Criminalizing Right to Conscience, Part I
Verbal- Precedes Social- Engineering
Each one of us has been given an often overlooked, but infinitely valuable gift — namely, an inborn sense of right and wrong that aligns with a divinely-instigated, time-tested plumb line of truth. It is the gift of conscience. Conscience means “with” (con) “knowledge” (science) — that is to say, with innate knowledge of, and due regard for, the Creator’s precepts and commands.
Our Founding Fathers ceded that laws of nature and nature’s God entitle all to unalienable rights of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness/property. Far from arbitrary, God’s boundaries provide clarity, guidance, and protection. With understanding that a conscience can be “seared,” or “defiled,” stable societies value, safeguard and even cultivate consciences void of offence. For example, citizens who disagree on moral, ethical, or religious grounds need not bear arms in military service.
Sadly, once seeds of doubt in God’s authority are planted, and discontentment fomented, directed dialogue for the sake of unity in the community convinces even principled folks to surrender the sword of God’s Word, relinquish the gift of conscience, and align with the herd, instead of the Creator. Consensus means “with the sensual.” Is it any wonder that sensuality takes center stage in the post-Christian battle for the very soul of America?
Victim/Victimizer Strategy at Work
A leopard can’t change its spots solely because someone imagines it so. To think otherwise is delusional. Consider the Second Law of Thermodynamics: Living things remain in constant states of deterioration and decay. In brief, rust happens, as does the aging process. This pesky law of physics clearly discriminates against every living being — regardless of color, gender, race, or ethnicity. So, why not outlaw it? Simple. Ruling against it cannot alter reality. Dependable as gravity and the tide, rust still happens — always has; always will.
Let’s take this a step further. Because ex-NAACP leader Rachel Dolezal (Caucasian by birth) self-identifies as a black woman doesn’t make her black anymore than a self-assigned gender identity makes Bruce Jenner a biological woman. Nevertheless, under laws enforced by EEOC, it’s illegal to discriminate against an applicant or employee because of that person’s genetic information. This is to say, “By law, to identify as a woman is to be one. Science to the contrary matters not.” Religionists who refuse to shadow the proverbial Pied Piper of delusion unsheathe unmitigated indignation, as did Breitbart Editor-at-Large Ben Shapiro while debating on the Dr. Drew on Call television program. Addressing a transgendered “female” reporter as “sir,” Shapiro suggested, “Facts don’t care about your feelings.” Like it or not Bruce Jenner’s male appendages belie his feminine self-identity. Shapiro explained, “Every chromosome, every cell in Caitlyn Jenner’s body is male with the exception of some of his sperm cells.”
Neither genetic science nor applying a masculine pronoun to a wannabe woman (with decidedly male parts) was to be tolerated in the debate. One of “a few good men,” Shapiro refrained from rehearsing Col. Jessep’s quotable lament, “You can’t handle the truth!” Nevertheless, with a not-so-dainty hand firmly planted on Shapiro’s shoulder, the former fighter pilot-turned-reporter issued an unmistakable ultimatum, “You cut that out now, or you’ll go home in an ambulance.”
In the name of “respect,” “tolerance,” “saving lives,” and “stopping bullying,” the entire panel relentlessly berated Shapiro as an “ultra-conservative,” “anti-LGBT,” “stone-faced,” “cold-hearted” “moralist,” a “rude” “hater” and “little man” whose speech was “venomous,” “inflammatory,” “aggressively insulting,” and conducive to “genocide on transgendered children.”
Keep in mind, Shapiro wasn’t the one who threatened physical violence, nor did he return slur-for-slur, but “genocide” — really? Had Shapiro referenced statistics on lowered life expectancy for the average homosexual, the ambulance may well have been summoned demonstrating, yet again, that touted “tolerance” is doggedly selective; and right to conscience, passé.
Verbal- Precedes Social- Engineering
This incredulous mindset is not by accident. Verbal- precedes social- engineering. Case in point, in recent decades, Constitutional purists have been portrayed as “archaic” and out of step with the times. In waging their war of words, postmodernists ignore Constitutional constraint, requiring the courts to accept a religious claimant’s beliefs as true for purposes of adjudicating a religious freedom claim. Theirs is a court of public opinion, more swayed by inflammatory rhetoric than by principle. A victim-victimizer dynamic established by name calling handily serves the end goal of social engineering.
Whereas homosexuality is deemed “normal,” God’s patterns for marriage and family are said to be mere “social constructs.” That marriage has long stood as God’s provision for the biological imperative (to procreate) and for the cultural imperative (personal companionship and community-building) is now preempted. Marriage traditionalists are tagged “hatemongering homophobes”; and pro-lifers — i.e., “breeders” and “ecclesiastical dictators” — are accused of waging war against women. Even the Department of Homeland Security fingers Bible-toting Christians as “persons of interest” capable of inflicting acts of extreme right-wing domestic terrorism. What, like Billy Graham?
Journalistic License by Design
Public dissemination of newsworthy information in mass media boasts objectivity, impartiality, and fairness. The Society of Professional Journalists’ code chronicles practical ideals of professional journalism. Quoting it directly, “Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance.” Tell that to CNN Senior Legal Analyst Jeffrey Toobin, who summarily illegitimated Justice Scalia’s dissent in Lawrence v. Texas and singlehandedly mandated in its place culturally permissible gay-speak. Toobin dissed Scalia’s justice as that of an angry man — namely, the “get off my lawn” variety — hardly indicative of journalistic impartiality.
Not the first, nor last to do so, a newspaper in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania applauds censorship of negative gay-speak. No longer will PennLive/The Patriot-News print op-Eds or letters to the editor that oppose same sex marriage. Because these unions are now the law of the land, the so-called science is settled.
To quote Michael Savage, “Where’s Al Gore when you need an inconvenient truth?”
More to follow in Part 2.