The Liberal War Against Reality and Truth

I came across an interesting post at the NOM blog recently. It referenced a column in the Sun-Sentinel by Archbishop Thomas Wenski of Miami entitled “Traditional marriage predates all of us.”

As interesting as the title is, it wasn’t what really caught my attention but let’s take a quick look at the contention of the title because it’s worth a good look.

I couldn’t count the times I’ve debated marriage with homosexual activists and other liberals who believe that this invaluable institution should have all the resilience and strength of a waterlogged noddle. Sooner or later, the contended “right” to redefine marriage comes up. While the founders of our great nation recognized our Creator as the source of all our rights, the source of the alleged “right” to make marriage mean anything is seldom identified–perhaps because even most homosexual activists realize deep down that the Creator has made it abundantly clear that marriage can only be between a man and a woman.

Oh, you’ll occasionally hear that since we live in a democracy (or a republic?), we have the right to redefine marriage however we please. Sometimes I’ve heard the claim that since the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides “equal protection” under the law, somehow this entitles homosexual activists to redefine this fundamental human institution into something it clearly has not ever and can never mean–ignoring completely the fact that homosexuals already have the same right to marry that heterosexuals enjoy, subject to the same stipulations as everyone else: that the marriage partner be someone of the opposite sex, not a close relative, and of legal age.

I’ve frequently pointed out what Archbishop Wenski highlights in the title of his column: that marriage is a fundamental human institution that goes back farther than any human government. Now, many homosexual activists don’t recognize the authority of the Bible which tells us marriage dates back to the very first man and woman to walk the earth, but many people don’t recognize the authority of the law which requires they drive 55 MPH or less in a 55 MPH zone–yet sooner or later each of us finds that we are subject to that authority whether we like it or recognize it; in other words, our feelings about authority and truth do not alter in the slightest that authority or truth.

But as relevant and true as this is, that wasn’t what captured my interest in the archbishop’s piece. This is what caught my eye:

In our nation’s culture wars, the two sides are fighting about the understanding of man and his relationship to truth and reality. One side — and today, “gay marriage” is its poster child — holds that anyone can essentially create his or her own reality. This side holds for a radical autonomy by which truth is determined not by the nature of things, but by one’s own individual will. The other side holds men and women are not self-creators, but creatures. Truth is not constructed, but received and thus must reflect the reality of things. Or, as the Book of Genesis says: “Male and female, He (God) created them.” (Genesis 1:27).

I’ve been involved in our nation’s culture war for a lot of years. I spent a few years on the other side, the side which argues that it’s okay to have sex with who ever you want when ever you want, that it’s okay to kill your own child if your convenience is threatened, that hedonism and having a good time is the pinnacle of existence.  I spent enough time in the ranks there to develop a good grasp for how short on facts and long on fancy is that way of life.

But after coming to the end of myself when I could no longer deny the emptiness of that hedonism, I’ve spent the last 18 or so on the good side, the side of the Christians who founded our nation on Christian principles, who realize that a free nation the likes of the United States cannot exist indefinitely if it abandons its moral and religious base.

In those years of fighting on the side of traditional moral values, I’ve noticed something very interesting about many on the Left.  This characteristic is common in many areas of the Left, but is most acute among those who promote sexual autonomy and sexual anarchy.  It is the characteristic identified by Archbishop Wenski:  truth is determined not by the nature of things, but by one’s own individual will.

I have often identified this as the philosophy of “IWantIWantIWant!” which sums up rather succinctly the essential depth and expression of the liberal philosophy and the liberal agenda. It is essentially the same mindset we sometimes see in a spoiled 5-year-old who knows nothing of discipline or restraint, knowing only the hunger, the perceived need to have, to grasp, to own whatever object captures its attention at the moment.  While most of us were taught better by our parents and eventually grew up, the average liberal simply hasn’t grown up.

The average liberal lives in a world where to feel desire is equivalent to a legitimate claim on the object being desired. The average liberal lives in a world where “No” is a dirty word which is verboten even to be spoken, and all good people and institutions exist (or should) to say “Yes” to whatever their heart desires.  In the make-believe world of the average liberal, government exists to provide to the liberal that which he cannot or will not go to the effort of providing for himself, as well as to provide for him what stingy unbelievers refuse to render.

In the cotton-candy fantasy world of the average liberal, to think something is to make it reality.  This is why liberals lie with such impunity and ease: reality moves and shifts with the currents of their minds and the gentle sway of their lips.  Reality is not something set, something to which all human beings must adapt and conform.  No, reality is a piece of warm clay in the hands of a liberal, something to be molded to fit their plans and purposes.  It is postmodern relativism on steroids.

As commonly as this is seen among liberals in general, as I stated before, the pinnacle of this phenomenon is found among homosexual activists and sexual anarchists.  One need only look at the comments discussion of a few articles on homosexuality, transsexualism and transgenderism to see this characteristic played out in a stunning display of denial. Reality is rejected as a cumbersome, confining annoyance in favor of a homespun “reality” that allows the user to do what they want without consequence, be who they want to be without judgment or the obstacles of facts. In this mindset, reality is nothing more than a garment to be discarded whenever it becomes uncomfortable or inconvenient; simply look inside the closet of the mind for a new “reality” to put on.

It quickly becomes obvious that even for the most dedicated and patient defender of reality, no rational conversation can really be carried out because such people are mindlessly devoted to protecting and preserving their hand-crafted plastic version of reality. In order for any meaningful communication to occur, both sides have to agree to a common language; when a common reality cannot even be agreed upon, what common ground is there? When a person cannot even consider that for a man to put his penis inside another man’s anus is aberrant, unhealthy behavior, can there be a true meeting of the minds?  When a person cannot even look between their own legs, see a penis and accept that they are a man…well, can there really be any firm foundation of reality upon which the normal person can meet them for conversation?  Alas, no.

Which brings me back to Archbishop Wenski’s article which described something I had witnessed so many times but had not take the time to articulate.  When a human being “holds that anyone can essentially create his or her own reality,” can there be any meaningful dialog with such a person?  No, not so long as they are busy defending their plastic reality.  When a person believes “truth is determined not by the nature of things, but by one’s own individual will,” can there be any useful or constructive compromise or agreement with them?  Again, no.

So where does that leave the average American who understands right from wrong, and wants to preserve the wonderful gift of our republic?  Why do I even bring this all up in the first place?  As gratifying as it can be to point out the utter bankruptcy, there is a practical reason.

We must simply defeat this mindset.  We cannot hate the delusional individuals caught up in it, but we must defeat them–in the arena of ideas, in the public square, at the ballot box.  We will not do that through compromise, half-measures, or hoping they’ll simply “come around.”  We must be resolved to defeat them and their ideology, period. The sooner we understand this, the quicker we stop compromising and placating and seeking to “just get along” with evil, the sooner we can get our country back on track.

We have to do this if our country is to survive.  We owe it to what is right to win this fight. We owe it to our posterity who deserve to share in the unparalleled legacy of freedom we have enjoyed in American.  And we even owe it to those who have waged war on reality, for if we hold fast to what is right and true, maybe, just maybe, a few of them will stop playing games and grow up.

The time-honored axiom remains as true as ever: the only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.

19 Responses to “The Liberal War Against Reality and Truth”

  1. Gezzz, how many times are you going to snarl the world “liberal”? Is that sort of ad hominem usage really productive? The reality is, “Traditional Marriage” has changed many, many times. Allowing interracial marriages was a change to traditional marriage. The traditional marriage that we have today is not the traditional marriage of 100 years ago. Once Traditional marriage meant the man virtually owned the wife, but no more, at least not in the United States. Why? Because society got together and redefined marriage. It has happened in the past, it will happen again, why? Because it is society that defines marriage, always has been.

  2. Interesting that you would see the word “liberal”–a word designed to describe a political ideology–as a pejorative. Perhaps that should tell you something about the corrupt nature of the philosophy in question.

    No, “traditional marriage” has never changed. That is another completely baseless lie proffered by liberals who have no facts whatsoever to support their claims. You are illustrating perfectly what I and Archbishop Wenski cited here–a zeal for manufacturing your own reality. No, marriage has always involved a man and a woman. It has never in the history of the world been any different.

    Now, homosexual activists who want to manufacture a “reality” more comfortable for themselvs than the real one seek to counterfeit the genuine article.

    Sorry, you’ll always need a man and a woman to form a marriage. Try to form a bathroom out of all male or all female plumbing parts and see how far you get.

  3. The liberals’ belief “that anyone can essentially create his or her own reality” results in the same communication dissonance as the Islamic principle of “taqiyya in which Muslims may say anything to an infidel, true or not, as long as it advances the cause of Islam.

    In both cases, a social convention is violated when basic facts are disregarded, and language ceases to have any certain meaning. When liberals or Muslims speak we can never be sure what realities are being denied to arrive at their opinions. This results in a “language relativism” that Christians and conservatives would do well to reject.

  4. Well, lets look at this ‘traditional marriage’ in the Bible after Adam and Eve.. Many marriages were arranged by the family heads and the woman had NO say in them what-so-ever. Married women were told to stay at home . They had no place at all in the public square. and of course if a married man’s wife cheated on him, he was allowed to stone her til death.Everything I just said of ‘traditional marriage’ is true of traditional biblical marriage after Adam and Eve. I bet if any woman today, religious or not, went back to these early Biblical times, that not a one would want to live the ‘traditional marriage’ of the Bible..

  5. I used the word “liberal” in connection with descriptions of liberalism. If you don’t like the baggage that comes with liberalism, I’d recommend abandoning liberalism. There’s no doubt that it’s a bankrupt, dead-end philosophy.

    Yes, for a few years some morally bankrupt people tried to restrict people with different skin colors from marrying, just as morally bankrupt people are now trying to allow marriage to be counterfeited, but that did not change the nature of marriage one iota. Even with such an illogical and artificial restriction, we understood that it takes a man and a woman to form a marriage.

    There are times when June weddings are the norm; other times, April weddings. Sometimes veils for the bride are the norm, other times not.

    Yet at all times throughout human history across the globe, human beings have had the minimal common sense to recognize that marriage can only be formed between a man and a woman.

    No amount of the application of the noble philosohpy of “IwantIWantIWant!” can change that reality, any more than you can create that useful and functional bathroom out of all male or all female plumbing parts. Sorry, as badly as liberals want to, you just don’t get to redefine reality, and normal people aren’t going to play along with your delusion.

    Thank you for performing as a living illustration of the mindset described in the article.

  6. I seem to recall the penalty for adultery going both ways, leaving the male offender just as dead as the female offender.

    I also seem to recall a number of important public roles for women in ancient times, including prophetess and judge Deborah who won a great battle for Israel, Queen Esther who saved the entire Jewish people, the prophetess Huldah who prophesied judgment against a bad king, and Dorcas in the New Testament who was well known for her ministry to the poor (so valuable was she that Peter raised her from the dead), Mary Magdalene and “the other Mary” who were the first human beings blessed to see the risen Christ after his death, the prophetess Anna who told people about Christ, a deaconess named Phoebe, and Priscilla who with her husband Aquila taught Apollos about God, as well as the very capable woman of Proverbs 31. But okay, women had no place in the public square and were told to stay home.

    But directly concerning the institution of marriage, despite all the extra trappings and encumberances humanity has sometimes tried to add to marriage, it’s nature has always been and remains the same: it takes a man and a woman to form one.

  7. To those who disagree with the article: Nice tries, but it’s got your number.

    Those who try to counter basic Christian positions always attack it based on piecemeal “facts” that are either distorted or taken out of context in highly misleading ways. They never come close to addressing the real questions, because they simply can’t.

    It’s like seeing a cameraman trying to demonstrate that there’s no elephant in the room by only showing closeups of the blank walls. (“See? No elephant here… or here… or here…”)

    P.S: We’re also not impressed by your inability to distinguish Old Testament law from New Testament grace. If you’re not aware of how much women’s rights have their foundation in the Bible, especially the NT, it’s because you don’t want to know. Jesus and the early church were women’s-rights *radicals* in the world of their time.

  8. Good points. There were some women like Judge Deborah etc. that were in the public square, but by far the majority of women in ‘ biblical traditional marriages’ were greatly repressed and suppressed in their basic civil rights.

    And you are right that men could be stoned for adultery just like women, so that then means that God’s biblical ‘ traditional marriage’ called for stoning for both sexes, which is hardly our view of traditional, American marriage .

    And yes, our founders felt that their religious beliefs caused them to believe that marriage was strictly between a man and a woman, but our founders also made it perfectly clear when they wrote the Constitution that no ones particular religious view had any more say in our Constitution and laws than anyones elses. Therefore, our founders personal religious views were no more important to the THE LAWS of our country than the views of their favorite philosopher or their views on what their favorite color was. The Constituion says that no mans religion should hold sway over another man of a different belief, which would include that persons view of who they can marry..

  9. Adultery, regardless of its civil penalty, isn’t any part of any view of marriage. It is a violation of marriage, an offense against marriage; it is not a characteristic of marriage.

    It was more than just our founders who recognized that marriage could only be formed between a man and a woman. Every human civilization across the globe for the past 6,000 years has understood this. As Archbishop Wenski points out, marriage is a fundamentally human relationship and institution which predates both church and state.

    Only in the modern era of “silly putty reality” begun a few years ago have we been insane enough to consider a man sticking his penis into another man’s anus is the equivalent of marriage.

    Sorry, no sale here.

  10. It ought to inform us that the homosexual activists don’t want to revamp a particular sexual ethic, they want NO sexual ethic at all. Just a little exploration of their core beliefs and practices reveal this to be true.

    And why not? Because sexual ethics represent values that transcend our mortal reason and desires. Any admittance to the truth of a transcendent system of ethics condemns their worldview eventually at some point. You can’t draw lines if the drawing of lines eventually cramps some sexual libertine’s style.

    A great read, if you’ll allow me to post a reference, Bob, is an article by Ronald G. Lee, a man recovering from and struggling with same-sex attraction. He addresses the truth about what the homosexual “rights” movement is really all about better than anyone else I’ve heard. He’s been on the inside. I think you might have posted this before, but I believe it should be referenced regularly for the gems of truth that it contains.

  11. Looks like an interesting reference. I look forward to reading it tomorrow. Thanks!

  12. Wow — That’s an article that *must* be read. There are a few references that not everyone will recognize, and to exclusively Catholic doctrines that aren’t really Biblical. But all that’s beside the point.

    The “gay” rights movement depends heavily on other people not knowing the “gay” community’s inside realities. The more those realities get exposed, the better. What this article depicts is the same thing that will be found by anyone who gets a real look into the lives of “gays.” It’s certainly consistent with every glimpse I’ve gotten.

  13. Yes, I have major issues with the author’s doctrine as well, but his synopsis is very cogent and enlightening, nevertheless. I had referenced this article is several forums accessible to liberals and homosexual activists in the past, and, as you can expect, was dismissed outright – based on what rationale, I can’t even begin to guess. My first guess is that they don’t even bother to read more than the first few paragraphs and then get spooked by the truth. I’d dare any activist reading this to withhold judgment (yes, we all do it) until the full essay is read and digested.

  14. I’m not surprised that it was dismissed outright. People who take the wrong side of issue like this already have to deny so much obvious truth that denying a little more doesn’t take much effort.

    They keep expecting us to magically “un-know” the truths that they deny, and then they wonder why we don’t listen to them.

  15. I’m not surprised that it was dismissed outright. People who take the wrong side of issue like this already have to deny so much obvious truth that denying a little more doesn’t take much effort.

    They keep expecting us to magically “un-know” the truths that they deny, and then they wonder why we don’t listen to them.

  16. Excellent point. Divorce implicates marriage about as much as an “F” implicates a rigorous education.