Unsex Me Here

People are sexual creatures. Such is a fact of observation. Before you read beyond this point, I need you to know my heart for the LGBTQ+ community. I believe the sexual revolution is immoral. I will explain that in a moment. I believe so strongly in the sanctity of human life, though, that I care for all people despite their moral inadequacies. My theology demands that I consider others to be more important than myself and work for their good whether or not I agree with their lifestyles. Further, I believe Jesus came to call sinners to Himself, and I recognize myself as a worse sinner than anyone within any category that I might have to address in our current culture war. I don’t know how you define love, but I have a lovingkindness toward those of the LGBTQ+ persuasion even though I consider the movement wholly immoral.

👆Connect with Andrew👆

A word to the church of Jesus Christ before I philosophize. In 1 Corinthians 5, Paul rebukes immorality within the church body, instructing Christians to not associate with the immoral person. He clarifies, in verse 9, that he did not mean Christians should separate from the immoral people of the world, but merely from those who claim to be Christians but do not care to honor God with their lives. Paul actually calls Christians to be among the covetous, swindlers, and idolaters of the world who do not know Christ–not casting judgment on them because Christian judgment is a beautiful treasure reserved for the church. We are not to judge outsiders, here to mean hold them accountable for sin, because God will do so. The Christian, then, does not hold individuals outside the community of faith accountable to the church because they are outside the church. We know that God is just and will restore perfect justice to His earth in His perfect timing.

My argument, here, is presuppositional. I presuppose the existence of God. I presuppose that God created with intent. To know my presuppositions about human sex and gender, please watch the following sermon:

Preached on March 17, 2019 at The Church at Sunsites in Pearce, AZ.

The sexual revolution (not to be confused with individuals who might identify as homosexual, bisexual, transsexual, or queer) is concerning to me as a movement because of its general focus. A quick web search turned up 151,000,000 results. At the top of the results list was an article about how homophobia and transphobia affect workers in workplaces around the world. An academic search for the basic moral rightness or wrongness of self-identity turned up almost no results. The results that did turn up defended a moral obligation toward inclusivity and acceptance. Here, I have my most basic problem with the movement. Not much consideration has been given as to the rightness or wrongness of the thing being fought for. I’m not sure many people would even know how to begin defending sex or gender identity outside nature’s norm. The base defense seems to be a simple assertion. If anyone rejects the assertion, that person be damned rather than reasoned with–which is the very definition of bigoted, dogmatic religion. Since I don’t have an academic base to work from, I will address some of the assertions I have heard and what I have observed.

1) Meaning of pride. The world has its pride parades and celebrations. The celebration has gone beyond boasting in what an individual is, which is bad enough. Society today celebrates pride itself. Remove all the six-colored rainbows and all this talk about the sexual revolution. Pride as a basic concept is self-glorifying and self-interested at its most basic level. The same society that celebrates human pride maintains that pride comes before a fall–so long as it is talking about someone else’s pride. We are so quick to point out the splinter in someone else’s eye while ignoring the logs in our own. To maintain a pride-filled lifestyle is to seek after self to the detriment of all others. Pride kills community, inclusion, diversity, charity, and generosity. It is interesting how the pride movement claims inclusivity and diversity when it clearly rejects any ideology other than its own.

2) Oxymoronic love. To put pride and love together is like saying truth and morality are absolutely relative. Love cannot be prideful because love is self-sacrificing. The very idea that two people come together based on their own desires, preferences, and identities is contrary to sacrificial love. Whether I am heterosexual or homosexual, to get into a relationship based on my preferences I must refuse to consider what is good for anyone else. Further, if I change appearance in order to match my own preferences or self-identity, have I not acted in order to exalt myself to the neglect of everyone else? The celebration of pride has led now to quite the divisive epoch because we only care about our individual identities–vilifying anyone who might stand in the way of us getting what we want.

3) Absurd appeal to nature (or creation). “I was born this way” is an interesting sort of assertion since no one is born with the preferences he or she currently has. Neither is anyone born with disposition to self-identify as anything. It is interesting that the same generation which said, “I don’t like labels,” now tries to label everyone and force everyone to self-label. Even if someone were born self-identifying sexually or engendering him or her or itself, there is no logic to insist that we should stay the way we were born. Babies come from the womb unable to care for themselves, crying, and entirely selfish. As they grow, they rely less on others and, we hope, learn to care for others. No person begins this life caring for anyone but him or herself. Perhaps many never learn to deny themselves so they might actually love others.

4) Sexism reimagined. The movement that claims inclusivity and free love is, in reality, a more isolating and selfish movement than most realize–even those within the movement. In such a sexual and gender fluid atmosphere, there is respect for neither men nor women. Without measurable distinctions, the sexes and genders virtually disappear and no designation carries meaning whatsoever. Thus, the counter-productivity of the movement is made evident. The system collapses because the revolution destroyed both sexual and gender identity for everyone who bought it. The implosion made war against women and men, which is the most radical sexism I have ever witnessed.

5) Social darwinism. I think about countries in which there are no lawful distinctions between sexes, genders, or races. Fluidity returns civilized countries to the dark-ages prior to any talk of civil or social rights (or rather, liberties). Fluidity, because it allows for self-identification, removes all of the protections women and minorities have fought for in the United States. The result? Survival of the fittest and dominance of the strong. What do we expect when a man identifies as a woman and demands equal rights? Athletics are no longer for women. Real, biological women, become oppressed despite all the progress we have really made to the contrary. The new interpretation of the equality act essentially makes equality impossible because non-distinction logically leads to social darwinism–the very thing equal rights protections guarded against. What we are seeing now is regress, and the women and minorities will suffer even though they are the ones being verbally exalted. The movement is one of the most blatant hypocrisies I have seen in my lifetime.

6) Comparison to the civil rights movements of the past. Liberation is all I hear, but the movement sure has seemed to enslave so many people such that they feel they need to fit themselves into society’s molds. I have heard it compared to the civil rights movements of our nation’s great history, but, alas, it is the opposite since it restores the rule of darwin rather than equity by effectively removing the ability of entire groups to exercise equally with others. Activism has evolved so much that we now fight for that which deactivates it. The push is nothing short of strange. After all, this is the twenty-first century and I am unsure why modern movements think it best to transport us back several thousand years to such a barbaric way of life–survival of the fittest… I am unsure why we would even think to promote such movements that criminalize equality and protection.

The truth about progress

You may not know this, so I am going to make it known. Life is not sex, regardless of what Freud or Robert California asserted. When people worship sex, society raises revolutionaries like Hugh Hefner and Larry Flint–who fought for feminists and sexual liberty so they could abuse women and use sexual freedom to profit. In their cases, sexual liberty conceived the porn industry. With each new sexual revolution, the porn industry expands. Like Robert California, big tech CEOs continue to defend sexual revolution because they can sell it[1]. As sexual liberation increases, so does trafficking and grooming and the abuse of women, girls, and boys[2]. The sexual revolution is not about love but dominance. It is led not by people who wish to self-identify in their pursuit of happiness but by big tech as it manipulates people according to their sexual desires. From this I learn one important thing–If I am hell-bent on getting what I want, I can be easily manipulated by flattery and enslaved by misappropriated words like “liberty” or “revolution.” In the case of sexual revolution, I am afraid the flag people unite under is a flag that lords its authority over them and declares war on people who really care. It is not a flag of liberation. People are wearing red to fit right in, not because they love their countrymen.

Further, gender dysphoria and sex confusion are forms of mental illness that correlate to high frequencies of other mental illnesses in the dysphoric population[3]. There is a reason that no matter how liberated people become, they still struggle about something as basic as identity. All people, in fact, seem to struggle with identity. Maybe we shouldn’t let society define our categories. Self-identifying is so unnatural and causes more self-harm than good. If I am ill and choose to justify my illness rather than get well, I will only derogate.

We have also gone beyond self-justification. We are allowing society to place our children into its made-up categories. The sexual revolution has now normalized the sexualization of minors and bamboozled parents into changing their children according to the sexual preferences of the world. I can prove to you that children cannot be transgender by revealing one fact: They did not invent the categories. Society told them how to identify and they did–like children do. I explained to my 3-year-old that he is a male because he has a penis, and he believes me. He believes me when I say he cannot grow up to be a dinosaur because biology doesn’t work that way. One type of animal cannot grow into another. We cannot be anything we want. He believes me because he is a child. Likewise, every child believes what he or she is taught until he or she is taught to question it. We do not have the preferences we have from the moment we are born. We learn to have them. We see the categories, decide where we want to fit, and our preferences follow. Base desire does not deal with categories or identity. It deals with pleasure and satisfaction–the need to be fulfilled. Further, the shaping of our preferences is lifelong, placid, moveable[4]. In short, we portray ourselves as who we want to be. We suffer identity crises because society shapes us and we change.

Concerning the sexual revolution:

  • The movement is built on assertions rather than scholarship.
  • The movement is actually bigoted and dogmatic, even though it often uses those terms to assault anyone who questions its assertions (even reasonably).
  • The movement encourages people to be selfish rather than actually love others.
  • The overall movement is harmful to society, especially women, girls, and boys.

The very things that people in the movement purport to defend are the things it destroys, all in the name of self. That’s called a bait and switch.

My appeal to homosexual, bisexual, transexual, and queer individuals

I want to ask you not to mistake my distaste for the sexual revolution as apathy for you. My heart goes out to you. I care for you. I am sorry no one took the time to tell you the truth about society’s false categories. I am sorry you haven’t been free to simply be rather than being confined to the categories that have been invented for you. I love my son enough not to hand him over to his preferences, else he would only eat cereal and ice-cream and never be a healthy adult. Many of you will not accept this truth. Many of your parents were so afraid to lose you that they handed you over to the preferences forced on you by society. I beg you to hear this. Life is not about your preferences. You don’t have to fit into those categories. The more we seek to justify ourselves, the more we harm everyone else and feed wretched industries that prey on our selfish desires. Those who wish to save their lives must first lose them.

References

  1. https://diggitymarketing.com/most-influential-tech-companies-2020/
  2. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/04/opinion/sunday/pornhub-rape-trafficking.html
  3. Freitas, Larissa Dias, RĂȘgo, Gabriela LĂ©da, Filho, Severino Bezerra, and Scippa, Ângela Miranda. “Psychiatric Disorders in Individuals Diagnosed with Gender Dysphoria: A Systematic Review.” Psychiatry & Clinical Neurosciences 74, no. 2 (February 2020): 99–104. 
  4. Keating, Daniel P. Nature and Nurture in Early Child Development. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2011. 34.

Vaccination Ethics

COVID-19 in light of the Messiah- loving our neighbors

The novel coronavirus has spun humanity into confusion. The human response, particularly in the United States, has further divided a people already split because of politics, social justice, and the current identity war. This season has been one of the more difficult to live like Christians are called to live because we live in such a politically charged era.

Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. Rejoice with those who rejoice, and weep with those who weep. Be of the same mind toward one another; do not be haughty in mind, but associate with the lowly. Do not be wise in your own estimation. Never pay back evil for evil to anyone. Respect what is right in the sight of all men. If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men.

Romans 12:14-18 (NASB)

If you try to live at peace with all people today, the radical left and right all get angry and wage a verbal war against you–and everyone seems to be either on the radical left or right. In an atmosphere where no one is happy no matter what decisions are made, it is tempting to move wholly to one side and hate those who oppose what we stand for.

Loving our neighbors has nothing to do with masks or vaccines. In fact, if we curse anyone because of his or her decisions, even enmity toward us, we have failed to love our neighbors. Love means denying self, blessing those who curse us, associating with the lowly, and living at peace with everyone as far as it depends on us–a lifestyle the defines neither the left nor right at this point in history. I see the Republicans. I see the Democrats. I see the Republican and Democrat Imperial Cults–which both refer to themselves as in some way ‘Christian.’ But, where are the real Christians? I don’t know if I see many at all.

👆Connect with Andrew👆

Under the standard of Christian love, I now turn my attention toward vaccination ethics. What are the real moral considerations related to the COVID-19 vaccine (and, frankly, all other vaccines)?

Vaccine development

Vaccine development is an astounding scientific accomplishment. The first vaccine was developed in 1796 to combat smallpox, which ravaged the world for 3,000 years[1]. Shortly thereafter, physicians began seeking proprietary rights to vaccine compositions[2]. In 1902, Congress passed what would be called the Biologics Control Act[3], which increased the speed at which vaccines could be developed and introduced a competitive vaccine market. Viruses could be combatted more quickly. But, vaccines became a competitive market rather than a caring gesture. Utopia is more accurate than most viewers think. Vaccine development is a prominent industry, particularly in the United States. Like overall healthcare has become, it is more about the market than public health despite the public health language used by those we see on the screen. More on that later. There are two moral considerations from the outset. 1) Current vaccine races are based on the love of money. 2) The world economic structure depends on health crises. These two facts help us to understand why worldly governments and companies respond the way they do, why the WHO says some of the things it says, and why the world is in its current state. The current one-world religion is a religion of finance.

Vaccine interests

When we read history, we recognize why the vaccination race has been at the forefront of wold news in the latter part of 2020 and into 2021. Consider the reported progression of COVID-19 [4]. On January 5, 2020, the WHO reported the outbreak in China. By November 2020, the pandemic was popularly perceived as “unprecedented” and several companies around the world were competing to develop vaccines and technologies to combat the pandemic. Companies were competing to make masks to sell. Con-artists started producing knock-off masks. If you didn’t buy a mask, you were a hateful bigot. Eight companies in the race to develop proprietary vaccines were and are [5]:

  1. Johnson & Johnson
  2. Pfizer
  3. Moderna
  4. AstraZeneca PLC
  5. GlaxoSmithKline
  6. CanSino Biologics
  7. Sinovac
  8. Novavax

These companies started research and development prior to June 2020. Their success depended on the worsening of the pandemic in the United States. Pfizer boasts a paycheck of $1.95 billion for the first 100 million doses of their proprietary vaccine, and multiple doses are required for each individual[6]. Corporations have a vested interest in making sure the public receives their vaccines. With the overall business nature of healthcare in the United States, there is much profit to be made from sickness and pandemic related illnesses and deaths. In more ways than one, the United States has produced a culture of death. Her money is dirty and her hands stained with the blood of her own citizens.

Here is a startling statistic for you. In 2019, pre COVID-19, there were 7.579 deaths per 1,000 people worldwide. In 2020, there were 7.612 deaths per 1,000 people worldwide[7]. The death rate was nearly the same in 2020 that it was in 2019. Yet, we are made to believe that the virus was causing more deaths than would have occurred anyway. While I cannot speak as to the cause, I can speak to correlation. Industry and the healthcare marketplace depend on sickness. The pandemic is certainly real. I think it is exaggerated because of our consumer religion. It is not unprecedented. If it was not exasperated for the sake of proprietary industry, we might not have noticed its effects at all. But, to make money you have to create demand and outdo your competitors. That’s the culture we have evolved into as the United States–for the sake of our bottom lines, we put out small businesses, force people to stay home, create unnecessary panic, and make billions for the healthcare and vaccination industries in America.

So, the healthcare industry (not to be confused with all healthcare or healthcare workers) is a basically immoral industry. The United States government’s buy-in to the healthcare industry is basically immoral. It is immoral because it comes from the love of money. In today’s world, if people are buying health from you, you own them. Money is power.

Even though the industry is immoral and worldly, we must ask the question for individuals thinking about receiving the vaccine. Even though the industry is immoral, it may or may not be immoral to receive the vaccine. The vaccine, itself, is amoral–it is not inherently good or evil. I turn my attention, now, to the ethical considerations of receiving the vaccine.

Vaccine acceptance

There is a misconception about the vaccines. The COVID-19 vaccines produced by Pfizer and Moderna do not, in fact, contain any aborted fetal stem cells[8]. Cells cultured from fetal cells harvested in the mid 70s were used to test the vaccine in order to ensure they worked. Which means the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines were tested in a way vaccines have never been tested before, to my knowledge. The cells that the vaccines were tested on did not even come directly from people and the vaccines needed not be tested initially on human test subjects. I will write about abortion ethics later. We should ask whether or not receiving a vaccine made using stem cells from aborted fetuses is morally right. But, those questions are removed from the debate about the COVID-19 vaccines.

It is beneficial, though, to discuss the use of 1970-80s elective abortion cells to culture those used to test the vaccine. The use of such cells does not make the one using them a participant with the one who aborted the child. If I die and my body is used for science, the scientists are not guilty of murdering me. In fact, I hope my body can be useful for others. If, however, a market is built around haggling for fetal cells, we have an ethical problem to deal with like that of the vaccination industry. Such an industry in unlawful in the United States[9]. There is also an ethical consideration related to the individual’s ability to opt-in. I can say that I approve of my body being used for science after my death. A fetus has no opportunity. His or her freedoms are stripped. The unborn child is the most oppressed class of person in America. If a vaccine contains stem-cells, then, the one who produced the vaccine has done so immorally–not because there is something unethical about using bodies for science, but because there is something immoral about not seeing all human beings as created with equal worth and sanctified under God. The question is not one of mere treatment of a stem cell but of human identity, personhood, and the worth of human life.

To mandate anything for anyone is an act of dictation. The more our culture becomes a culture of expertism and activism, the more will be dictated from the top down. It seems to me, we might better honor people and facilitate equity by informing the public and trusting people to make their own decisions like adults.

Should you get the vaccine?

I am not here to tell you whether or not to receive the vaccine. We are not responsible for the sins of others or the industry. What people mean for evil, God means for good (cf. Genesis 50:20). Kati and I will probably not receive the vaccine because we are concerned about the possible side-effects related to fertility. The side-effects of any vaccine cannot be known until it has been around and those side-effects have manifested. I firmly believe in God’s sovereignty and His promise to heal the land upon the repentance of the nation (2 Chronicles 7:14).

You do not have to feel guilty about a COVID-19 vaccine. As far as conspiracies go, there might be evidence suggesting a conspiracy to get as many people to take the vaccine as possible because corporations love money. Such is the case anytime worldly people push their agendas. The vaccine is not the mark of the beast. We do not have to fear a pandemic that changed things so little on its own. We should, though, know that the pandemic is real. Despite its inseverity, it can and does kill. We count the costs reasonably in the context of our current cultural economy, not jumping on any political fear-mongering train, and make decisions to the best of our abilities. We live without regrets because God is the righteousness of those who are in Christ.

References

  1. Rutschman, Ana Santos. “The Vaccine Race in the 21St Century.” Arizona Law Review 61, no. 4 (December 2019): 735.
  2. Arthur Allen, Vaccine: The Controversial Story of Medicine’s Greatest Lifesaver, New York: W.W. Norton & Co, 2007. 50.
  3. Pub. L. No. 57-244, 32 Stat. 728 (1902)
  4. https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/interactive-timeline?gclid=Cj0KCQiAyJOBBhDCARIsAJG2h5dzOa9bzC5q3BbwI3TZV8UKxXSb41jtDbYXKKx2n2_29sooChsqDZAaAt9zEALw_wcB#event-6
  5. CFRA via https://www.forbes.com/sites/moneyshow/2020/06/16/9-pharmaceutical-companies-racing-for-a-covid-19-vaccine/?sh=7f2e91b376ad
  6. https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/pfizer-and-biontech-announce-agreement-us-government-600#:~:text=The%20U.S.%20government%20will%20pay,an%20additional%20500%20million%20doses.
  7. https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/WLD/world/death-rate
  8. https://www.nebraskamed.com/COVID/you-asked-we-answered-do-the-covid-19-vaccines-contain-aborted-fetal-cells
  9. NIH Revitalization Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. 103-43.

Welcome to LN

I have been burdened for a long time now about the state of American morality, especially concerning politics–rather, the inability of Americans to reason with others concerning their moral stances. Assertions and mere accusations do little to persuade or show a moral stance righteous.

Since my life and ministry have been so public, I have withheld my comments for the most part. I do not preach politics from the pulpit. My primary blog is so worldwide that commenting about issues particular to the United States makes little sense on that platform. Up until now, I have resolved simply to produce biblical expository content. I will still not preach politics. My preaching and primary blog will remain simple biblical exposition. I do feel that I bear some responsibility to speak into the moral state of things in my country because I love my country. I have decided to speak. This blog will bear a much more philosophical tone than my preaching or biblical commentary (which is expository, not philosophical, in nature). I will not tell others what to think. I will not at this time endorse political candidates or legislation. I will not take the position of a political discernment blogger. I want you to think for yourselves. I desire to speak to national moral issues that face the most powerful nation on Earth. I want to do so for the following reasons:

👆Connect with Andrew👆

Confusion about my beliefs

I spend most of my time simply teaching Scripture. I must be a decent expositor because people often assume I believe things that I do not–especially politically. Preaching the Bible is not about presenting my political opinion but about revealing the word of God. It is a good thing that people find it difficult to discern where I am on the political spectrum when I teach the Bible because it means I am teaching the Bible well instead of ranting about my political views. This platform affords me the opportunity to be open about what I believe concerning current trends in my country in a logical way (as opposed to plastering unreasoned assertions on social media).

Lack of logic

In order to earn a Bachelor of Arts or Master of Arts degree in philosophy, every student must pass a critical thinking or logic class. In my critical thinking class, I remember watching a presidential debate for the purpose of identifying all the logical fallacies. I remember identifying many logical fallacies throughout–mostly ad hominem attacks, straw-men, and red-herrings. If you pay any attention at all, almost every political debate degenerates quickly into name-calling, misrepresenting opposing viewpoints, and diverting attention from the issues or philosophies that matter to issues or philosophies that win voters. We are left with a political system in which presidents win elections based on their identification with people rather than their ability to solve real-world problems. As a result, they enslave themselves to their platform, policy, and people. If a president does not continue to win people, he will not be reelected. That trajectory seems recently familiar. Public office has become more a celebrity status because we are concerned about approval ratings rather than whether or not a public servant is thinking through issues well and taking meaningful action–by action I do not mean control.

I am a conservative, and I voted for President Trump in 2016 and 2020, so I hope my conservative friends don’t make too many assumptions based on what I write here. I remember studying President Trump’s rise to power. Trump built his real-estate empire by cheating people into forced labor, conning New York City into granting him tax-breaks that no one else received, and firing anyone who stepped in his way[1]. While I like what he was able to accomplish as POTUS, I am afraid he did so in a way that incited greater disputes, pushed the left further left[2], and created the trump evangelicalism and Q-Anon cult of our day–religions built on power ideals and superiority complexes[3].

This past election season, things were not better. Instead of reason, we witnessed a power struggle between two opposite ideals–complete with ad hominem attacks, straw-men, and red-herrings[4]. Identity politics won the day. President Biden is just like Trump when it comes to power, possibly worse–signing quadruple the number of executive orders during his first few days in office that Trump did and introducing legislation to further regulate firearm sales and codify Roe v. Wade[5]. The increasing use of executive orders means the expanding use of big government overreach to force change. A general rule of thumb–the more executive orders being signed, the less representation American citizens have in Washington. President Biden has claimed to work for the American people and had President Obama accuse President Trump of “two-bit” dictatorship, yet already operates in a way that excludes the voice of the American people by himself dictating what should and shall be done by the American people[6]. Reading through the tens of executive orders signed up to this point[7], it is clear that they will cost the American people trillions in higher taxes, which means a large portion of the American people are therefore being taxed without meaningful representation in Washington–the basis upon which the revolutionary war was fought against English colonialists[8]. Essentially, President Biden is treating the American people like his subjects and the united states like colonies of the federal government. That’s a monarchy, not a democracy.

The whole system is about popularity and power. Those trying to speak reasonably are silenced because the system seems to view knowledge as a threat. To the contrary, if the public is informed, less resources have to be expended on legislation, welfare, and economic crises. Public knowledge=public power=public progress. More legislation=greater dependance=deeper ignorance=higher maintenance. Break these chains and let American ingenuity thrive.

Ethical ambiguity

Concerning current trends, I want to present a formula in order to prove that the current system will never facilitate equality. The meaning of discrimination has been changing in recent years to mean nondistinction. For the sake of argument, I am going to assume that equality means nondistinction:

  • P1- If all people are equal, women are equal to men.
  • P2- Men are physiologically stronger than women.
  • C- Therefore, all people are not equal.

At least, they are not equal in strength. Nondistinction necessarily creates inequality. One sex can obviously overpower another. Such is one reason there are historically clear distinctions between the two natural sexes and why, historically, civil rights have been concerned about giving women more equal opportunity–so that women can be seen as having equal worth as men (a movement I fully support)[9].

When there are no sex-distinctions, we eliminate any ability to offer one or the other equal opportunity. Society plummets into social darwinism–survival of the fittest. The current push for non-distinction[10] is made in the name of equality and will effectively undo all of the women’s civil rights progress made throughout history in America. The state essentially becomes a neopatriarchy. The movement toward nondistinction is one of the more sexist movements I have witnessed in my lifetime. Yet, men and women pursue nondistinction and gender fluidity as if it were a form of feminism. The moral ideal of nondistinction is incoherent at best, proving moral ambiguity in our time–not to mention the inability to think critically about issues and outcomes. I am not a consequentialist, but those who are should be very afraid of the logical outcome. According to the nondistinct definition of equality, no equality is actually possible.

I offer a second formula to further my point. Assuming equality means nondistinction:

  • P1- If all people are equal, African Americans (AA) are equal to Anglo-Saxon Americans (ASA).
  • P2- AA and ASA have different skin colors, cultures, music, demeanors, bone structures, etc…
  • C- Therefore, all people are not equal.

When Rev. King peacefully fought for the equal rights of AA[11], he did not fight for them to escape all forms of judgement but to be judged by the content of their character[12]. Rev. King defined equality much differently than most do today. It wasn’t nondistinction but personhood. Today, the push for nondistinction in order to end racism creates a worse racism. Nondistinction leads to forced integration. Forced integration leads to the conflation of different cultures and languages–effectively smothering any sort of diversity. The conflation of different cultures and languages forces aberrant cultures and languages to be canceled. Cancel culture leads to retributive programs in order to cancel the cultural sins of past generations. History is torn down. People are left with a legislated uniformity–cultural colorblindness. Nondistinction steals the black man’s culture away from him. It steals the white man’s culture from him. It forces integration and mocks heritage. The fight against discrimination is now the worst kink of discrimination. We are no longer multi-ethnic and multicultural. America is becoming more racist–uniformity masquerading as diversity. If you’ve seen The Giver, you know what is happening in America. Uniformity does not equal equality. Many are forwarding racist and sexist agendas in the name of equality. Why? Our ethic is incoherent and ambiguous at best. That’s why the decisions being made for the American people seem so contradictory. To the contrary, if equality concerns personhood:

  • P1- If all people are equal, they are judged by the same standard.
  • P2- The same standard does not apply to all people under the current system.
  • C- Therefore, all people are not equal under the current socio-economic, political system.

This sort of equality is being ignored but is achievable. In order to facilitate equity among persons, the rich cannot be treated differently than the impoverished. True equity taxes and represents all people by the same standard–not in a graduated way. Impoverished people cannot be stolen by offering free citizenship or welfare. People cannot be exalted because of the color of their skin. True equity affords all people the same opportunities rather than exalting or silencing anyone based on their identities. Physiologically stronger people cannot be enabled toward dominance. Those who can’t defend themselves cannot be murdered in order to increase the general health and wealth of the nation. The current system is self-defeating and will intensify discrimination rather than end it. We can only facilitate equity by caring for all people rather than our national statistics or social identity. I hope to address the moral ambiguity of our current cultural climate in single, pore precise posts in the upcoming weeks and months.

Legislative dominance

I’m sure you noticed it in the first half of 2020. Instead of informing the public about COVID-19 and letting citizens be adults, federal and state governments simply tried to legislate restrictions and business in the name of safety. Welcome to legislation nation–The United States. In the past several years, we have seen an exponential increase in the signing of legislation to solve problems. Gun violence? Here is some legislation. Discrimination? Here is more legislation. Our response to a pandemic? Legislation… The legislation in this country has gotten so out of hand that all three branches of our government (Executive, legislative, and judicial) are all taking it upon themselves to try to pass legislation. The executives are signing orders that seem to hold the weight of law. The legislative is moving bills through both houses of congress. The supreme court seems to be legalizing things[13]. With essentially three legislative branches, there are no checks and balances–no real accountability for the good of the people or assurance of equal representation for American citizens. Having a democratic executive and legislative branch decreases more the likelihood of checks and balances between the branches.

Our country is currently operated by an accumulation of powers, but it was designed to operate based on a separation of powers–to ensure that no dictator would gain power and run the country by means of actions like executive orders. The constitutional design of the American government was mean to prevent the type of dictorial actions we have seen more of in recent history. I hope to speak moral reason into a society now dominated by legislation rather than reason.

Political badminton

Our government is like a bad game of badminton. Republicans stand on one side and Democrats on the other. Every four or eight years, they toss legislation back and forth each in an effort to score higher than the other team. As a result, more executive orders are necessitated with each new president and the country is focussed on undoing the previous administration’s work rather than moving forward. Consequently, the United States is a nation of contradictory rules (e.g. elevate women but cancel gender, make retribution for the past but cancel the past so it isn’t remembered, be united but tell on your neighbor for not wearing a mask, or love culture but make all things uniform). Our addiction to legislation has crippled us.

Positives

There will, for the time being, always be negative things to address. We need to do that. We cannot, though, fail to recognize the good and be encouraging. During the last four years, we had a president who consistently donated his entire paycheck back to the people and seemed to be for the people even though his methods were not praiseworthy. The current administration desires to care more for God’s creation and use more renewable resources. In the case of the current democratic platform, the actions do not match the rhetoric. Yes, we desire equality. No, we do not desire the villianization of different groups in order to achieve equality. Like Jesus said of the Pharisees: Accept some their principles, but do not follow them (cf. Matthew 23:3). Many states are signing laws against abortion despite the federal push to expand it.

I trust in Jesus Christ’s promise to bring peace and justice to the world. Everything we see as wrong is being worked together to accomplish the divine purpose and the establishment of Christ’s nation on the earth. I hope our consideration of the national ethics in the United States draw us to consider the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We do not have to fear. We do not have to speak hatefully or namecall. We can evaluate trends reasonably and speak life into our land. Perhaps, God will grant us all repentance and lead us into all truth.

Takeaways

  1. Safety vs. freedom is not a new conflict. It is also not a necessary conflict. The conflict indicates a power struggle more than a sincere care for the American people.
  2. Legislative badminton doesn’t accomplish much more than creating philosophical conflict–which is interesting from a party that claims to want unity.
  3. Knowledge is power is progress. Inform the public rather than trying to legislate regulations without much substantial explanation.
    • This applies to gun-control, mask mandates, business regulations, industry, and so on. More regulations means less progress and prosperity.

A final thought

I work with people in impoverished nations all over the world. None of those I am connected with in impoverished nations around the world wanted President Biden. No matter what you or I think about Trump as a person, his policies were benefitting impoverished people worldwide. In the United States, we have a dangerous tendency to compare ourselves to other 1st world countries, and we define progress in terms of the general consensus of the world. Why? Should we not be more concerned about people’s good than our own social progress according to the standards of nations we once surpassed in wealth, power, and innovation? Should we not consider others to be more important than ourselves? We don’t make America great by domineering (in either the Trump or Biden sense), but by serving the good of all people–beginning with America.

Things to be thinking about

  • Is it morally right to accept a vaccine that was developed and tested using fetal stem cells cultured from mid 70s aborted fetuses?
  • Is health and wealth really bettered by getting rid of those who threaten our health and wealth?
  • How does a nation re-separate the branch-powers in order to restore a government by the people and for the people?
  • What are the moral issues underlying the closed vs. open borders debate?
  • Does it help or hurt to push any agenda without the opposing political party’s involvement?
  • Are economic impact payments really helpful. How did we get here?

Please subscribe to this blog and we will philosophize more particularly together. My posts on this blog (after this one) will be single-topic ethics posts. In this short introduction, I could not get at ethical argumentation. The issues mentioned in this post are merely mentioned to show the moral ambiguity of our society, politically charged atmosphere, and the need for more basic philosophical reasoning concerning the moral issues of our day.

Before destruction the heart of man is haughty, But humility goes before honor. He who gives an answer before he hears, It is folly and shame to him. The spirit of a man can endure his sickness, But as for a broken spirit who can bear it? The mind of the prudent acquires knowledge, And the ear of the wise seeks knowledge. A man’s gift makes room for him And brings him before great men. The first to plead his case seems right, Until another comes and examines him. The cast lot puts an end to strife And decides between the mighty ones. A brother offended is harder to be won than a strong city, And contentions are like the bars of a citadel. With the fruit of a man’s mouth his stomach will be satisfied; He will be satisfied with the product of his lips. Death and life are in the power of the tongue, And those who love it will eat its fruit.

Proverbs 18:12-21 (NASB)

References

  1. Miller, Justin. “Trump’s Riches and the Real Estate Tax Racket: The Industry Where You Really Can Make Billions and Pay No Taxes.” The American Prospect, no. 4 (2016): 20-25.
  2. Bilali, Rezarta, Erin Brooke Godfrey, and Samuel Hansen Freel. “How an Election Loss Leads to a Social Movement: Reactions to the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election among Liberals Predict Later Collective Action and Social Movement Identification.” British Journal of Social Psychology 59, no. 1 (January 2020): 227–47.
  3. Myers, William R. “Following Trump: Are Evangelicals Willing Participants in a ‘New’ Religion?” Theology Today 76, no. 2 (July 2019): 103–13.
  4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wW1lY5jFNcQ; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPiofmZGb8o; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCA1A5GqCdQ
  5. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/
  6. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPcXJdXEXNc
  7. https://www.federalregister.gov/presidential-documents/executive-orders/joe-biden/2021
  8. https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript
  9. https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/federal-antidiscrimination-laws-29451.html
  10. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/20/executive-order-preventing-and-combating-discrimination-on-basis-of-gender-identity-or-sexual-orientation/
  11. Williams, Reggie L. “Christ-Centered Concreteness: The Christian Activism of Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Martin Luther King Jr.” Dialog 53, no. 3 (Fall 2014): 185–94.
  12. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vP4iY1TtS3s
  13. “Supreme Court’s Landmark Ruling Legalizes Homosexual Marriage Nationwide!” Voice of Freedom, The (USA), June 27, 2015.