Intelligent Design

Will Your Conscience be a Casualty in the Progressives’ War on Science?

Spread the love

In recent months I have increasingly been called on to give advice to my school clients regarding the rights of so-called transgender students.  The Civil Rights Division in my state (Colorado) has imposed a very strict legal regimen on schools regarding these students, and what that regimen lacks in subtlety it makes up for in predictability.  The law is, essentially, this:  Transgender students get whatever they want.  Does that boy want to use the girls’ restroom?  Then he gets to.  Does he want to change clothes and shower in the girls’ locker room?  Then he gets to.  Does he want to wear dresses?  Then he gets to, etc., etc., etc.

Progressives – such as those who dominate the Colorado Civil Rights Division – have declared war on reality, and one of the casualties of that war has been legal recognition of the self-evident scientific fact that human sexuality is binary and fixed.  I am sure our progressive friends will dispute this self-evident fact – just as they have disputed that the law of noncontradiction and 2+2=4 are self-evident.  That someone disputes a self-evident fact does not mean it is not self-evident.  It means that person’s reasoning is disordered.  I will not “argue” for this self-evident fact, because to argue for a self-evident fact is to concede implicitly that it is not self-evident, that it can be demonstrated by appeal to more basic precepts.  If someone disputes that 2+2=4, there is literally no reasoning with them, because they have rejected reason itself.

Until ten minutes ago the American Psychiatric Association recognized in its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (the DSM) that rejection of the binary nature of human sexuality was a mental disorder called gender identity disorder.  The latest edition of the DSM, however, has ejected gender identity disorder and replaced it with a new term, “gender dysphoria.”  Gender dysphoria is anxiety over gender identify issues – not the gender identity issue itself.  And the recommended treatment is not to try to get the patient to square his views with reality but to get him to become comfortable with his rejection of reality.

But a man is not a woman and never will be, even if he is surgically altered.  A woman is not a man and never will be, even if she is surgically altered.  Anyone who says otherwise is a liar.

Recently one of my clients asked me, “what if one of my staff members refuses to call this boy a girl or refuses to use feminine pronouns when referring to him?”  What indeed?  The boy is not a girl.  It is one thing for the Colorado Civil Rights Division to require the school to allow him to act as if he were a girl.  But it is an entirely different matter to require members of the school’s staff to actually say (either expressly or by implication through use of feminine pronouns) that  he is a girl.  It is one thing to allow the little boy to lie; it is something else to require a staff member to participate in the lie.  So what is the school to do?  Must it fire or otherwise discipline a staff member who refuses to participate in the lie that a boy is a girl?

This issue has not been adjudicated yet in Colorado, but other jurisdictions have spoken.  The New York City Commission on Human Rights, for example, requires employers, landlords, and all businesses and professionals to use an employee’s, tenant’s, customer’s, or client’s preferred pronoun regardless of the individual’s sex assigned at birth.  The New York Commission not only celebrates the lie; it  requires others to join it.  I am reminded of O’Brien’s interrogation of Winston in 1984:

‘You are a slow learner, Winston,’ said O’Brien gently.

‘How can I help it?’ he blubbered. ‘How can I help seeing what is in front of my eyes?  Two and two are four.’

‘Sometimes, Winston. Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once. You must try harder.

If you were hauled before the New York Commission, you might say “How can I help seeing the self-evident binary nature of human sexuality?  There is male.  There is female.  There are no other options; to force me to say otherwise would be to force me lie.”  To which some functionary of the Commission would respond, “You are a slow learner.  There are many genders.  You must try harder.”

At that point you will be faced with a choice.  You can stand firm, refuse to participate in the lie, and accept the consequences.  Or you can, like Winston, learn to love Big Brother.

As for me, if I am ever faced with this choice, I will resist the tyranny as Alexander Solzhenitsyn did — through personal non-participation in lies, and I will accept the consequences, just as he did.  I will leave you with an excert from Solzhenitsyn’s Live Not By Lies dated February 12, 1974 (the same day he was arrested):

When violence intrudes into peaceful life, its face glows with self-confidence, as if it were carrying a banner and shouting: ‘I am violence. Run away, make way for me — I will crush you.’ But violence quickly grows old. And it has lost confidence in itself, and in order to maintain a respectable face it summons falsehood as its ally — since violence can conceal itself with nothing except lies, and the lies can be maintained only by violence. And violence lays its ponderous paw not every day and not on every shoulder. It demands from us only obedience to lies and daily participation in lies — all loyalty lies in that.

And the simplest and most accessible key to our self-neglected liberation lies right here: Personal non-participation in lies. Though lies conceal everything, though lies embrace everything, we will be obstinate in this smallest of matters: Let them embrace everything, but not with any help from me.

It’s dangerous. But let us refuse to say that which we do not think.

No, it will not be the same for everybody at first. Some, at first, will lose their jobs. For young people who want to live with truth, this will, in the beginning, complicate their young lives very much, because the required recitations are stuffed with lies, and it is necessary to make a choice.

And he who is not sufficiently courageous even to defend his soul — don’t let him be proud of his ‘progressive’ views, and don’t let him boast that he is an academician or a people’s artist, a merited figure, or a general — let him say to himself: I am in the herd, and a coward. It’s all the same to me as long as I’m fed and warm.

You say it will not be easy? But it will be easiest of all possible resources. It will not be an easy choice for a body, but it is only one for a soul. No, it is not an easy path. But there are already people, even dozens of them, who over the years have maintained all these points and live by the truth.

So you will not be the first to take this path, but will join those who have already taken it. This path will be easier and shorter for all of us if we take it by mutual efforts and in close rank. If there are thousands of us, they will not be able to do anything with us. If there are tens of thousands of us, then we would not even recognize our country.

If we are too frightened, then we should stop complaining that someone is suffocating us. We ourselves are doing it. Let us then bow down even more, let us wait, and our brothers the biologists will help to bring nearer the day when they are able to read our thoughts are worthless and hopeless.

And if we get cold feet, even taking this step, then we are worthless and hopeless, and the scorn of Pushkin should be directed to us:

‘Why should cattle have the gifts of freedom?

‘Their heritage from generation to generation is the belled yoke and the lash.’

 

 

 

52 Replies to “Will Your Conscience be a Casualty in the Progressives’ War on Science?

  1. 1
    Heartlander says:

    Bravo Mr. Arrington – and we shall soon see if our First Amendment Rights will be preserved…

    You need the First Amendment precisely when your ideas offend others or flout the majority’s orthodoxies. And then it protects more than your freedom to speak your mind; it guards your freedom not to speak the mind of another.

    Thus, in classic “compelled speech” rulings, the Supreme Court has protected the right not to be forced to say, do or create anything expressing a message one rejects. Most famously, in West Virginia v. Barnette (1943), it barred a state from denying Jehovah’s Witnesses the right to attend public schools if they refused to salute the flag. In Wooley v. Maynard (1977), the court prevented New Hampshire from denying people the right to drive if they refused to display on license plates the state’s libertarian-flavored motto “live free or die.”

    On Tuesday, the court will consider whether Colorado may deny Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, the right to sell custom wedding cakes because he cannot in conscience create them for same-sex weddings. Mr. Phillips, who has run his bakery since 1993, sells off-the-shelf items to anyone, no questions asked. But he cannot deploy his artistic skills to create cakes celebrating themes that violate his religious and moral convictions. Thus he does not design cakes for divorce parties, lewd bachelor parties, Halloween parties or same-sex weddings.
    A Baker’s First Amendment Rights

  2. 2
  3. 3
    Mark from CO says:

    I too applaud Mr. Arrington. May we have the same courage.

    I do wonder, however, if Heartlander above is conflating two issues: The clearly 1st Amendment issue that Mr. Arrington describes and the CO case involving the baker. While perhaps the resolution of the two may be same (let one do as his conscience directs), I’m not sure the second is a purely 1st Amendment issue. The second deals with primarily with commerce (unlike Heartlander’s two SCOTUS examples), which has differing legal and Constitutional rules attached. To say that Mr. Philips can do as his conscience says, is to say that Mr. X, a real estate lessor, can deny renting to a black, because Mr. X. says it is against his conscience. To enter into public commerce is in part, to accept the conventions of the broader society. The 1st Amendment lets us freely enter into the public dialogues of our society, I’m not sure it allows us to pick and choose when a part of society’s commerce. To do so would encourage chaos. While very sympathetic to the second example, the analysis is not as straight forward.

  4. 4
    Heartlander says:

    The article ends with:

    At some level, Colorado itself gets it. Three times the state has declined to force pro-gay bakers to provide a Christian patron with a cake they could not in conscience create given their own convictions on sexuality and marriage. Colorado was right to recognize their First Amendment right against compelled speech. It’s wrong to deny Jack Phillips that same right.

  5. 5
    Barry Arrington says:

    Mark from CO,

    If the issue were whether Mr. Phillips can be compelled to sell cakes to homosexual couples, I would agree with you. That is not the issue. Mr. Phillips is willing, even eager, to sell cakes to homosexual people and has done so many times. In his case, the issue is whether the state can compel to use his artistic expression to celebrate a homosexual wedding. It is a compelled speech case, pure and simple. The government cannot compel an artist to communicate a message that violates his conscience.

  6. 6
    News says:

    Yes the naturalists’ war on reality is waged street by street now.

    Barry, please understand, it does not matter what is true now. Consciousness is an illusion and science is merely “what scientists do.” There are no facts, there is no evidence, apart from what government wants, and government wants this stuff. The trend is far advanced in Canada but I need to (and will) get back to base to report on that, if of interest.

    Put simply: Progressivism in politics today is an outcome of post-modernism. It is post-fact so evidence is irrelevant.

    And there is no longer any such thing as an artist’s conscience. It is an illusion of his selfish genes.

    If anyone did think that there are facts and care about them, there is an analogy to the “transgender kids” claims in the “recovered memories” debacle of the 1980s, which just missed the age of the internet and featured similarly fullblown and damaging hysteria. I wrote about it here:

    Transgender tots, Part I: The recovered memories hysteria: A warning from recent history

    Transgender tots, Part II: Unravelling the recovered memories hysteria

    Transgender tots, Part III: Children are at risk when they exist only to enact parents’ beliefs

  7. 7
    kairosfocus says:

    Where things already are, reductio ad absurdum: http://www.breitbart.com/big-h.....r-neutral/

    PS: I have learned in recent days of the imposition by legislative fiat of an intrusive biometric ID card in Jamaica, complete with lockout from doing business with the Gov’t and by extension banking sector and much of the private sector. I can only find signs of disorganised, grass-roots objection and it seems a parliamentary walk-out. On looking at state papers I do not find signs of any serious examination of the dangers.

  8. 8
    Mark from CO says:

    Barry:

    Thank you for the clarification. I agree with you regarding the clarification. It will be interesting to see on what basis the ruling will be made. My major point about commerce still stands. Rules are different. It will be interesting if SCOTUS carves out a 1st amendment exception and how broad that will be.

    Why aren’t right leaning legal firms out suing the gay bakers denying service to Christians? Unfortunately, free speech advocates will need to take the offensive, and not rely on the state.

  9. 9
    polistra says:

    Bravo. Special thanks for emphasizing that O’Brien didn’t want Winston to agree that 2+2=5. Too often the sane side underestimates the problem by seeing it as truth vs lies. It’s not truth vs lies, it’s truth vs “all at once”, leaving Winston’s mind with no point of attachment except the state.

    The new equation is

    http://ockhamsbungalow.com/blog93/2plus2.gif

  10. 10
    Dean_from_Ohio says:

    My educational institution approved a pronoun policy in the dark of night.

    I will claim truth and religious freedom if it comes to it. I also carry two copies of a list of 15 conservative national legal aid organizations with me in my wallet, with contact names, email addresses and phone numbers for each organization.

    I will do my best to work out a reasonable, respectful arrangement. Maybe it is that I use no pronouns at all in a particular class.

    But if told to submit, I will pull out the two copies of the lists, give them one, and ask them to pass it to the school’s Chief Counsel, and tell them that I may have to contact all 15 of the organizations with particulars of my situation in order to pick one. I have copies of the dark of night procedure followed when the policy was approved.

    Educational institutions respond to three things: funding cuts, bad publicity, and lawsuits. This approach may trigger an appropriate fear of all three.

  11. 11
  12. 12
    JVL says:

    What about hermaphrodites/intersex individuals?

    From Wikipedia:

    Intersex people are born with any of several variations in sex characteristics including chromosomes, gonads, sex hormones, or genitals that, according to the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, “do not fit the typical definitions for male or female bodies”. Such variations may involve genital ambiguity, and combinations of chromosomal genotype and sexual phenotype other than XY-male and XX-female..

  13. 13
    kairosfocus says:

    JVL, it is not wise to make policy on rare medical challenges, especially when touching the central foundation of a sound posterity, marriage and family. Handle exceptional medically challenged people with compassion and responsible care, but do not commit cultural suicide to do so. KF

    PS: The Un is so often riddled with extremist radical agendas that it would be ill advised to naively accept their statements on anything of consequence. The Human Rights Commission/Council is a capital example of the problem.

  14. 14
    Dionisio says:

    “it is not wise to make policy on rare medical challenges, especially when touching the central foundation of a sound posterity, marriage and family. Handle exceptional medically challenged people with compassion and responsible care, but do not commit cultural suicide to do so.” KF

  15. 15
    ET says:

    Barry, You seem to be forgetting that public schools are the liberals’ bastions. They will gladly bend to help out the alleged transsexuals by calling them the gender of their choice. That breeds more liberals.

    Next up, choose your race or species, even…

  16. 16
    john_a_designer says:

    How am I morally obligated to even respect someone else’s made-up moral opinion or group think?

    That is all members of the secular progressive left really have: made up moral opinions that they cannot defend rationally.

    Human made-up moral opinions cannot be the basis for interpersonal moral obligation or universal human rights because there is no objective way to determine whose made-up opinion is right and whose is wrong.

    If everyone recognized this fact I think we would still be okay. The problem is that the secular progressive left treats the latest moral fad or trend as if it was a moral absolute and moral progress. That’s because we are hard wired to think that way. In other words, what good is morality if there is no such thing a morally binding obligation?

  17. 17
    Dean_from_Ohio says:

    john_a_designer @ 16:

    In other words, what good is morality if there is no such thing a morally binding obligation?

    “Shut up,” Progressives explain. “Some animals are more equal than others. Here’s my boot stamping on your face forever.”

    Yes, it does the universe good to tell the truth. But don’t expect Progressives to live by it. They hate it, suppress it and destroy those who speak it. That’s why it’s them or us.

    Progressivism poisons everything.

  18. 18
    News says:

    Increasingly, the post-science claim itself, whatever it is, is irrelevant. The goal, as polistra says at 9, is to force belief, not just acceptance, of whatever the Party says.

    But let’s be honest. Corrupted people vote for lies. They are pleased when they are praised for voting for lies. They hope to be left alone if they do. They betray others who are not so lucky. They condemn them, hoping to escape. They admire celebs who shill for lies.

    They don’t know that the type of government they put in power makes a point of attacking many innocents, to keep everyone in terror, as a Soviet apparatchik pointed out to Malcolm Muggeridge long ago. And they don’t want to know. Maybe the numbers will fall out lucky for them.

    Freedom is there all along but they do not want it and they hate and fear those who do. The same way that post-fact science fears evidence.

  19. 19
    J-Mac says:

    The latest edition of the DSM, however, has ejected gender identity disorder and replaced it with a new term, “gender dysphoria.” Gender dysphoria is anxiety over gender identify issues – not the gender identity issue itself. And the recommended treatment is not to try to get the patient to square his views with reality but to get him to become comfortable with his rejection of reality.

    I don’t think this is as clean-cut as you have presented Barry…
    Most people, even curious teens, find even the thought of being of another gender objectionable… While it is true that few kids would try almost anything out of curiosity or for attention, but that doesn’t necessarily make them transgender…
    So, for the great majority of people with gender identity issues it is reality…
    I’d like to stress though, that a minority, especially kids and teens could be confused about some issues related to their sexuality as they are going through a crisis or puberty, but those are most likely not related to true gender issues…

    I have to admit, that gender identity issue are very hard to judge therefore I refrain from doing so…
    I believe that the majority of those people need to be helped and not to be judged…

    When I’m confused about issues like that I always ask myself: What would Jesus do? Or what would apostle Paul or Peter do?
    Can you tell?

  20. 20

    Not one mention of Jordan Peterson. Hmm.

  21. 21

    J-Mac

    Jesus didn’t give in to peoples’ psychosis. He recognized the lie, and he healed them.

    I.e., Jesus is no enabler, and we ought to follow his example.

  22. 22
    Barry Arrington says:

    J-Mac@ 19:
    “Can you tell?”

    One thing I can tell you for certain. If a man claimed to be a woman, Jesus, Paul and Peter would not join in that lie.

    Love sometimes compels us to confront. If a man claims to be Napoleon, it is not love to hail him as Emperor of the French; it would be a cruel jest. When a man claims to be a woman, he is just as delusional. Feeding in to that delusion is the opposite of love.

  23. 23
    kairosfocus says:

    Folks, “gender” is a kidnapped word in an agit-prop scripted film, trying to blink out SOS and TORTURE. Let us challenge the theft. Our sex is genetically stamped at conception, up to rare disorders that need to be managed with compassion that starts with recognising and acknowledging what is a disorder. Similar to conjoined twins that are now surviving into adulthood. We are responsible to respond to that, given patent requisites of procreation and nurture of posterity. But, rationality needs not serve what is responsible and real: moral, rational government by what is right and true. We can create ideological fantasies and band together to impose by the nihilist factionalism of might makes right. Until, the crumbling and cracking cliff’s edge collapses underfoot and we face a new dark age complete with a massive die-off. The lurking threat of an EMP attack simply would accelerate the process. Civilisational collapse is already in progress and the 100+ or 200+ “genders” being pushed on us by nihilistic agit-prop, lawfare and more are warning-signs. KF

  24. 24
    J-Mac says:

    @22 Barry Arrington

    One thing I can tell you for certain. If a man claimed to be a woman, Jesus, Paul and Peter would not join in that lie.

    So, if Jesus, Peter or Paul encountered a person with ambiguous genitalia or reproductive system, or both, they would consider such a person a liar and therefore a sinner beyond redemption?

  25. 25
    StephenB says:

    J-Mac,

    Barry is simply asking us to acknowledge objective reality, which is not at all the same thing as passing moral judgment. To make false claims about objective reality is to lie. If we don’t conform our desires to the truth, then we will conform the truth to our desires?

  26. 26
    john_a_designer says:

    Dean @ 10 & 17,

    Contemporary secular progressivism is based on two things: (1) A conceit that their enlightened moral thinking is politically correct and, therefore, tacitly absolute– though they’ll never own up to the latter. (Along with their blatant virtue signaling there is a lot of pseudo humility and posturing.)

    And, (2) a contempt for anyone who believes in traditional moral values, who they view as uneducated, backwards and bigoted.

    However, as I have said here before what makes one person’s moral opinions binding on anyone else? If it’s nothing more than their opinion it’s not binding on anyone else.

    It becomes dangerous when self-appointed paragons of virtues start “discovering” (really inventing) new rights which they then try to enact into law. In the U.S. the secular progressives have succeeded in creating new laws, based on so-called new rights (a right to abortion, a right to same sex marriage etc.) by going through the courts, thus completely short-circuiting democratic debate and the legislative process. That is one of the reason there is a growing grassroots populist movement here. One can only hope that it’s not too late.

  27. 27
    kairosfocus says:

    JAD, a right is inherently a binding moral claim on others that they have duties to uphold one in some particular way. One cannot justly claim a right without first being manifestly in the right on the principle that it is self evident that forcing people to do or enable wrong is unjust. For instance, one of the polarising factors in the US leading up to the Civil War was fugitive slavery laws that tried to force people to support so-called slave catchers. Today’s nihilists trying to force our civilisation to say and act as though good is evil and evil good, would do well to ponder what they are stoking. I particularly point to the ongoing abortion holocaust at the rate of a million victims per week on a base of 800+ millions in 40+ years. Think about how law, law enforcement, medicine, nursing, health professions, education, media and much more have been corrupted and tainted with guilt of blood to sustain this, then ponder how objection to this horror has been marginalised. Then, ponder the implications for liberty under just law. Then, tremble for what is coming because of the innocent blood crying up from the ground against us. KF

  28. 28
    J-Mac says:

    @25 Stephen,

    Barry is simply asking us to acknowledge objective reality, which is not at all the same thing as passing moral judgment.
    So, how do you do that exactly with a boy, for example, who was raised as a girl because his genitalia did not develop properly due to 5 alpha-reductase enzyme deficiency?

  29. 29
    kairosfocus says:

    JM, you treat him with compassion as a victim of a serious medical problem. You do not corrupt the fabric of society and undermine the foundation of a stable tomorrow. KF

  30. 30
    J-Mac says:

    @29 kairosfocus,

    Is this comment addressed to me, J-Mac?

  31. 31
  32. 32
    kairosfocus says:

    J-Mac, si, senor. KF

  33. 33
    john_a_designer says:

    KF,

    JAD, a right is inherently a binding moral claim on others that they have duties to uphold one in some particular way. One cannot justly claim a right without first being manifestly in the right on the principle that it is self evident that forcing people to do or enable wrong is unjust.

    That’s why illegitimately co-opting the idea of rights is so powerful when it comes to advancing the secular progressive’s agenda. The U.S. founding fathers appear to have understood this, which is why they made it difficult to amend the U.S. Constitution. For example, the first 10 amendments to the constitution, the so-called Bill of Rights required a 2/3 vote in each house of congress as well as approval of 3/4 of state legislatures. The founders thought this kind of process would prevent a small vocal faction from subverting the will of the people. However, unfortunately they didn’t notice the loophole in article III which allowed Supreme Court judges to appropriate more power than was constitutionally granted to them. That’s the loophole that the SP left has been able to exploit and is why they have used the courts to push their agenda. You don’t need to convince an overwhelming majority of people you are right– you don’t even need to convince a majority. All you need is to convince are a few sympathetic judges. The problem is that is not representative or small-r republican government. That’s an oligarchy. An oligarchy is one of the types of government that takes away rights.

  34. 34
    Barry Arrington says:

    J-Mac

    So, if Jesus, Peter or Paul encountered a person with ambiguous genitalia or reproductive system, or both, they would consider such a person a liar and therefore a sinner beyond redemption?

    No, I never said that. You pulled a switcheroo. At 19 you seemed to be talking about a mental health condition in which an unambiguously male person (for example) has gender identify issue. When I responded in that context you replied in the completely different context of an extremely rare but serious physical medical problem that does involve ambiguous genitalia.

    I suspect you are intentionally trying to equivocate between the two in order to confuse the matter. But I will give you the benefit of the doubt and spell it out for you.

    If a person with no physical medical condition were to lie about his gender, Jesus, Peter and Paul would not join in or validate the lie. Of that we can be certain.

    If a person with a serious but rare medical condition were to express confusion over his gender, KF is correct. Jesus, Peter and Paul would treat them with compassion and sympathy.

    In neither case would the person be a “sinner beyond redemption.” We are all sinners. I hope none of us are beyond redemption.

  35. 35
    J-Mac says:

    So, there is this girl. Let’s call her Stephanie. She is 13. She has noticed something different about her body lately… Her voice has deepen. Her body has become hairy, but something very strange has happened to her vagina. Something began growing out of it. It’s a penis. She is terrified. She goes to a doctor and it’s confirmed. Stephanie is actually a boy.

    Stephanie has a genetic deficiency of 5AR enzyme which, prevents baby boys from developing male genitalia. But, when boys that look like girls with 5AR deficiency enter puberty they usually develop a penis and male sexual functions…
    Great! one would think… however, nobody knew that Stephanie was a boy, so she was raised as a girl even though she didn’t fit it with other ordinary girls… Now it is going to be a piece of cake to fit in with the boys especially with the penis in the pants. Stephanie is
    Steven now but for some reason he doesn’t fit with the boys either.. they call him a weirdo. So Steven returns to the girl companions. But with the penis the game has changed…
    The family is religious and ashamed… Stephanie now Steven has nowhere to turn… He is angry …why did it happen to me?-He asks…

    He turns to local priest. He has no answers… Seems God wanted Steve to suffer for grace or something.. Steve develops anger towards God… tries alcohol, drugs, sex… thinks about suicide…one day he takes a couple of bottles of pills, writes a farewell note to his family, tells them why, swallows all the pills, and all his problems are forgotten…

  36. 36
    john_a_designer says:

    When you try to create new rights whole cloth, as secular progressives are trying to do, and do so by circumventing the legislative process by going through the courts, you create a clash between the new rights and existing rights. That’s what is happening in Colorado with the baker who is claiming that his rights are being violated because he is being legally penalized for refusing to decorate a cake for a same sex wedding.

    According to Ryan T. Andersen, “part of the problem is…”

    …that Colorado misunderstood the Supreme Court’s ruling in favor of same-sex marriage in Obergefell v. Hodges. Colorado claims that the Court held “opposition to same-sex marriage” to be “tantamount to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.”

    In fact, as Chief Justice John Roberts pointed out during the Masterpiece oral arguments, the Court in Obergefell noted that belief in marriage as the union of husband and wife is held “in good faith by reasonable and sincere people here and throughout the world.” The Court stated in its majority opinion that “many who deem same-sex marriage to be wrong reach that conclusion based on decent and honorable religious or philosophical premises, and neither they nor their beliefs are disparaged here.”

    The states should not disparage these people and their decent and honorable beliefs, either.

    A big part of the problem is that sexual-orientation anti-discrimination laws are now being used to “punish the wicked,” … But anti-discrimination policies should serve as shields, not swords. They are meant to shield people from unjust discrimination that might prevent them from flourishing in society. They aren’t supposed to be swords used to punish people for acting on their reasonable beliefs.

    Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/.....not-bigots

    Does the fact that a baker refused to decorate a cake for them prevent the same sex couple from getting married? Are they still waiting for Mr. Phillips to decorate their cake? They weren’t able to find another baker in Denver who would decorate a cake for them? It seems to me this is not about the cake but forcing Mr. Phillips to accept their beliefs. In other words, he no longer has a freedom of conscience and belief.

  37. 37
    J-Mac says:

    @32 KF

    My comment @35 wasn’t only for Barry… It was for all who seem to have an opinion how Jesus and apostles would deal with Stephanie/Steven…

    Do you think we would have to change the fabric of society to help people like Stephanie/Seven?

    I would like to read some comments on the theme from reps of the evangelical churches how they deal or would deal with people like Sthephanie/Steven, if they wanted to join their church…

    I’ve had a conversation with Mormons already…It was interesting…

  38. 38
    kairosfocus says:

    Jm, I pointed out that we do not restructure and undermine foundations of society to help those with rare, serious medical abnormalities. We respond with compassion and care but understanding that abnormalities are not the new norm. Or we may well — in my view are in process of — doing far more harm than good. Specifically, rare cases were used to make what is now a holocaust of 800+ millions of our living posterity in the womb (and which is mounting up at 1 million a week), seem like a compassionate response. The distortions of law, law enforcement, medicine, nursing, health professions, education, media and more have set off a cascade of ruin by enabling holocaust that we don’t even begin to understand. We need to ponder how that bloodguilt utterly warps our thought and where is leads. When we turn to other similar issues of great potential moment, we must reckon with how warped and in parts demonically evil our generation is. KF

  39. 39
    J-Mac says:

    @38 KF

    This is a very vague response…I would like to see how exactly, as a religious person, you would help a person like Stephanie/Steve…I’ve have been asking many religious people about that, and so far, no one has given me a real, practical answer… They were all wishy-washy answers…just like yours…

  40. 40
    kairosfocus says:

    JM, I am not a medical practitioner. That is the specific care needed. That is obvious. KF

  41. 41
    J-Mac says:

    KF
    I’m talking about the spiritual care of these unfortunate people…You wouldn’t know anything about it, would you?

  42. 42
    StephenB says:

    I would like to see how exactly, as a religious person, you would help a person like Stephanie/Steve…I’ve have been asking many religious people about that, and so far, no one has given me a real, practical answer… They were all wishy-washy answers…just like yours…

    [a] You explain that their situation is abnormal. Political correctness refuses to acknowledge the point and does more harm than good.

    [b] You try to cure them. Most of these conditions, such as gender identity confusion and homosexuality are acquired. Very few people are born with sexual abnormalities.

    [c] For the few that are born with a sexual abnormality, you explain that they must live a chaste life. You further explain that this challenge is the cross they must carry in order to win the Kingdom of God. It’s called heroic virtue and is the stuff of which saints are made.

  43. 43
    kairosfocus says:

    JM, I am not the pastor or counsellor involved, and were I so, care to be given would be in strict confidence with the relevant family. It would be guided by gospel teachings and gospel ethics principles. Sound medical and likely psychological caregivers would likely be involved also as the situation is holistic. The public internet, especially as controversial a forum as this is exactly the context where such should not be discussed. My general suggestion, if this is a live case, is to find a competent caring team and deal with it on that basis. If this is just a rhetorical gambit, such a case has no place in a forum like this. KF

  44. 44
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: I find that an issue such as JM raised first is something that requires a confidential, family and trusted counsellor based approach, not the sort of setting where cautions due to ethics of counselling and the necessary lack of specifics in a generic situation force generic and judicious answersonly to see such are then dismissed as “wishy-washy” or the like. Specifics will be confidential, and specifics are needed to address a specific situation; generic counsel will not be specific, other than to build a counselling and support framework where sound, often painful assessments can be undertaken and difficult alternatives, fairly steep ethical requisites, spiritual healing, deliverance, and more can be shared or imparted based on discerning of spirits.

    This suggests that there is need to recognise and respect the delicacy with which the healing and health of a soul needs to be addressed.

    Onlookers and participants are advised that — first — gospel ethics address family life and sexuality in a robust, naturally evident, creation order based framework. For instance, to entertain lusts/impurity of thought is mental adultery, and such is enslaving and warping of spiritual-ethical judgement and sensitivity. Per physical expressions of sexuality (especially what is tantamount to foreplay or the like . . . ), the premise of purity of thought and respect for the sanctity of the covenant of marriage severely prunes the domain of what is thought acceptable in modern culture.

    Similarly, we have no gospel ethics basis to imagine that marriage is an arbitrary institution that can be redefined at will under colour of law and/or treated as though it were a simple contract that is readily broken off. Our civilisation has long been playing with fire here.

    And already, we have seen how our civilisation has been led inch by inch into enabling the worst — ongoing — holocaust in history, by warping our ethical thought, laws, professions, institutions and media.

    The real issue we should be focussing is whether we can still be reformed or whether we should be concerned with a remnant plucked like brands from the burning down of a civilisation committing suicide by ethical arson.

    In all of this, we face a terrible warning, in the words of the Apostle Paul:

    1 Cor 2:20 Where is the wise man (philosopher)? Where is the scribe (scholar)? Where is the debater (logician, orator) of this age? Has God not exposed the foolishness of this world’s wisdom?

    21 For since the world through all its [earthly] wisdom failed to recognize God, God in His wisdom was well-pleased through the [c]foolishness of the message preached [regarding salvation] to save those who believe [in Christ and welcome Him as Savior] . . . .

    2: 11 For what person knows the thoughts and motives of a man except the man’s spirit within him? So also no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the [Holy] Spirit who is from God, so that we may know and understand the [wonderful] things freely given to us by God. 13 We also speak of these things, not in words taught or supplied by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining and interpreting spiritual thoughts with spiritual words [for those being guided by the Holy Spirit].

    14 But the natural [unbelieving] man does not accept the things [the teachings and revelations] of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness [absurd and illogical] to him; and he is incapable of understanding them, because they are spiritually discerned and appreciated, [and he is unqualified to judge spiritual matters]. 15 But the spiritual man [the spiritually mature Christian] judges all things [questions, examines and applies what the Holy Spirit reveals], yet is himself judged by no one [the unbeliever cannot judge and understand the believer’s spiritual nature]. [AMP]

    A sobering warning to a civilisation that seeks to be wise in its own eyes even as it puts darkness for light and calls light darkness. Even, to the terrible point of enabling holocaust.

    As I have already cautioned, if we make a crooked yardstick our standard of what is straight, accurate and upright, what is truly straight, accurate and upright will never measure down to that warped standard. So, instead we must correct the flawed standard, starting with testing it against a plumbline, a naturally evident, patently straight and upright thing. And if one will not accept the test of a plumbline, then that reveals a far deeper problem. KF

  45. 45
    J-Mac says:

    KF,
    I’m obviously not as versed in scriptures as you or Dionisio, but I was wondering about this verse:

    Mat 18:6

    “If anyone causes one of these little ones–those who believe in me–to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.”

    Do you think that this statement by Jesus doesn’t apply to the very small number of those with the genetic defects that clearly lead to the gender inborn confusion?

    On the other hand, what is to happen to us, if we are to stumble those who believe in Jesus?

  46. 46
    J-Mac says:

    https://youtu.be/JH_fAUnlXHs

    For those who may think that I’m one sided on this issue…
    Welcome to Canada! The land of dreams..

  47. 47
    kairosfocus says:

    JM, kindly cf 42, 43, 44 above. KF

  48. 48
    J-Mac says:

    @ kairosfocus and StephenB -42,43 and 44 as well as Barry,

    1 Cor 9:19-23

    “19 Though I am free of obligation to anyone, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the Law I became like one under the Law (though I myself am not under the Law), to win those under the Law. 21 To those without the Law I became like one without the Law (though I am not outside the law of God but am under the law of Christ), to win those without the Law.22 To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men, so that by all possible means I might save some of them. 23 I do all this for the sake of the gospel, so that I may share in its blessings.”

    Since most of those interested in this theme here are bible scholars in comparison to me, I assume there is no need to explain these verses…

  49. 49
    kairosfocus says:

    J-M, perhaps, you need to follow these words:

    Luke 17:1 Jesus said to His disciples, “Stumbling blocks [temptations and traps set to lure one to sin] are sure to come, but woe (judgment is coming) to him through whom they come! 2 It would be better for him if a millstone [as large as one turned by a donkey] were hung around his neck and he were hurled into the sea, than for him to cause one of these [a]little ones to stumble [in sin and lose faith].

    Rom 14:23 But he who is uncertain [about eating a particular thing] is condemned if he eats, because he is not acting from faith. Whatever is not from faith is sin [whatever is done with doubt is sinful].

    The principle here is that we live as creatures who are morally responsible, and so if we mislead little ones into sin, we bear a heavy responsibility. Where also, there is a general principle (not just about foods) that if one is in moral doubt on a matter but proceeds any way, s/he is acting in rebellion against the best light s/he has and is sinning by that action of defiance.

    Sufficient has already been given to make it clear what is the general gospel ethics standard regarding sexually tinged matters.

    Those troubled with rare medical complaints need compassionate care, but such compassionate care cannot be at the expense of the care of the soul.

    KF

    KF

  50. 50
    J-Mac says:

    KF@49
    Now imagine that Stephanie/Steven is you child, or your closest relative that wants to commit a suicide because of the gender issue…

    What would you do?

  51. 51
    kairosfocus says:

    JM, my counsel to intervene with serious and trustworthy professional and spiritual help would not change one whit. KF

    PS: The actual evidence is, that suicides and other unhealthy and self-destructive behaviours associated with various objectively disordered sexual patterns of behaviour are strongly tied to the instability of sexual interactions formed and to personal impacts of such unstable relationships: depression is a potential killer if it runs out of control. Some behaviours are extremely unhealthy and directly dangerous. Scripture counsels that there is a way that seems right to a man but the end of that way are the ways of death. I point to the twelve step model as a first guide to dealing with habituating or addictive destructive behaviours.

  52. 52
    tgpeeler says:

    Barry, just getting to this. Bravo.

Leave a Reply