Category Archives: Ethics

The Insanity of Gender Theory

Think fast.

A person with short, combed hair, and no makeup walks up to you wearing a suit. What gender is this person.

The person’s sex cannot be in doubt. There are two sexes; it is in the nature of sexual reproduction to have two sexes. One is male, and the other is female.

No, my question is to which gender a person is. The answer is that it is impossible to tell, given the fact that the term, when not used in linguistics, is for all practical purposes the greatest example of intellectual fuzziness and ambiguity available.

The person could identify as a man and be a biological male. The person could identify as a female and be a biological male and wear male clothes and act like a male. In fact, a man could simply be living a normal and say “I identify as a woman” without changing in a single way, and it would fall within the category of transgendered.

One would suspect that it would be difficult to build a punitive framework around this concept for anyone who did not find purchase in it. After all, how can someone be penalized for not fully understanding something that, by its own nature, cannot be understood? But one would be wrong. Utterly wrong.

Not only are there penalties for those who do not adhere to a philosophy grounded on ambiguous nothingness, the penalties themselves are severe. Social ostracism, losing a job, and dealing with financial penalties are not uncommon. Simply not being enthusiastic enough about the anti-philosophy of Gender Theory is sufficient in many cases.

Large companies across the United States are, in order to cater to the sexual radicals that make up the bulk of the cultural elite, increasingly enforcing the proclamations of Gender Theorists on anyone and everyone. Within a year of the first efforts to allow biological men into the biological women’s restroom (and mind you, the restrooms are divided by biological sex and not gender, else there would be urinals in both or neither), there are now boycotts of entire states who do not comply with the newly enhanced Gender Theory proclamation that requires it be permitted.

The United States is treading some familiar territory to those who lived in the fascist pits of despair popularized in the 20th century. Freedom of speech and conscience are not only limited, but are limited precisely where they ought to be most free: in the expression of true statements. “Men are men and cannot conceivably feel like women” is anathema. Despite the fact that no human being can ever feel like another in total, because we are ourselves and not someone else, it is taken for granted that a man can know what a woman feels like so thoroughly that he himself becomes one. In a sane society, this might be seen as a severe mental illness, but in an insane society, it is normalized just as one would expect. In order for a civilization to go insane, it must normalize insanity and institutionalize sanity.


Jesus on Divorce

ancient-jewish-wedding-customsFrom Matthew 19

When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went into the region of Judea to the other side of the Jordan. Large crowds followed him, and he healed them there.

Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”

“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

“Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”

Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

The authentically Christian view of marriage and divorce is despised as much by those who claim to follow Christ as those who do not. Consistent Biblical mandates about the headship of the husband are transformed into the husband submitting to the whims of his wife. Consistent Biblical mandates about the submission of wives to their husbands is seen as oppressive even in Christian circles. Even when the concept is accepted, there is a substitution for the extra-Biblical construct of “mutual submission”. If mutual submission, why not mutual leadership? The two are the same, and both are clunky ways of saying “Democracy”. Is that really how Jesus relates to His church?

As badly as Christians misrepresent Christian teaching about marriage, the Christian teaching and treatment of divorce is even worse. Jesus declares that divorce is never right, and remarriage after divorce except for sexual immorality is adultery. Somehow, modern Christians have got it into their heads that divorce is right in myriad circumstances. Emotional abuse and unhappiness are frequently used as excuses for divorce, despite the fact that both of those entirely subjective measures are not mentioned once in all of Scripture as a cause for divorce.

Modern Christians often have no problem with divorce and are blind to the overwhelming moral qualities of it. The rest might have a problem with something, but it isn’t divorce itself. Often, and despite not being treated as leaders in their home, husbands are blamed for the negative behavior of their wives – including divorce if it occurs. Instead of blaming the person who initiates a divorce (which is usually the wife), Christian leaders blame the husband for not doing enough. This contradicts Christ, who gives no circumstance that ever justifies divorce, and Paul, who always describes the roles of husband and wife as unconditional.

If Christians want to learn to follow God’s Will, they could certainly do worse than following his clear moral teaching on marriage and divorce. As it stands, it’s a bit of an embarrassment to be surrounded by Christian leniency toward divorce when one of the chief complaints that non-Christians have about Christianity is the hypocrisy of it’s adherents.

Don’t Judge Me

It's always wrong to judge decisions that other people make, right?

It’s always wrong to judge decisions that other people make, right?

No one says “don’t judge me” when they are proud of something they’ve done. It is never used to express modesty. You don’t hear anyone say “don’t judge me for giving all of my money to the poor”.

The phrase is used exclusively when someone feels guilty about having done something that is obviously wrong. It is almost always used in a situation where sound judgment, spoken in good faith, would be the best possible thing to ask for.

Christians of all people should know better than the use the phrase, but as in many things, many of the people who claim to be Christ’s followers resemble the world around them more than their Lord. The Bible does not unilaterally condemn judgment. The oft cited verses (Matthew 7:1 and Luke 6:37) that say “do not judge, or you too will be judged” are never cited in full context. Christ qualifies the statement by telling His disciples that they ought to make sure that they apply the same standard to themselves that they apply to others. He says at another time (John 7:24) to “judge with righteous judgment”.

Without the ability to judge the actions of other people, we wouldn’t be able to have a legal system. It would be impossible to enforce laws. You wouldn’t be able to avoid a known serial killer because to even call him a serial killer is an act of judgment. You wouldn’t be able to lock your doors at night lest you judge the sort of people who might try to enter your home.

Whenever you are tempted to say “don’t judge me”, it would be wiser to instead stop doing the act you don’t want judged. Chances are, if it’s worth doing, you wouldn’t be asking for people to overlook it.

Instant-Gratification Morality

If you were to ask the average person today what constitutes a moral view of the world, and if you happened upon a person who did not have a thoroughly relativistic outlook on things, the most common answer you would hear is that something is immoral when it hurts another person. By this they mean to say hurts another person directly, against their consent.

In this model of morality, the idea of consent is vested with all sorts of powers that it ought not to be because it is not powerful enough. It would be like building a house on one of its corners instead of on the foundation. Consent is simply not capable of supporting an entire moral framework.

Putting too much onto consent is one problem with this moral outlook so popular today, but it is hardly the only problem. Modern man is obsessed with instant gratification. It should not surprise us that when a culture that demands to get what it wants the moment the demand is made that ethics would be trivialized to match. In times past when men spent time thinking through moral issues instead of responding with their unfiltered and immediate emotional reaction, it was taken as self-evident that morality extended beyond direct harm. It may not be direct harm, say, to allow two people of the same sex to pretend to be married and then adopt children; though this is certainly up for debate. Considerable harm is done, however, to the child, who is deprived at least one of their real parents.