Why Christians and parents should vote YES ON ISSUE #1 IN AUGUST and NO IN NOVEMBER

Ohioans have two opportunities to protect parental rights in the next four months. In August, we must decide on Issue #1, an amendment that will protect the Ohio Constitution from being too easily tampered with. Issue #1 accomplishes that protection by raising the bar for the passage of an amendment ballot initiative from fifty percent to sixty. This helps to protect our Constitution from being crowbarred by special interests and the progressive movement. I have already exposed the deceptive claims of those opposing Issue #1 and have written on why you should vote YES on Issue #1 in AUGUST. You can read that article here.

In November, the ballot will contain another proposal to amend the Ohio State Constitution. This amendment is entitled, The Right to Reproductive Freedom with Protections for Health and Safety. I’m urging Ohioans to VOTE NO to this amendment initiative IN NOVEMBER. This amendment would be a disaster to parents and children if it should pass.

A brief examination of the actual text of the proposed amendment will easily show why this amendment is a really, really bad idea. Here’s the first paragraph:

1. Every individual has a right to make and carry out one's own reproductive decisions, including but not limited to decisions on:

1. contraception;

2. fertility treatment;

3. continuing one's own pregnancy;

4. miscarriage care; and

5. abortion.

Let’s examine it part by part:

• Notice that while there are five specific areas of “reproductive decisions” identified, the explicit language opens it up to other not-identified areas of “reproductive decisions” when it says “including but not limited to”. What might those other areas include? Gender transition is one obvious answer.
  

• Notice that there is no definition of the age of the individual covered by this amendment. It simply says, “every individual.” According to this amendment, a minor, a child of any age, has the right to “make and carry out” their own reproductive decisions. This means your twelve-year-old daughter has a right to an abortion, no matter what you as a parent might say or do. You are out of the picture. It means your seven-year-old son has a right to decide to transition as a girl—no matter what you as a parent might say or do.
  
  Am I manipulating you with a scare tactic? No, indeed. Haven’t you been reading the news about what is ALREADY HAPPENING? Anyone who follows the news knows that the progressive movement has been successful in erasing parent’s rights in the matter of abortions, gender identity, and gender transitions of their children, aided and abetted by progressive school boards. School districts are hiding from parents their children’s attempts to transition. Parents are being accused of child abuse if they refuse to allow their children to transition, or if they even use the “wrong” pronoun.
  
  No, this isn’t a scare tactic—it’s a warning that in November, this erosion of parental rights will become part of the Ohio Constitution. Unfortunately, this is a matter in which past performance DOES guarantee future results. Parents have no rights in this amendment. And because this is an amendment to the Constitution and not simply normal legislation, if it passes, a court can rule that the amendment invalidates any prior legislation recognizing your rights as a parent in these areas.
  

• By the same token, this amendment makes abortion wide open for any and every reason, at any and every point in pregnancy: “Every individual has a right to make and carry out one's own reproductive decisions”. The restriction placed on abortion in the case of fetal viability, found later in paragraph B, is elastic: if the treating physician believes the mother’s “health” is at stake, abortion is permitted at any point of gestation. The expression, the mother’s “health,” has not in recent years been restricted to her physiological health but has been expanded to her mental and emotional health. This suddenly becomes a “right” to abortion at any point simply if the mother doesn’t want the child.
  

What about paragraph B? Here’s a portion of the actual text:

2. The State shall not, directly or indirectly, burden, penalize, prohibit, interfere with, or discriminate against either:

1. An individual's voluntary exercise of this right or

2. A person or entity that assists an individual exercising this right,

unless the State demonstrates that it is using the least restrictive means to advance the individual's health in accordance with widely accepted and evidence-based standards of care.

• This means a school teacher, guidance counselor, or anyone else, even a boyfriend, could assist your teenage daughter to get an abortion without your knowledge and without your consent—even over your opposition. It means some third party could seek to convince and then assist your minor son or daughter to secretly attempt a gender transition, without your permission and without your knowledge They would face no legal consequences for it.

 You might argue that these are extreme slippery-slope possibilities, and that reasonable people would not interpret the law in this wild-west fashion. You’re wrong about that, and I can easily prove it.

Think about this: when it was originally passed, Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972 was intended to provide women the same opportunity to participate in sports that men had. Those who passed the law knew what a woman was. They never intended the law to enable biological males to compete against women, use women’s locker rooms and showers, etc. And look where we are now, precisely because the progressives HAVE taken the language of the law to an unimaginable extreme.

Regarding the slippery-slope, what sane individual of twenty years ago could have imagined “Drag Queen Story Hour,” or “men chest-feeding babies,” or “pregnant people,” or custom-taylored personal pronouns? Do you really think the progressive moment will stop short of pressing the vague language of this bill all the way to the breaking point? I don’t. They have ALREADY demonstrated they will take the inches given to them and turn them into miles.

For the sake of parents and children, this amendment must be defeated. It will be easier to defeat if you VOTE YES ON ISSUE #1.

VOTE YES ON ISSUE #1 IN AUGUST!

VOTE NO ON THE REPRODUCTIVE AMENDMENT IN NOVEMBER!

Don't be fooled about Issue #1!

 There is a great deal of confusion circulating in Darke County regarding Issue #1. There’s also a great deal of deception about it, but more on that in a moment.

The progressives are playing a two-step game with the Ohio Constitution: one step in AUGUST (defeating Issue #1), and one step in NOVEMBER (passing the The Right to Reproductive Freedom with Protections for Health and Safety amendment to the Ohio Constitution).

Let’s talk about the second step first, the NOVEMBER step.

The progressives are proposing an amendment to the Ohio Constitution that will put children and the unborn at risk. This amendment has the very real potential of taking a child’s gender identity, medical gender transition decisions, and abortion decisions, out of the hands of the parents. The language of the amendment is intentionally very vague, and open to wide-ranging interpretation. This amendment will be voted on in NOVEMBER.

I will write a second article in a few days explaining why this terrible “Reproductive Freedom” amendment is an unmitigated disaster for parents and children, and must be defeated. As things stand now, all that is necessary for that terrible amendment to become enshrined in the Ohio Constitution is a simple majority vote (fifty percent plus one vote) in NOVEMBER.

Which brings us to the first step. The progressives want to defeat Issue #1 in AUGUST. They want you to vote NO to Issue #1. Why?

Because Issue #1 raises the bar for amending the Ohio Constitution. In other words, if Issue #1 passes in AUGUST, it will make it harder to pass the Reproductive Freedom amendment in November.

I’ll expose the efforts to mislead the voters practiced by these people in just a moment, but first I will state the matter simply:

YES on Issue #1 in AUGUST will make it harder for the progressives to win in NOVEMBER.

NO on Issue #1 in AUGUST will make it much easier for the progressives to win in NOVEMBER.

Issue #1 is about making it more difficult for special interests groups to trample on the rights of the rest of us. At the present time, a mere majority vote (fifty percent plus 1 vote) is all that is required to permanently amend the Ohio Constitution. Issue #1 would have two principal effects: it would raise the bar to sixty percent. It would also make it more difficult to get a proposed amendment initiative on the ballot, by requiring the signatures of at least five percent of the voters in every county in the state (five percent based on the total number of votes in the last gubernatorial election in each particular county).

Before we expose the basic dishonesty of the ad campaigns that the progressives are publishing, let’s take a moment to understand the relationship of the Ohio Constitution to legislative acts. The Constitution is the citizen’s first line of defense against unwise, unfair, or unconstitutional legislation. When a legal case is brought that challenges a state law, the state judiciary uses the text and words of the Constitution to determine whether the law in question should be upheld, or struck down in whole or in part.

If citizens believe that the Constitution is not adequately protecting their rights, or believe that laws have been passed that are unjust, they can attempt to gather enough signatures to put a constitutional amendment initiative on the ballot to correct the problem. Once the amendment is on the ballot, if a sufficient number of citizens vote for it, it becomes part of the Constitution, providing boundaries around what the Legislature may and may not enact.

A well-written Constitution protects the rights of the citizens, including the helpless and vulnerable, against powerful individuals or special interests whose priorities collide with those of the citizens. Consequently, the Constitution is not a document that should be easily tinkered with. It should be protected by making it harder to amend.

What about my charges of deception?

#1. The League of Women voters is posting an advertisement entitled, “Protect Ohio’s Constitution, Vote No on Issue 1.” It is true that the current Constitution can be amended by simple majority. Issue #1 would change that, raising the bar from 50% to 60%. The higher requirement does a better job of protecting the Constitution from powerful special interest groups. At the very least, League’s claim is misleading. Voting down Issue #1 does not protect the Constitution, but leaves it in its current state of vulnerability to powerful, well-heeled special interest groups, like Planned Parenthood and other sexual revolutionaries.

#2. That same ad claims that passage of Issue #1 eliminates majority rule in Ohio. It does not. Another ad claims that Issue #1 would allow 40% of voters to “make decisions for the rest of us.” Totally false. Normal legislative acts in Columbus would continue to pass with a simple majority, as they do now. Issue #1 would not change that at all.

If the progressives want laws that favor their ideology, they can propose and pass them in the Legislature with a simple majority vote. Issue #1 will not change that! But they should not be allowed to tinker with the Constitution on the basis of a simple majority. By the way, ask yourself, why do the bylaws of the League of Women Voters require a two-thirds vote to change them, when that same organization wants a State Constitution protecting the rights of millions to be changed at the whim of a simple majority? What happened to “one person, one vote”?

And as long as we’re talking about majority rule, ask yourself: has there ever been a time in America where a majority oppressed a minority? How did that turn out? Not good at all. Do you really think it’s a good thing to enshrine that possibility of oppression in the Ohio State Constitution? I don’t.

#3. That same ad claims that Issue #1’s passage “will render the ability to present a voter-led petition virtually impossible.” That’s a totally false claim. Issue #1 only raises the bar regarding petitions that propose to amend the Constitution—but not for other petitions. The text of Issue #1 is explicit: “Require that any initiative petition filed on or after January 1, 2024 with the Secretary of State proposing to amend the Constitution of the State of Ohio be signed by at least five percent of the electors of each county based on the total vote in the county for governor in the last preceding election.”

The problem for the progressives is the requirement in Issue #1 that sufficient signatures be collected from ALL of Ohio’s counties. Issue #1 does in fact require that, but it only applies to initiatives to amend the Constitution, not to other ballot initiatives. I believe this portion of the Issue #1 language would actually benefit all Ohioans, not just those in large cities. Ask yourself: does it often wind up being the case that the voters in Columbus or Cincinnati or even Dayton have a very different set of values from the voters in Darke County? Do you want a few large cities to be able to crowbar the state Constitution in liberal, progressive directions? Wouldn’t it be more fair if ALL the counties of the state had a voice as to whether or not an amendment initiative to the Constitution was placed on the ballot? This is what Issue #1 would accomplish.

I’m voting YES for Issue #1, and so should you.

In my next piece, I will explain the disaster that will face Ohio parents in November if Issue #1 does not pass.

VOTE YES FOR ISSUE #1

AND SHARE THIS POST WITH YOUR FRIENDS!

Book Review: The Myth of Voter Suppression

Fred Lucas has the deep journalistic experience that qualifies him to write this book; his expertise is evident on every page. The Myth of Voter Suppression is an exhaustively documented treatment of the burning political question of the day: how can we ensure that each vote in an election has been cast by a legitimate, qualified voter without making the voting process so onerous that it keeps people from the polls? What becomes clear in the book is that not everyone has the same desire for fair and accurate elections. Kevin Roberts, the president of the Heritage Foundation, puts a real zinger in the foreword on page xiii: “That’s the Left’s real fear here: not that election integrity laws are evil, but that they are effective.”

The need to secure the vote in a day of bitter political divisions is crucial. Some on the Left allege that any implementation of effective voter identification laws is actually a surreptitious attempt to suppress the vote of the poor, the under-privileged, and minorities. Such a charge deserves to be examined carefully and closely: Lucas does just that. His treatment of the subject is open handed in one respect: he exposes cheating on both the Democrat and Republican sides. It is the practice of the Left (which I must admit is generally Democrat) to oppose any attempt to secure the integrity of elections, calling such attempts “voter suppression.” Lucas coins a rather clumsy term he uses repeatedly to label these opponents: the “voter suppression hysteria industrial complex.”

The book is written in two parts. Part 1 provides a history of the ways and means of fraud in elections, as well as legislative attempts to secure the vote. Lucas’ statement in the Introduction sets the tone and direction of the book:

“A war is being fought in this country. The battlefields are Congress, in state legislative chambers, and in the courts. At stake are American democracy and the integrity of elections. The two warring narratives overlap—voter fraud vs. voter suppression—and both have historical legitimacies. But regarding the current times, only one narrative has facts to support it. The other has only emotion and inflammatory rhetoric” [xxii].

Chapter 1 explores the historical linkage between fraud and suppression. As he does repeatedly, Lucas demonstrates that legislative attempts to secure the vote since the bipartisan Voting Rights Act of 1965 have generally resulted in higher, not lower, turnouts—even among minorities.

In Chapter 2, Lucas walks through the data and statistics from Arizona, Florida, Georgia, and Texas, exposing the lies that have been spun about “voter suppression” in those states. During President Biden’s January 2022 trip to Atlanta, Biden made the claim that Georgia’s efforts to put protections on the integrity of the vote were actually efforts to suppress the vote. Biden claimed, “It’s no longer about who gets to vote; it’s about making it harder to vote… It’s not hyperbole; this is a fact.” Lucas responds firmly, supplying data to back up his response to Biden’s claim: “It’s neither hyperbole nor fact. It’s demonstrably false” [31].

The author examines the data, in Chapter 3, regarding the historical voting practices of minorities to demonstrate that state-level voter ID laws have not negatively affected minority groups. Chapter 4 reveals the political forces arrayed against such common-sense efforts as purging the voter registration roles of people who have died or who have moved into a different district. Part 1 concludes with Chapter 5 detailing historical examples of the methods and attempts that have been aimed at tampering with an election.

Part 2 studies various aspects of the 2020 election. Lucas does not necessarily believe the election was stolen. On page 94 he says,

“Although the full story of the 2020 election hasn’t been told, subsequent investigations have provided noteworthy discoveries. Trump has overplayed the significance of each new discovery as absolute proof that he was the real winner—which the discoveries don’t prove.”

The anomalies of the 2020 election are explored in Chapter 6. Chapter 7 details various Democratic legislative attempts at the federal level that would make election fraud easier to commit. Chapter 8 exposes President Biden’s attempts to wrest the regulation of elections from the states to the federal government (whereas Article I, Section 4, Clause 1 of the US Constitution grants that power to the states).

Lucas examines Stacy Abrams in Chapter 9, and her multitudinous claims to the effect that the 2018 Georgia gubernatorial election was stolen from her. Lucas shows that she has enjoyed a rather lucrative career making such claims. “Follow the money” is the essence of Chapter 10, as Lucas uncovers the various organizations funding the opposition to voter identification and election integrity laws. Spoiler alert: they are all on the Left.

The threads Lucas has traced in the book find their summary in the Conclusion, entitled “Stopping Tammany Hall 2.0.” He argues that legislative reform must happen at the level of individual states, and he explores several efforts that are underway.

My copy of The Myth of Voter Suppression has 453 endnotes, each providing documentation enabling the reader to go back to the original sources to substantiate the factual claims presented in the book. Lucas concludes with this thought:

“History shows there have always been demagogues resisting changes to bring more integrity to elections. It’s important the public arm itself with the facts—both historical and contemporary. This is the only way to combat the lies of the new political machine” [178].

For the citizen who wants to arm himself or herself with the facts, The Myth of Voter Suppression is a good place to start. Five stars, highly recommended.

[Full disclosure: I received a free PDF copy of the book from the author for the purposes of review. I was not compensated in any way for this review.]

When all is said and done, it's time to reboot...

First: full disclosure. I wrote this post for my benefit, to remind me of what is true and to get re-centered on what is important, and what is ultimate. I am a political junkie and sometimes get off-centered. I needed the thought that went into this essay in order to restore my own sense of balance. Perhaps it can help you, too. Take a deep breath, and read on...

Tuesday will come and go and the earth will continue to orbit the sun. No matter who is elected (and no matter how long it takes us to find out who won), you’ll still need to go to work, raise your children, love your spouse.  

Here are a few thoughts to remember:

1. No matter who wins, the outcome is ultimately an act of God’s sovereign control over His creation. “For not from the east, nor from the west, Nor from the desert comes exaltation; but God is the Judge; He puts down one and exalts another.” (Psalm 75:6–7). Nebuchadnezzar’s dream in Daniel 4 is particularly helpful: “This sentence is by the decree of the angelic watchers and the decision is a command of the holy ones, in order that the living may know that the Most High is ruler over the realm of mankind, and bestows it on whom He wishes and sets over it the lowliest of men” (Daniel 4:17).

2. Do not get caught up in conspiracy theories. God’s got this. What if the vote is polluted? What if there is cheating, perhaps organized fraud? The sin of man will never overcome the plan of God. Conspirators may thwart the will of man, but they will never thwart the will of God. Psalm 2 should forever destroy the fear of conspiracies: “Why are the nations in an uproar and the peoples devising a vain thing? The kings of the earth take their stand and the rulers take counsel together against the Lord and against His Anointed, saying, “Let us tear their fetters apart and cast away their cords from us!” He who sits in the heavens laughs, the Lord scoffs at them” (Psalm 2:1–4).

3. On the other hand, don’t be glib about the sovereignty of God. The fact that Christians have confidence in God’s sovereign control of all things should never lead the believer to become glib or insensitive to suffering that is a result of wicked men and poor governance. Jeremiah knew God was in control of the Babylonian invasion—but he still wept for his nation, nonetheless. Jesus knew His Father was in control of the judgment to come, but He still wept over Jerusalem (Luke 19:41). Caring deeply about our nation and its fortunes is neither unbiblical or unspiritual—rather, it is an appropriate response to our stewardship in this earthly kingdom.

4. Remember that relationships are far more important than politics. Our politics are certainly formed out of our worldview, but not everyone has thought as deeply about the connections. All of us, including me, live with a degree of cognitive dissonance or intellectual contradiction in our opinions and viewpoints. The Scripture is absolute; our opinions are not absolute. Don’t confuse the two. We are to receive one another: “Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions. One person has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats vegetables only. The one who eats is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him. Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.” (Romans 14:1–4)

5. Do not buy the argument that concern for the economy and the policies that impact it is a greedy preoccupation with wealth. Many of those who make this charge are precisely the ones whose economic status largely protects them from the vagaries of a faltering economy. For the majority of Americans, the health of the economy translates to whether they can pay their rent or mortgage, keep the electricity and heat on, and put food on the table. The economy matters hugely, because it has a direct and often immediate impact on human suffering. Christians should care about this—not only in terms of mercy ministries, but in terms of laws and policies that add strength to the economy.

6. Do not buy the argument that the church and its mission are largely unaffected by culture in which it lives. Paul intimates in 1 Timothy 2 that domestic tranquility has a positive effect on the ability to share the gospel: “First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” (1 Timothy 2:1–4)

7. Don’t be confused: America is neither ultimate nor permanent. The Constitution is neither ultimate nor permanent. Only God, His Word, and His plan are ultimate. “The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever” (Isaiah 40:8). Someday—maybe soon, who knows—all the works of man will come to an end in the fires of God’s judgment. Washington D.C. will be burned to a crisp. London, Paris, Moscow, Beijing, Seoul, and all the capitals of men will be burned to a crisp. That doesn’t mean the policies and laws of those places are irrelevant, but it does mean that they are at best temporary.

8. Don’t be confused: America has been greatly blessed by God, but Americans are not the people of God; rather, the true church comprises the people of God. While the Constitution embodies many biblical principles, it is not the sixty-seventh book of Scripture—it’s not the Epistle to the Church of Philadelphia, USA.

Here’s what we should remember: we must faithfully exercise our stewardship as citizens of an earthly kingdom, but we must never allow that citizenship to take priority over our heavenly one. On Wednesday morning, God will still be on the throne. His sovereign plan will reign supreme. He will still be good and loving and just and faithful. The blessed hope of the believer will be unchanged by political winds. Fullness of joy is found in the presence of God, not in political victory. Our joy will continue no matter who sits behind the Resolute Desk in the White House.

If your eyes (and my eyes) are fixed on Christ, our joy will be undiminished.

“Therefore if you have been raised up with Christ, keep seeking the things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. Set your mind on the things above, not on the things that are on earth. For you have died and your life is hidden with Christ in God. When Christ, who is our life, is revealed, then you also will be revealed with Him in glory.” (Colossians 3:1–4)

Clashing Worldviews between kingdoms in conflict

 I’ve made several claims in the previous blog posts. Pulling the lever for Trump does not necessarily amount to an endorsement for the man, but could be a legitimate strategic move to block the progressive takeover of the country. By the same token, pulling the lever for Biden does not necessarily amount to an endorsement of abortion, but could be a legitimate strategic move to get rid of Trump, whose character is viewed as a cancer on the body politic.

Genuine Bible-believing Christians can (legitimately) find themselves on opposite sides of this see-saw, and it is important to the unity of the Church that we not slander one another in our disagreements. It boils down to what you consider the more compelling negative factor as you attempt to glorify God in the exercise of your stewardship to vote: the dismal character of Donald Trump, or the dangerous trajectory of the Democratic party. There is inescapable cognitive dissonance no matter which path you take. There is no decision in this election year exempt from critique—including my own. I do consider my argument to be compelling; I do not consider it to be bullet-proof.

From a wisdom perspective, however, in my opinion the choice does not amount to a zero-sum moral equivalence. I don’t see the two options as roughly equal, and this is because of the overt and aggressive hostility the various factions of the progressive movement take toward biblical Christianity. I view it as self-evident that the Democratic leadership is joined at the hip to the progressive movement; the Republicans are not so joined.

When I say that the Democratic party and its closely associated progressive movement are deeply hostile against Christianity, I’m not talking about the average Joe but the cultural and political leaders, the organizers, thinkers and philosophers of the movement. I am not referring to the genuine Christians who feel compelled to pull the Dem lever because of the terrible deficits on the Republican side. I have before stated my belief that Christians following their convictions can be on either side of this binary choice based on which factors seem to them to be more weighty.

So how is the trajectory of the progressive movement and their Democratic enablers deeply hostile against biblical Christianity? Perhaps the most critical is in their view of the nature of truth and reality, but that’s a pretty complex topic, so I won’t deal with it in this post. I’ll identify five critical areas that can be readily understood.

Sanctity of Life

The abortion movement is killing living persons in the womb at a genocidal rate. Think about it: from 2007 to 2016 nearly as many living human beings were slaughtered in the womb as comprised the entire combined populations of Washington DC, Wyoming, Vermont, Alaska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Delaware, Rhode Island, and Montana. The abortions reported to the CDC during that ten-year period were 7,211,569 [CDC figures]; the combined estimated populations of those states in 2019 were 7,388,666 [Wikipedia]. The abortions reported to the CDC in that period are over seven times the high estimate of the Rwandan genocide in 1994 [Wikipedia]. It’s almost impossible to find a federal-level Democratic politician that will even consider the most modest limitations on abortion. And yet, Psalm 139 clearly indicates life begins at conception, and is precious to God.

The burgeoning industry of euthanasia is another evidence of the progressive disregard for the sanctity of life. The states permitting euthanasia are California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, New Jersey, Oregon, Vermont, Washington. Every single one is reliably progressive and was controlled by the Democratic party and Democratic governors when they passed bills legalizing euthanasia. “Whoever sheds man’s blood, By man his blood shall be shed, For in the image of God He made man.” (Genesis 9:6)

Human Sexuality

The Bible clearly states that God created mankind “male and female” (Genesis 1:27). The progressives of the Democratic Party have bought into the notion that gender is unrelated to one’s biological sex, that both gender and sex are socially constructed, and that gender is fluid and is a matter of personal choice from a palette of unlimited possibilities. Besides being a stunning disconnect from objective reality, this notion has led to conflict even among progressives: feminists, for instance, insist there is something unique to a woman’s experience, whereas the trans movement insists that anyone (including men) can be women—there is nothing unique about it.

The progressive insistence that gender and sex are not objective realities but mere social constructs has resulted in mind-boggling legislation harmful to women, ranging from permitting biological men in women’s locker rooms to allowing biological males to compete in women’s sports. California’s Governor Newsom signed a bill on September 29^th that permits convicted criminals who claim to be “trans women” (i.e. biological males who identify as females) to be housed in womens’ prisons. This is not going to end well for some women sharing cells with “trans women.”

Some individuals desire help in regaining a normal gender/sexual identity through what is called conversion therapy. The progressive movement has pushed both sides of the aisle to ban conversion therapy in many states and cities across the country. In other words, you are permitted to enter the LGBTQ+ lifestyle, but you are never permitted to leave it. There undoubtedly are some “therapeutic” techniques that should be banned, but a general ban on helping someone reacquire a normal sense of identity simply reveals the intolerance of the progressives. They employ the law to force others to comply with their ideology.

It’s sad enough that the progressives encourage and enable such confusion, but it’s tyrannical when they try to force everyone else to enter into the delusion. Unwilling to tolerate those who disagree, the progressives demand that people use language perpetuating the lie or risk their jobs. People have already lost careers and been mobbed on social media because they refuse to use the “proper pronoun.” While many Republican politicians tolerate gender confusion and don’t legislate to restrict it, the Democratic politicians aggressively promote it and criminalize opposition to it.

The claim that gender and sexuality are social constructs, and that one can freely choose his identity is not a morally neutral position. Instead, it reveals deep hostility and rebellion against the sovereign God who created us as male and female.

Marriage and the Family

Whereas the Bible indicates marriage is between one man and one woman, and uses that model to illustrate the reality of the relationship between Christ and the church, progressives have changed the definition of marriage to include homosexual relationships and altered the definition of a family to include polyamory, among other things. They have also been very successful in lobbying for the privilege of adopting children into these distorted relationships, thus creating additional confusion in the minds of children.

This is an attack on the basic social unit of society upon which nations are built. Stable families are essential to a flourishing civilization. But not content to redefine marriage from a legal standpoint, the progressives are attempting through legislative and judicial means to make Christians celebrate the perversion. A classic example of the progressives’ use of the force of law can be seen in the multiple cases brought against Colorado’s Masterpiece Cakeshop, first in trying to compel the baker to create a custom wedding cake celebrating a same-sex marriage, and then trying to force the baker to create a custom cake celebrating a gender transition. Jack Phillips does not refuse to serve homosexuals or transgenders—he simply refuses to apply his custom artistry in support of that which violates his religious convictions. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which along with the plaintiffs pursued prosecution against Phillips, was found by the US Supreme Court to be overtly hostile to Phillips’ Christian convictions. It is precisely such an atmosphere of open hostility to biblical Christianity that is energized by the progressive movement and their Democratic enablers. It is rapidly gaining the force of law across the land.

Parental Sovereignty

Whereas the Bible gives parents the responsibility for raising children, the progressive movement views children as better served by coming under state supervision and state-mandated education. For example, Elizabeth Bartholet (identified by the Harvard Gazette as a “nationally renowned child welfare expert, and as the faculty director of the Child Advocacy Program at Harvard Law School”) is agitating for a “radical transformation in homeschooling.” She claims that the state should strictly regulate homeschooling to ensure that children are not being abused (by their parents, no less!). She’s concerned that children are not learning basic academic skills, and that they aren’t “getting the kind of exposure to alternative views that enables them to exercise meaningful choices about their future lives.” Referring to families with religious convictions, she claims that children in those families might not be able to choose to “exit these ideological communities” and that “society may not have the chance to teach them values important to the larger community, such as tolerance of other people’s views…” Aside from the fact that the progressive movement is the single most intolerant collection of ideologies to appear in a long time, her concerns would be laughable if they weren’t taken so seriously by progressives.

There are multiple problems with her assertions. For one, the state is not doing a particularly good job at present protecting children from abuse, as anyone who brushes up against the system can see, and Bartholet conveniently does not mention the bullying and abuse (sometimes even sexual) that goes on in the public schools. Secondly, many public schools are doing a decidedly mediocre job teaching basic academic skills. Third, her statement about “alternative views” and “meaningful choices” are fine for her to exercise with her own children, but neither she nor the state has the right to impose her values on families that hold different values. Christians aren’t interested in their children being indoctrinated with “values important to the larger community,” but rather in passing along their own values to the children (which, historically, have included values which make for excellent communities). The progressive movement only goes in one direction: greater government regulation and control, and enforcement of their values by force of law.

Socialism

The progressive movement and their Democratic enablers is pushing socialism as a means of ensuring equal outcomes for all people. On the one hand, I share the desire that every person should be valued and treated fairly and justly in all aspects—it is a proper goal towards which we should all strive. But people are different (i.e., possessing genuine diversity), with different natural abilities, different interests, different motivations, different commitments, and different values—which means the only way to achieve equal outcomes is by government force.

The end-goal of socialism is expressed in a statement employed by Karl Marx: “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” The idea was that when socialism finally buds into full flower there will be such a supply of goods and services that there will be enough to provide for everyone. Socialism assumes that each worker will work to maximum efficiency, not because he is individually rewarded for it, but out of a natural altruism. Socialism assumes that no one will cheat, no one will be lazy, no one will hoard or collect more than he needs, and that no official of the state will abuse his position or role in the distribution of goods. Socialism assumes the benevolent redistributive power of the state. And because there is no legitimate creation of wealth in a socialist construct, socialism also assumes that the presence of wealth is prima facie evidence of oppression.

Ideological socialism is both atheistic (God does not exist) and idolatrous (the State is the ultimate reality and ultimate authority). Socialism therefore denies the most fundamental facts of human nature: first, that man is created in the image of God. With the loss of this truth, you lose genuine inalienable rights; instead your rights are whatever the State says they are, and can be changed at the State’s whim. You also have the loss of the inherent dignity of each human life. Old people a drag on your economy or lifestyle? How about a little euthanasia to take care of the problem? Is that pregnancy interfering with your goals? Why not kill the baby? When the dignity, equality, and value of each person is not set by a transcendent, sovereign Creator, the table is set for racism.

The second fundamental fact socialism denies is that man is born a sinner, with a powerful self-interest that trumps all other interests. This denial alone commits socialism to unending failure, as it is a denial of a fundamental human reality. Socialism cannot work because people are not naturally altruistic. A fascinating observtion is that every strongly socialistic economy has a flourishing capitalistic black market running just below the surface. Why? The success of socialist ideology did not create it—rather, the abject failure of socialism necessitated it.

Every society requires some proper level of benevolence on the part of the government in order to help the helpless and protect the disadvantaged. America is no exception—we have a necessary social safety net. But that’s not socialism. The closer a government moves toward controlling the means of production, and the greater the percentage of personal income levied as tax for redistributive purposes, the closer that government edges toward socialism, which will ultimately issue in tyranny and failure.

Having denied the sin nature of man, socialism takes a reductionistic view of man: man is no longer morally responsible, but is a basically good blank slate that can be molded at will through education, indoctrination, and reprogramming. Is Joe a misogynist? Send him to sensitivity training. Is Suzy a racist? Send her to a diversity reeducation camp. Is Bill a criminal? All he needs is education.

Because socialism does not believe in the universal sin nature of man, it is incapable of restraining it through the philosophical structure of the system. Which explains why all socialism—all progressivism—eventually turns brutally repressive. Repression is the only way it can stem the natural inclination of its citizens. It also explains why the lie is such a common thread in the fabric of socialism (North Korea being a prime example): you cannot admit the utopia has failed, so you must obfuscate that fact through deception: “war is peace; freedom is slavery; ignorance is strength.”

The Democratic leadership, in lockstep with progressives, is moving in an inevitable trajectory toward full-bore socialism. The Republican party is not. The Democrats have gained virtually all the cultural levers of power in America and are politically ascendant. The party leadership has joined itself to radical progressivism, which now provides both the reigning ideology and the emotional energy of the party. It is a dangerous combination, in my opinion.

In Closing

In both my blog posts and my book The Candidate, I have excoriated the Republican leadership for its failures to hold to the Constitution and the conservative principles of small government and individual responsibility. I’m not so partisan that I cannot openly condemn the failures of either the Republican party or conservatism in general. In both my writing and my preaching I have often said there is nothing stinkier than Christless conservatism.

I do not back off from that opinion in these series of posts. What I am advocating is that the demonstrable and accelerating trajectory of the progressive movement and their Democratic enablers poses a far greater danger than the offensive character of Donald Trump. Trump is an anomaly, not a revolution or a trajectory. Other than Trump himself, you’re not going to be able to cite any movement-wide tendency in the leadership of the Republican party towards racism, white-supremacy, or unconstitutional tyranny.

I don’t hold out much hope for this country. I believe we are now experiencing the righteous judgment of God for our national sins. But when I pull the lever for Trump, I will not be voting for an offensive character, I will be voting against the trend of this present darkness sweeping over our land. Perhaps God will have mercy on our sinful nation.