)

Concludes the Daily Mail: “The book makes readers focus on a different positive emotion each day, such as gratitude, forgiveness and kindness.”

Wait. Hold the Mayo. This is déjà vu all over again. What “book” are we talking about here? Where have we heard all this before – talk of gratitude, forgiveness, kindness and whatnot, leading to joy, contentment, happiness and so forth?

Anyway, click over to Mayo’s related “How to be happy” page–and you’re given a little more detail.

“People who are happy seem to intuitively know that their happiness is the sum of their life choices, and their lives are built on the following pillars:

  • Devoting time to family and friends
  • Appreciating what they have
  • Maintaining an optimistic outlook
  • Feeling a sense of purpose
  • Living in the moment

Look, I’m glad you’re getting the message out, guys; but, c’mon, plagiarize much? This isn’t a revolutionary “formula” “created” by “scientists” and “based on neuroscience and psychology.” While it’s all true, you’re a bit late to the game. Dr. Jastrow’s theologians have been well acclimated to this lofty altitude for, oh, about 2,000 years. You guys have more degrees than a thermometer. You should know to cite your original source.

So, let’s break it down. Though there are many to choose from, and while the following is in no way comprehensive, let’s contrast Mayo’s “breakthrough” happiness pillars to but a few of their long-established counterparts in the original “handbook for happiness”:

Devoting time to family and friends

“Not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near (Hebrews 10:24-25).”

“A man of many companions may come to ruin, but there is a friend who sticks closer than a brother (Proverbs 18:24).”

“This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends (John 15:12-13).”

“A friend loves at all times, and a brother is born for adversity (Proverbs 17:17).”

“Love one another with brotherly affection. Outdo one another in showing honor (Romans 12:10).”

Appreciating what they have

“Keep your life free from love of money, and be content with what you have, for he has said, ‘I will never leave you nor forsake you’ (Hebrews 13:5).”

“Now there is great gain in godliness with contentment, for we brought nothing into the world, and we cannot take anything out of the world (1 Timothy 6:6-8).”

“Not that I am speaking of being in need, for I have learned in whatever situation I am to be content (Philippians 4:11).”

Maintaining an optimistic outlook

I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me (Philippians 4:13).”

“Be strong and courageous. Do not be frightened, and do not be dismayed, for the Lord your God is with you wherever you go (Joshua 1:9).”

“And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose (Romans 8:28).”

“Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds (James 1:2).”

“A joyful heart is good medicine, but a crushed spirit dries up the bones (Proverbs 17:22).”

Feeling a sense of purpose

I cry out to God Most High, to God who fulfills his purpose for me (Psalm 57:2).”

Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might (Ecclesiastes 9:10).”

“The Lord will fulfill his purpose for me; your steadfast love, O Lord, endures forever. Do not forsake the work of your hands (Psalm 138:8).”

“For still the vision awaits its appointed time; it hastens to the end – it will not lie. If it seems slow, wait for it; it will surely come; it will not delay (Habakkuk 2:3).”

“Whatever you do, work heartily, as for the Lord and not for men (Colossians 3:23).”

Living in the moment

“Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own (Matthew 6:34).”

“So do not worry, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them (Matthew 6:31, 32).”

“As it is said, ‘Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion’ (Hebrews 3:15).”

Still, ultimately, Jesus Himself sums it all accordingly: “Do not let your hearts be troubled. You believe in God; believe also in me (John 14:1).”

The Mayo Clinic’s pilfered wisdom notwithstanding, that, my friends, is “the actual formula for happiness.”

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

We Sure Live In One Screwed Up Jenner-ation

If I see that creepy Vanity Fair cover of Bruce Jenner come across my Facebook feed just one more time, I’m going to gouge out my eyeballs and bleach the sockets.

Ladies, please, if you ever again struggle with body image, just know that those stupid chick magazines you thumb through every day while nibbling arugula and baby carrots like some bulimic bunny can, through the simple magic of $200,000 in plastic surgery and enough airbrushing to power a windmill farm, make a 65-year-old mentally ill man look, sort of, like a 35-year-old country club ninny. Brucie baby ain’t got nothin’ on you, sweetheart, I promise. It’s all fake as the rubber grapes on grandma’s centerpiece. You are you, he is he, and the cover models on your silly mags don’t look a stitch like that.

So, since it’s apparently a slow news day when the Islamic State announces its intention to slip nukes across Obama’s wide-open southern borders, and since America is singularly focused on one man’s sorry stab at genital alchemy, I thought I’d add some more bub to the hubbub.

First, some basic housekeeping – the obvious. Bruce Jenner remains a man in every cell of his body and every corner of his soul. It’s simple third-grade biology. “Caitlyn Jenner” is a figment of his imagination. “She” is every bit the lady that Johnny Depp is the pirate. Everyone tethered to reality knows this.

Still, in today’s America, it’s “The Emperor’s New Clothes” meets George Orwell. We must all pretend that a man in a dress who has some surgical work is magically a woman – a courageous “hero,” no less – or face the wrath of the “progressive” power set.

“It takes courage to share your story,” tweeted our social-engineer-in-chief after “Caitlyn’s” big reveal, while actual American hero Chris Kyle’s widowed bride is still waiting for some Twitter love from the sleazy Preezy of the United Steezy.

Bruce Jenner is worthy of pity and prayer, not adulation. Yet in a world that calls evil good and good evil, it is adulation he gets. It’s not my intention to single out Jenner – he’s done a capital job of that on his own – or to pick on him in the least. In fact, back in February, I penned a heartfelt appeal to Bruce. He emailed me afterward (Bruce, my offer remains open).

Bruce Jenner is a big boy. He’s a former college football player and a Gold Medal Olympian. But the fact remains; he’s also a deeply disturbed man, both mentally, spiritually, and, if he follows this self-destructive primrose path to its bitter end, physically.

Even so, the greater problem is that, beyond all this, Bruce, who for some inexplicable reason has achieved a position of profound influence in our culture will, no doubt, take a multitude of equally disturbed folks down with him. The public train wreck that is his life represents a microcosm of everything wrong with America.

So where’s it all leading?

To chaos.

Which is exactly where those in rebellion against God want it to lead.

Most people don’t realize that, in addition to the sin of homosexuality, the Bible actually addresses transgenderism. Yes, the “T” in “LGBT” represents sexual immorality right along with the rest of their deviant alphabet soup: “A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor a man wear women’s clothing, for the Lord your God detests anyone who does this” (Deuteronomy 22:5).

Christ himself was unequivocal on the biological fact that there are two sexes, “genders” if you will, and two alone: “He answered, ‘Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female …’” (Matthew 19:4).

But for those who, at their own peril, view all this as just so much Bible thumping and prefer to imagine some false dichotomy between science and Christianity, let’s talk science.

Johns Hopkins Hospital was the pioneer in “gender reassignment surgery.” It now refuses to perform the procedures. Dr. Paul R. McHugh, the hospital’s former psychiatrist-in-chief and current distinguished service professor of psychiatry, has noted that, as even the left-leaning APA reluctantly acknowledges, transgenderism is a “mental disorder.” The idea of a “sex change” is “biologically impossible,” he observes.

There is a reason that, according to the latest peer-reviewed studies, so-called “transgender” people, after “sex reassignment” surgery, commit suicide at a rate 20 times higher than normal. And despite “progressive” rationalizations to the contrary, imaginary “transphobia” ain’t it.

Dr. McHugh has further noted that studies from Vanderbilt University and London’s Portman Clinic have determined that 70-80 percent of children who experience transgender feelings “spontaneously lost those feelings” over time.

Yet in today’s terminally ill America, it’s in vogue, and actually legal, for abusive adults, like lesbian “mommies” Pauline Moreno and Debra Lobel, to pump their 11-year-old son Thomas full of dangerous hormone-blocking drugs so that he can soon be sterilized and have his penis and testicles cut off. He wants to become “Tammy,” you see. (Think the fact that Tommy is being raised by two lesbians and has been intentionally deprived of his father has anything to do with his sexual confusion?)

But as I wrote last October, the “T” in “LGBT” also stands for “tyranny.”

“Washington state, dateline 2012: Colleen is just like the girl next door. Well, sort of. Colleen has a penis. So, I guess, unless the girl next door has a penis, Coleen really isn’t much like her at all.

“But that’s beside the point. In Washington you must, under penalty of law, pretend, along with Colleen and Democrats, that, in the face of both reality and sanity, Colleen really is like the girl next door. This includes letting Colleen, who is actually a 47-year-old dude named Clay Scott Francis, lay naked and ‘sprawled out in a sauna exposing himself’ to girls as young as 6 years old. This really happened in the ladies locker room at Evergreen State College.

“It’s only fair, you see, because, as Clay, er, ‘Colleen,’ complained, and as police agreed, this sick bastard was ‘discriminated against’ when he was asked to leave on behalf of a terrorized 17-year-old girl. ‘This is not 1959 Alabama,’ cried Francis. ‘We don’t call police for drinking from the wrong water fountain.’

“Get that, my African-American friends? According to this beneficiary of ‘white privilege,’ a man who, incidentally, identifies as a ‘transgender lesbian’ (meaning he’s sexually attracted to females), to be told that you cannot sprawl naked and intentionally expose your manly bits to 6-year-old girls is no different from being relegated to a ‘colored only’ water fountain.”

This is one screwed up Jenner-ation.

And it’s going to get worse.

While Islam laughs our fool heads off.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Is it Time To ‘Abolish The Family’?

I appreciate it when leftists get off script, dispatch with the propagandist talking points, and say what’s really on their minds.

“Progressives” hate natural marriage.

And they hate the natural family.

But they do so love big government.

In an article for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation titled “Is having a loving family an unfair advantage?”, Joe Gelonesi, host of “The Philosopher’s Zone” radio program, calls the natural mom-dad biological family a “weathered institution ever more in need of a rationale for existing.”

While he admits that it may be premature to “abolish the family and put children into care of the state,” Gelonesi suggests, nonetheless, that such government action might be the most “straightforward answer” – if only “from a purely instrumental position.”

But what’s the question? And why such hostility toward the natural family?

Buzzz! What is “social justice” for $1,000, Alex?

In the context of marriage, family, and economics, the left’s upside-down brand of social justice, of “equality,” requires that, in order to level the playing field, we must bulldoze the playing field altogether – we must take from the haves, give to the have nots, and dumb-down everything else to the lowest common denominator. If one person is suffering, then “equality” demands that all must suffer. The solution to inequality borne by those in the Third World, for instance, is to make the whole world the Third World (see Barack Hussein Obama, circa 2008-2016).

The same goes for marriage and family. As Gelonesi explains it, “The power of the family to tilt equality” creates an “unfair advantage” for children without loving biological parents. “When a parent wants to do the best for her child,” he claims, it necessarily “makes the playing field for others even more lopsided.”

And so, whereas the conservative solution is to offer a leg up, the “progressive” solution prefers a jackboot down. While equality of opportunity is a step in the right direction, equality of outcome is the statist endgame. Naturally, to reach this lofty goal, government intervention is required.

This is pure egalitarianism – cultural Marxism – and, as jaw-droppingly insane as it is, it yet remains the pervasive philosophy among “progressives” worldwide.

In order to bolster his thesis, Gelonesi interviews Adam Swift, a professor of political theory at Great Britain’s University of Warwick. Swift has co-authored, along with University of Wisconsin professor Harry Brighouse, the book “Family Values: The Ethics of Parent-Child Relationships.”

Don’t let the title fool you. There’s nothing ethical about what these two men propose. “Challenging some of our most commonly held beliefs about the family,” boasts the editor’s summary, “Brighouse and Swift explain why a child’s interest in autonomy severely limits parents’ right to shape their children’s values, and why parents have no fundamental right to confer wealth or advantage on their children.”

Yikes.

Gelonesi’s article describes Swift as “a philosopher with a rescue plan very much in tune with the times.” This, as you will see, says a great deal about “the times.”

“One way philosophers might think about solving the social justice problem would be by simply abolishing the family,” suggests Swift. “If the family is this source of unfairness in society, then it looks plausible to think that if we abolished the family there would be a more level playing field.”

Swift concedes, however, that the family does confer some benefit to children; and, therefore, institutionalizing the little buggers may not be the best solution.

Yet.

“What we realized we needed was a way of thinking about what it was we wanted to allow parents to do for their children, and what it was that we didn’t need to allow parents to do for their children, if allowing those activities would create unfairnesses for other people’s children,” he told Gelonesi.

The operable words here are “allow,” “unfairness,” and “other people’s children.”

“For Swift, there’s one particular choice that fails the test,” continues Gelonesi.

“‘Private schooling cannot be justified by appeal to these familial relationship goods,’ he says. ‘It’s just not the case that in order for a family to realize these intimate, loving, authoritative, affectionate, love-based relationships you need to be able to send your child to an elite private school.’

“In contrast, reading stories at bedtime, argues Swift, gives rise to acceptable familial relationship goods, even though this also bestows advantage.”

Swift opines that, while banning bedtime stories outright might be an impractical step toward ensuring fairness – banning private schools is at once a plausible and necessary means to that end.

“We could prevent elite private schooling without any real hit to healthy family relationships, whereas if we say that you can’t read bedtime stories to your kids because it’s not fair that some kids get them and others don’t, then that would be too big a hit at the core of family life.”

“For Swift and Brighouse,” writes Gelonesi, “our society is curiously stuck in a time warp of proprietorial rights: If you biologically produce a child, you own it.”

“‘We think that although in practice it makes sense to parent your biological offspring, that is not the same as saying that in virtue of having produced the child the biological parent has the right to parent.’”

By now, you should be saying “holy crap” or some such. This is unadulterated fascism on parade. And it’s winning the Western world over.

Speaking of parades, Swift goes on to wade the unpotable waters that will inevitably fester in the wake of the global “gay marriage” tsunami.

“Nothing in our theory assumes two parents: There might be two, there might be three, and there might be four,” he observes.

“Politicians love to talk about family values, but meanwhile the family is in flux, and so we wanted to go back to philosophical basics to work out what are families for and what’s so great about them and then we can start to figure out whether it matters whether you have two parents or three or one, or whether they’re heterosexual etcetera.”

But lest we deem the good professor entirely bat-guano-crazy, he sets an arbitrary cap on parents permitted, to allay our concerns. “We do want to defend the family against complete fragmentation and dissolution,” he graciously allows. “If you start to think about a child having 10 parents, then that’s looking like a committee rearing a child; there aren’t any parents there at all.”

Such is the irrational mindset of the self-styled rationalist – the immoral nattering of the moral relativist.

According to Swift and millions of very dangerous people just like him, the biblical admonition to “honor thy father and mother” is totally passé. Children today must “honor thy father and father, mother and mother, fathers and fathers, or mothers and mothers.”

Better still to just “honor thy progressive government.”

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth