Just a Regular Rape

For a few weeks there has been a lot of discourse about the Loundoun County school where a girl was raped by a boy in a skirt in the school bathroom. Recently it has come to light that the girl had previous consensual encounters with the boy and the story for the most part turned out to be different than it has first been reported upon, as usually happens. Once the news broke that the girl had had consensual encounters with the boy previously, I nervously waited to see if the champions of consent from the past would compromise their own morals and beliefs to condemn this girl for "her part" in her rape or not, or to what degree.

I was predictably disappointed that they did, in fact, compromise their morals on consent - but it was as little as possible. Only in implications, in the framing. When making headlines or opening paragraphs, the fact that the girl and boy had met up for consensual sex in the school bathroom previously was brought up as the "main point" - disguised as an objective journalistic reporting detail, but worded and framed as a headliner detail. Their reason for this isn't to excuse the rape necessarily, but to excuse the boy in the skirt in the girl's bathroom. Because, you see, to the mainstream population this issue has been, from the beginning, not about a girl being raped, but about trying to defend transgender bathroom policy. It started that way from the very beginning when the girl's father was dragged out of a school board meeting and has never stopped being about that for them.

That's why such an obtuse a ridiculous article was written entitled, astonishingly, "The Right's Big Lie About A Sexual Assault in Virginia". I cannot stress enough how absurd this was to read as a real, genuine article.

The title is one thing, but what's somewhat surprising is that every terrible detail is confirmed in the article, which still has the audacity to claim that the whole thing was a "big lie". The dad being arrested for acting out at a school board meeting because he was furious that his daughter was raped. The school not properly reporting the crime and covering it up. The boy being transferred to another school and committing a second sexual crime. Everything, every single detail is correct. So what on earth is the "big lie" here that the article showcases?

Since for them it was about transgenders in bathrooms from the first day, it's still about it now. The "big lie" is that this wasn't a case of a regular teenager using the cover of false transgender identity to enter the girl's bathroom and commit a crime. We can all rest easy, folks! Since the girl and boy had met up previously in the girl's bathroom, this is not a case that can be used against transgenders in girl's bathrooms! Conservatives lied yet again! The entire premise of saying the right had a "big lie" is that this was not a normal teenage boy using the cover of the transgender bathroom policy to commit a sexual crime against a totally random and unsuspecting female victim. 

What's interesting is that that fact is the only thing that is a "lie", yet the article intends to convince us that we "had it all wrong". All wrong. All of it, totally wrong. Except for the vast majority of it. What's most glaring of course is that it was never a lie - details about the story were missing. For all intents and purposes, it was actually definitely a boy using transgender identity as a cover to go into the girl's room and rape someone - until we learned that they organized ahead of time to meet up in there on purpose. We do not lie when we are lacking information. Is it wise to make declarations about a situation when you don't have all the information? Surely, we could have a discussion about that, but that is different from intentionally lying about a situation. 

None of this, of course, matters to the author of this and other articles like it. The framework of this piece allows unbelievable responses in the people who were desperate to be relieved of their guilt for wanting to belittle this crime against an innocent girl, such as the following:

"So, it was all bullshıt. The boy wearing a skirt who raped a girl isn't trans. They had hooked up in the bathroom a couple times before. This time she said no & he raped her. Then the girl's dad fed the media the "trans predator" story."

"It was all bullshit." All of it, according to the rape apologists, was bullshit. Except, of course, for the school hiding the rape, sending the boy to another school where he would commit another sexual crime, arresting the father for trying to speak for his daughter, so on and so on. It turns out a very large amount of the story was absolutely not bullshit, but it becomes all bullshit when the magic information they needed to quell their nervous hearts is heard, that the girl and boy had previous encounters. Suddenly all is forgiven.

Except that the biggest cover points I have seen in every article that discussed this horrible situation did not even focus on the transgender aspect. It was mentioned, of course, but nothing has been more important to the people covering this story than the fact that the school covered up the rape. This was the absolute biggest part of the story, it was not focused on transgender kids from the beginning. It was, however, the main focus for the mainstream, liberals, leftists, and Democrats. They projected their focus on transgender bathroom policy onto their opposition - or perhaps maliciously, intentionally pretended that a school covering up a rape was not a big deal.

Yes, from the beginning, before it was even a story, before the girl's father was even arrested, this was about transgenders in bathrooms for the mainstream - that's why the school hid the rape. That's why they had the father forcibly removed, because they knew they hid the rape and didn't want to be found out. They hid the rape because the boy had worn a skirt as a cover to go into the girl's bathroom uncontested and they didn't want this story used as ammunition against their transgender bathroom policy. It was a relief to them that the girl had had previous sexual encounters with the boy, which is why they think "the right" has made this case into what they see as a whole hullabaloo over just a run of the mill rape. They are ecstatic that this isn't a random assault by a boy who wore a skirt to enter the girl's bathroom. Despite that this girl was raped, the fact that they had intentionally met up in the bathroom before, and had done so that day, resolves the moral quandary they had over the case from the beginning. They project that to their preferred boogeyman of "the right" and spin the story until it vomits. "The right lied about this story from the beginning!"

Except the big problems I've seen from the beginning weren't that a skirt wearing boy used transgender bathroom policy to rape a girl, but rather that the school hid the rape because they were worried people would use it against their transgender bathroom policy. They had the father - understandably furious - arrested to keep trying to hide the rape. The big story was the blatant disregard of this girl, the crime against her hidden for their agendas, and as if it couldn't get any worse, another girl was assaulted due to their negligence. Because they didn't want to hurt the transgender cause.

It wasn't the right that made this about transgender bathroom policies, it was the Loundoun County school when they hid the rape for fear of making it about transgender bathroom policies. It is about transgender bathroom policy not because a boy wore a skirt into a bathroom to rape a girl, but because adults are so worried about passing transgender bathroom policies that they would hide a rape by a boy in a skirt. The transgender agenda itself is not worried about sacrificing young girls for their cause.

What's more is, unfortunately, they still aren't even in the clear. They are so focused on the boy in a skirt portion that they are ignoring the fact that these two students were having sex in the school bathroom. How is that even acceptable? Of course, kids were having sex in school bathrooms when I was in school, too, but it was at least marginally more difficult when boys were not allowed free reign of the girl's room. The transgender bathroom policy may have not, in this specific case, enabled a boy to randomly assault an unsuspecting girl in the girl's bathroom under the cover of the transgender bathroom policy, but the greater transgender discourse absolutely enabled the situation. Would they have met up anyway, without pretending to be gender fluid? Maybe. Probably even likely. But the fact of the matter is, there would have been a small chance he would have been stopped at the gate if the adults in the situation were not so hellbent on propping up transgender ideology.

The NYT flagrantly accuses the Bad Team of using this story to hurt "transgender children" when they used "transgender children" from the beginning to try and erase a crime against a girl and a second crime against another girl that was enabled due to their complicity. That's why they are so stuck on the idea that anyone has been "lying" about this story to hurt the transgender cause - because they thought someone would and proactively tried to hide the rape to keep that from happening.

Of course they will argue that the father made the situation about the transgender bathroom policy. I understand that this was his intention, as it is very likely his daughter framed the situation for him thusly. She was brave enough to speak up about being raped, but was she brave enough to tell her father that it was by a boy with whom she had been regularly fornicating in the school bathroom previously? We don't know that yet, but it seems rather likely. Despite any of this, of course, while it may have been his intention to frame it thusly, his sudden summary expulsion from the school board meeting is what set the narrative. While surely people had been talking about the "predatory exploitation of the transgender bathroom policy" aspect before we knew that the girl planned to meet with the boy who raped her, I cannot stress enough that the biggest part of the story from the beginning was the school hiding the rape. Articles like these, meant to assuage leftist moral quandaries over being more concerned for transgender bathroom policy than a girl being raped, do even more to delegitimize the victim - by claiming that the people who were defending her and trying to ensure her rapist saw justice were actually lying about the case. The more nuanced details, of course, insist that surely she was raped and trust us we do think that's bad, but the discourse is framed overwhelmingly about transgender bathroom policies instead of that adults responsible for the safety of a young girl covered up a heinous crime against her. 

Of course, more details don't make this story better. Many parts of it are disgusting and revealing about how our culture hurts children and teenagers. One of the first articles I read about this story that contained the information that the girl and boy had had previous consensual encounters was a very objective article. In this article, a much larger problem about this crime is uncovered. It stated that the boy had previously propositioned the girl for "a particular sexual act" in the past, but she continually refused. Considering the crime was forcible sodomy, we do not need to do much of a connect the dots puzzle to figure out that the boy had been trying to persuade this girl to engage in consensual sodomy rather than forcible. The boy further claims that he stopped when he realized he was hurting her. Whether or not that's true, it showcases a deeper tragic scenario. 

When we know what we know about porn and its horrible effect on young minds, we get a much more depressing picture of this encounter. A boy's mind poisoned by gratuitous pornography showcasing women enthusiastically enjoying sudden anal penetration, or perhaps even more disturbingly not enjoying, convinced this teenager that if his female hookup just tried it, it would be just like the sex he sees in the porn! So convinced he was of this in fact, he decided it would be okay to force it upon her, and it would just work out, like it does in the porn, and he'd get the sexual gratification he sees the men in porn display. All the education about consent in the world has to fight against the brain rewiring, evil power of highly accessible, gratuitous porn.

Many many things could have been different to have stopped this situation from ever happening. Many things could have been done differently to allow responsible adults to actually handle it properly after it unfortunately did happen. The big story isn't about whether boys can use the girl's room, though it is a small part of it. 

Truly no situation is ever so cut and dry. I'm sure there are people who were excited that there was what appeared to be such a plain and uncontestable example of transgender bathroom policies harming young girls, just as excited as the people who were thrilled to hear the victim of this crime had intentionally met up with her soon-to-be rapist that day. People love to exploit others for their causes and beliefs, an unfortunate reality. But the real story is actually just as bad, despite it not matching up perfectly to any one of these sociopaths' desired narratives. There are multiple aspects to it, all of which are terrible. The facts of the situation do not reflect well on the Loudoun county school and contribute even more fuel to the fire of the greater "parents and school board meetings" discourse happening concurrent to this. This is probably the most important aspect of the story and people are more than happy to bury it, as the facts undeniably point to a justifiably outraged father being arrested for attempting to advocate for his daughter.

I am not very surprised lately by the grotesque behavior of many, but the framing of this crime as what essentially boils down to "guys this isn't a special rape, it's just a regular run of the mill rape" is particularly disgusting. We were just a few years ago heavy into how important it was for schools to take sexual assault seriously. Apparently it was a huge deal then. But now it is not, because holding the school who tried to hide a rape accountable could hurt the transgender cause, even though we could easily agree to set that aside and focus on the reality of the victim. The blatant display of tribalism and friend vs. foe thinking is perhaps the last time I will be so naively surprised. They would surely sacrifice thousands of young girls at the altars of their culture war than risk harming any of their ideological causes and it is naïve to believe otherwise.

Mental Health Expert Doesn't Understand Christianity

With an opening paragraph that summarizes best as "the top five most superficial, surface-level reasons people become atheists", it's easy to start rolling your eyes as soon as you start to read this article. Don't worry, though, because at no point will your eyes get any rest. The article continues to portray a misunderstanding of Biblical reality so unbearable, it's no wonder that anyone who has these hangups about their former faith left it in the first place. 

The first unhealthy, allegedly Christianity-induced thought pattern is "all or nothing thinking", wherein the concept that "no sin is too small to send you to Hell" is causing former believers to go too hard at work, which sounds much more like a works-based salvation problem, but why would I try to make sense of this hot mess of a conceptual leap that's already based off of flimsy, incorrect theology. Apparently working 20 hours of overtime a week is some kind of black-and-white thinking issue. Regardless, the real crime here is a complete misconception of what "sends" one to Hell. It even further exacerbates its floppy conundrum with a statement that contains two truths, but has them both jammed together in an incoherent way. "Jesus only saves because He was perfect." Yes... Only Jesus saves, and He is perfect, but these don't cause each other. So what's the Bible actually say about these things?

The only thing the author gets right is, yes, there is either Heaven or Hell and nothing in-between. To argue against this in the examination of "all or nothing thinking", though, is absurd. These refer to locations, relative to their presence or absence of God Almighty. You are either in the presence of God, or you are not. There is no grey area between Heaven and Hell because there is no quasi-"Shrödingers God" type location to go to. Of course, the vast majority of even the lukewarm-est of Christians should, at this point in modern Christian theological discourse, be quite aware that it's not sin that sends one to Hell, but failure to accept Jesus as one's savior. What some may not be fully aware of is that it wasn't just that Jesus never committed a sin, but that His conception was immaculate, that makes Him free of sin and thus perfect, and able to be the ultimate and final sacrifice needed to satisfy God's wrath. 

Immaculate doesn't mean "no sex involved," - you've probably at least once heard immaculate used to describe a cleaning job that was done so well as to not leave a single speck of dirt behind. "Immaculate conception" refers to a conception that was, in layman's terms, spotlessly clean. The manner in which He was conceived made Him born without sin. Denominations disagree about what this exactly means, with Catholics believing Mary herself was also free of sin, but the fact of the matter is that Jesus was exempt from the original sin of Adam. Thus, even if, somehow, a human being from start to finish, never committed a sin, they are still born of the original sin of Adam and still require salvation from Jesus. The very state of our existence is tainted by sin (something the author takes issue with later), so there's actually little need to worry about "even the smallest sin" sending you to hell - it's actually much simpler. The only unforgivable sin is "blasphemy against the holy spirit". Some people believe this translates more or less into the only unforgivable sin being the denial of Jesus specifically. However you feel about it, it's clear for multiple reasons that, theologically, the whole concept here is a mess.

Second of all, only Jesus saves, but not because He is perfect. He was, and is, (and always will be) perfect, but He saves because he chose voluntarily to be a sinless sacrifice to close the gap between humanity and God, allowing us to be with God through Jesus. These are, as we see, very different justifications for why, specifically, only Jesus saves. Only fleeting remnants of the herein accused "Christian" reasons for an all-or-nothing thought complex are actually present in our theology.

Next up we have the apparently uniquely Christian concept of Us vs. Them complex. Obviously that was sarcastic, since "Good guys and bad guys" is basically in vogue at the moment when it comes to the vast majority of our society, unless this author is going to try to convince me that nearly every politician, pundit, and political activist is an "ex-vangelical". The "us vs. them" trap is easy to fall into, and unfortunately Christians do, too, but likely not because of what's in the bible. What's worse is, not only is this laughably nowhere near a uniquely Christian idea, it's - yet again - not even a Christian idea to start. 

Most starkly of course is the concept that Christians view sinners as our Bad Guys camp, which would then imply that we would scorn, hate, and avoid them - but of course the bible has plenty of passages about praying for your enemies, loving people who hate you, and trying desperately to save sinners from the eternal torment of Hell. The bible tries very hard to free us from the prolific us vs. them complex, forcing us to see our enemies as God's beloved children, just as we are. Seems a lot more complex of a relationship than "good guys and bad guys".

To make matters even more laughable, we see the line in this paragraph, "Christianity offers no mental model in which people are complicated and imperfect but basically decent," which I laughed at in real time when I first read it. People being complicated and imperfect while desiring to be good, decent people and do what's right is such a frequent theme in the bible that I'm not sure this person is talking about the right religion. I'm not sure what these people think they converted from, but it wasn't Christianity.

This next one is an extension of the previous, wherein the argument is that, due to our awareness of our own failings, we feel we are never good enough, since we are supposed to be like Jesus, who is perfect. This may be the only arguably valid concern in this article as actually being a potential side effect of Christian thought, but it is nonetheless still not biblically reasonable. We coach against this destructive mindset with poignant reminders that, as simple as it may be, God loves us. Yes, He wants us to work to be more like His son, but He loves us still, even when we fail. He is not a preoccupied, busy working father who only notices us when we are succeeding and excelling, who we feel compelled to compete against ourselves for his attention and love. At our worst and most lowly, God is there with us and loves us.

Our fourth presumably Christian hangup is called "hyperactive guilt detection", which seems fully to be the same category as the previous issue and should probably have been the prequel to the third point, if I had to be the editor for this piece. Ultimately the issue being explained here is that doing morally wrong things causes one to feel guilty, so as one continues to do morally wrong things, it weighs down their conscious. I'm trying to figure out why that's a bad thing so I'll go out on a limb here and assume that, because the author disagrees with objective moral good, that they are insisting here that it's bad to continually feel bad for doing things that are bad. We will just have to chalk this one up to pagan shenanigans and move on, then.

The fifth one is a classic, so I'll try to avoid dedicating too many paragraphs as to why this tired old argument simply must be hung up to dry for the final time. While this piece does not state outright the argument against "sexual repression", it would be silly to think they don't believe in it. Essentially, the argument is that keeping the aspects of your sexual desires that are morally wrong under control, or "repressed", causes neuroses and generally bad, negative side effects. It's much better, the argument goes, to express your traditionally-considered-wrong sexual desires, or else it will build up and explode in some modernly-considered-wrong way.

Let's clear up a few things first - homosexual and premarital relations are as morally wrong in biblical Christianity as nonconsensual, pedophilic, and adulterous relations are - it's just the first two that modernists want us to consider as socially and morally acceptable. Then again, this particular author may disagree since they bizarrely use the commandment that tells you to not bang your neighbor's wife as an example of that mean ol' biblical sexuality. Given the fact that all sexual relations outside of heterosexual marriage are considered morally wrong in Christianity, but only half or so are considered morally wrong by secular standards, by what standard exactly do we base rape and the like as being acceptable to repress? Surely the author does not condone seeking sexual relations with minors, and yet somehow the concept of sexual repression is bad and will hurt people. What we have here is an argument not worth having unless this question can be answered - and don't fool yourself, the answer has nothing to do with "consenting adults can do whatever they want in their own bedrooms". Repressing a sexual desire to rape is analogous to repressing a sexual desire for your consenting boyfriend or girlfriend, in regards to the concept that repression of those desires will cause harm. The question is why is repressing a sexual desire to rape or to fornicate with 8 year olds not only acceptable but necessary, while other forms of sexual repression are evil and bad and will hurt the one repressing them? Without an answer, the "sexual repression" argument against biblical Christianity is nothing but vapid self-serving hogwash.

The next concern makes little sense, frankly, so I can only suspect the author has some kind of experience with people feeling this way in order to make a claim that anyone does this. The concern here is a strange take on the "build your treasures up in heaven" mindset wherein the person fails to also take joy in enjoyable things in life. The line "small every-day wonders that comprise the center of joy in mindful living" invokes thoughts of the exact sort of things that Christians emphasis daily, particularly when you use a term like "mindful living" which is a cornerstone of Christian culture. 

Perhaps I'm giving them too much credit, here, and the problem is that the things they think people should be "enjoying" here on earth aren't wholesome pleasures like spending time with family, gardening, playing a team sport, baking with your grandmother, stopping your busy life for five minutes to sit on the porch and enjoy the sunset, and so forth. If so, they did a fanciful job of hiding this behind a term like "everyday wonders", as those same everyday wonders are the things that we behold and give thanks and praise to the Lord for providing us. We typically pray before every meal, for heaven's sake, an act that regularly reminds me how blessed I am to eat such delicious food, increasing my enjoyment of it so much more - these are the everyday wonders of mindful Christian living that we take great joy in. Nothing in my life has come close to shattering my deeply embedded cynicism as effectively as my trust in and love for God. It is that very Christian outlook on life that grants me a deep, rich appreciation for the smallest things on this earth, the amazing miracle all around us, God's beautiful creation.

No, surely this concern is, in fact, referring to "everyday wonders" like hedonistic indulgence in self-destructive vices. There is no other explanation, aside from pure, unadulterated incompetence. 

This next one is not necessarily wrong so much as a potential side effect of coming to terms with the whole truth of Christ. "Fear of apocalypse" surely comes with the territory, but it is again a manifestation of poor emphasis on accurate theology. We should not fear the end times. The end times, the apocalypse, is the end of earth, but not the end of time. Through the bible, we are instructed not to look for the antichrist, but to look for Jesus. The return of Jesus is emphasized as a good thing and we do much unnecessary worrying when we focus on the "apocalypse" part.

However, that isn't even the biggest spot of contention here for this section. The absolute most laughable concept, here, is the idea that fearing a cataclysmic, horrible end is uniquely Christian. Our culture today is never-ending doomsday prophecies, with just about everyone convinced that - one way or another - the world as we know it is ending, and soon. Climate change alarmists are predicting that earth will be uninhabitable by 2050 - that's a lot sooner and more concrete a fear than the Christian apocalypse deadline of "we don't know". My generation is so consumed by morbid confidence in a quickly approaching dystopia-slash-Armageddon that it's basically a running joke. The most ironic part is that, without the redemption arch of Jesus' return in the mix, secular doomsday fears are an order of magnitude more hopeless and dreadful than the biblical end times. In those scenarios, there is no paradise awaiting us - just total annihilation and subsequent nothingness.

The next one is yet another shining example of this list's awkward habit of naming things that are super common in secular culture and then saying they're uniquely Christian neuroses. "Idealizing leaders" as something Christians specifically have issues with is a new one - I'd argue this is more of a general thing most people gravitate towards - a good ol' classic "are you a leader or a follower" type situation. Yes, many Christians incorrectly idolize human leaders, but this is specifically something they should not do. Actual biblical guidance tells us to, in short, not trust flawed humans, but only trust God. There is no parallel here between our commandment to trust God and any sort of mental hangup over idolizing a human leader. "No king but King Jesus". The bible does not pull any punches describing the human leaders at the time - and all of their horrible atrocities. Nowhere will you find support for the idea of idealizing a human leader.

Of course, again, we must uncomfortably point out that this is not unique to Christians - there are bobbleheads of politicians and supreme court justices, after all. Of course, fixation on the "conservative" Trump cult is the flashiest talking point lately, but the idea that every Trump sycophant is also a devout Christian is simply a false concept. Most Christians raised quite the eyebrow at the trotting out of a literal golden statue of Trump at CPAC, and our constant reminders and basic worldview concept of the fact that human beings are flawed and imperfect leads most actual Christians toward remaining sane and stable as our associates grow closer and closer to the concept of Trump as a savior. Jesus as the only one who saves is, quite literally as well as figuratively, a bedrock upon which we can remain grounded.

Secular folks do not have this kind of grounding, allowing their devotion to ebb and flow as charismatic leaders, promising all of the social change they desire, rise up and battle for the spotlight (this is how the antichrist will gain power, loved by the world - not Christians). Of course, I must mention, for fairness and context, that the worship of politicians is somewhat uniquely American - many people from other countries comment on how strange it is. Unfortunately, no one from any country is safe from the risk of attaching to a leader or charismatic figure as long as they lack a rock upon which to stand and place their trust. Again, it is ironically the Christian worldview alone that protects from the mental problem described here.

This next one I find quite interesting, described as "desperately seeking simplicity". The concept here is that a biblical understanding of our world creates quite an easy to follow set of instructions for what is right and wrong. The main point of contention here is that the author insists the world is much more complex than what a biblical worldview allows. The problem here is not that the biblical worldview is simple, but a concern that Christians would supposedly seek simplicity where there is none. The main flaw in this concept is the idea that Christianity does not contain any murky situations that require nuance and deep, complex consideration. 

I'm sure you can guess, but that assessment is wrong. Yes, there are aspects that are simple, but there are aspects of life that are simple. There are, in fact, many things that are astoundingly simple. Just as many things in biblical understanding are simple and many things are complex, so it is in a general sort of way, about everything. I must also take a quick moment to point out, that surely this list item should have been closer in position to its counterparts, items 2, 3, and 4. Indeed, this seems at best to be just another branch of the "good guys vs bad guys" point of contention from above. However, I'll address it as if it were its own case.

Compartmentalization is a problem Christians can have, but so can anyone else. Indeed, the failure to consider things as parts of one whole is a common ailment of the general population. The real issue here is not of a failure for Christians to consider "complex moral questions" but the actual point of contention is that Christians have an objective moral standard through which they analyze moral situations. There is no argument to be made that it's somehow bad to consider things with a "simple" moral frame, as how simple your moral framework is, is irrelevant to whether something is moral or immoral. The argument being made here can only logically be that the Christian moral framework is incorrect, not that Christians are somehow "trying too hard to find simplicity". This is not too surprising, since the author clearly disagrees with Christian morals. To phrase this another way, the author is not upset that Christians have a simplistic moral worldview, but that the Christian moral worldview itself is simplistic. 

And, frankly, the Christian moral framework is only simplistic in the broadest terms. We can easily designate things as murder or theft, but this is one part of the equation. Indeed, what do you DO with the murderer and the thief? God only tells us these things are wrong, He does not tell us how to punish these sinners. You can be executed for murder, but adultery is not against the law. Both are egregious sins! How to move forward from someone else's wrongdoings is intensely complex and the Christian worldview does not simplify them anymore than a secular one. In fact, it may make them much more complicated. God wants us to forgive people who have wronged us, which some brave souls have so shockingly managed to do for people who have murdered their loved ones. I can barely imagine having that kind of resolve. This is supposed to be simplistic?

The list item has other concerns to point out, like perhaps a fight lacks any identifiable good or bad sides, or problems that have no "right" answer. I place suspicion on the use of the word "right", as the author likely meant "perfect". Mostly everyone knows there are problems with no right answer, but we simply try to choose the best one. Sometimes there does not even seem to be a "best" one. These issues do exist within a Christian framework, as if they did not, we would not be instructed to pray to God and ask Him for wisdom for such complex issues as these. The "good guys vs bad guys" issue has, of course, already been beaten to death.

The only difficulty the author has that I would concede as accurate is a concern for "blurry" lines between humans and other sentient creatures. There is a biblical truth that animals lack the breath of God that humans have; there is indeed no blurred line. However, there is no biblical justification for anything less than respect and responsible treatment of those animals, as we were given dominion over them, but also told directly by God to care for and tend to His creation. The issue here is - funnily enough - a lot more complex than the author would have us imagine. If it were not complex as such, we would not have the vast number of incredibly long debates about whether it's most biblical to be vegan if possible. Frankly, coming from a staunch believer in a large number of simple biblical answers for a wide array of things, I could not tell you for a fact that veganism is not biblically coherent. The bible provides no clear answer on whether it is most righteous to abstain from meat or not. The only things I can say for sure is that humans have the breath of life from God while animals do not, that we were given dominion over animals, that we were charged with tending to animals, and that we were given permission (not commanded!) to eat meat. From there, there's quite a lively debate.

The final list item is something I would understand as a mental problem for former Christians - the nagging feeling that you're wrong, that you've made a mistake. This is, of course, something active Christians also struggle with, and indeed, every single living human person. We all struggle with doubt, and I'd be quite suspicious of the one who claims they do not.

Thus, our unfortunate adventure ends with a few closing paragraphs. The author is, in fact, a former Christian, so I can only assume their upbringing and Christian instruction were flawed, as many experience, perhaps unknowingly. It is never enjoyable to see that someone has rejected God, since we all know what that means. 

I must draw attention to the quote, meant to be poignant, "I would rather live with unanswered questions than unquestioned answers". I am clearly not the person this quote is meant for, as it makes no sense to me. While living as Christians, did these people truly believe they had no unanswered questions? I have an absolute smorgasbord of unanswered questions. I am constantly in wonder at the universe God has created, the plans He has. Properly appreciated, Christianity leaves perhaps too many unanswered questions, which is likely how we got to the point of thousands of denominations. I also have very few "unquestioned answers," and I'm not sure that this phrase is much more than vapid nonsense. Perhaps it seems so brave and inspiring because people do not wish to appear stupid by questioning it?

Unfortunately, despite being so humble as to admit that one cannot possibly have all the answers, they contend that they do have at least one answer, which is funnily enough one of the most arrogant. Looking back and being "certain of one thing", which is, that God is not real, is the absolute most obtuse thing to be certain of. If you are, as nihilistic atheists are so fond of reminding us, one speck in billions of entirely common and non-miraculous living creatures standing upon a rock hurtling through space at millions of miles per hour, how can you be so certain that there is no God? They believe themselves to be so humble, yet drip of hubris all over. I would know, of course, being a former atheist. Unlike a former Christian, it does not bother me so much that I may be wrong to have abandoned atheism. Blaise Pascal has a good few points to make on that wager. While we all have our doubts, mine are quite fleeting, and mostly revolve around other things than the existential questions of life and death. 

This wild ride has drawn to a close. I will concede that improperly understood Christianity will likely lead to a good number of unhealthy behaviors and mental disturbances, but funnily enough I would view this list as a good diagnostic tool for finding out if someone is following a cheap riff off Christianity rather than the real thing. Maybe we should read this list in church to find people's weak points in scriptural and theological understanding. 

The Unborn as a Convenient Advocation

This particular Facebook post from a Methodist pastor is over two years old, but it's the first I'm seeing of it, so you'll pardon my tardiness. There are a couple easy to come across thinkpieces about this "brilliant" post from people who would inexplicably throw this pastor into a volcano for affirming the divinity of Jesus. First, the post in question:

 

"The unborn" are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don't resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don't ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don't need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don't bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. It's almost as if, by being born, they have died to you. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus but actually dislike people who breathe.

Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn.

 

Some discussions of this post have asked the reasonable question, do we really believe the pastor is against advocating for the unborn, or is he simply using this juxtaposition to humbly request that we apply the same fervor we have to protecting the unborn towards other maligned groups of people? I cannot find, at least not very easily, the genuine answer to this question, but we still have a particularly strong argument to make for why utilization of this argument for that angle is, still, wrong.

First of all, it's a classic false dilemma. We are implicitly asked "which of the least of these is most important to advocate for?" which is a question we need not answer. Each person is called by God to advocate for different groups, as we are all limited humans with the same amount of limited time in a day. This argument insists that the most good we can do is to help the most possible people, when it may be of unimaginable importance that we spend years helping even just one particular person. We cannot know who is the most important to advocate for, so we turn to God for guidance as to who requires our help the most. We cannot do it all and it is outrageous to chuck this "whataboutism" at people in regards to the groups that they chose to dedicate their time and effort toward. The unborn are a perfectly legitimate group of people in need of advocacy and we cannot hope to shame pro-life organizers for not doing enough for other groups of people the same that we cannot shame those who help rehabilitate convicts for not spending enough time knitting winter socks for orphans.

The other issue is perhaps a little more difficult to pinpoint. The classification of calling the unborn "morally uncomplicated" is, maybe a little unexpectedly, the most important detail here. It is a true statement, in fact, to call the unborn morally uncomplicated - there is indeed absolutely no argument that can be made in good faith to justify the murder of someone who is in every imaginable way pure and innocent, and also so incredibly vulnerable. This aspect of the unborn is very precisely the part about them that makes murdering them so painfully insidious. It is wrong, of course, to permanently condemn and ignore those of us who have committed grave sins, but it is in all actuality very understandable when we have issues seeing the humanity of a person who has, for example, raped and murdered several people. It is very difficult to trust these people and very easy to believe that they will always be a danger to other, innocent people in society. It takes great discipline and faith in Jesus to believe that people so lost could be redeemed. They are indeed very morally complicated.

 

It should be then, by comparison, very clear that it is wrong to murder an innocent baby, and yet here we are, where abortion is not only legal, but advocated for, celebrated, and viewed as a sacrament to its zealous supporters. This, specifically, is what makes it so important to advocate for the unborn, because they are faced with an unbelievable amount of adversity for a group that should be an open and shut case. The idea that we aren't advocating enough for other disadvantaged people while believing strongly that abortion is wrong isn't a sign of hypocrisy, it is quite frankly the most obvious position. It should be very easy to understand that abortion is wrong. The stance of even the most mentally unengaged, low effort thinker should be against abortion, as it is so self-evidently evil. The death penalty for murderers is, by definition, far more morally complicated. There is a lot to go through, a lot of questions to ask, and ultimately a moral and logical struggle to come to a responsible and thoughtful conclusion for the best interests of society as well as our humanity. There are no similar arguments to make when it comes to whether it is acceptable to murder innocent people. The unborn are, indeed, morally uncomplicated.

The post goes on to its obvious intention, the "gotcha" moment, where the speaker tries to assume their targeted audience's beliefs and then shame them for them. The people who fall into this category are the very same low effort thinking groups who believe intuitively that abortion is wrong, but fail to put very much effort into thoughtful contemplation about these much more "morally complicated" groups. Very few genuine "pro-life advocates" (that is to say, someone who actively works to combat abortion as opposed to someone who is merely against it because it is wrong) are not convicted similarly on the importance of welfare for orphans and widows. It is a position I have seen expressed by some select few unaware, non-reflective humans, but it is far and away a minority position held by only the most obtuse and thoughtless. Here, the post tries to misclassify all pro-life advocates as ceasing to care about the child once he is born.

I could go on for an additional dozen paragraphs explaining how I believe people who support abortion manage to still believe any conscientious pro-life advocate would similarly support throwing pregnant teenagers out in the streets, but I will summarize quickly for brevity. It does not take a majority of interactions to convince the person looking for any reason to delegitimize their opponent's position that inconsistent beliefs are more common than they are in reality. Even one interaction with someone who is against abortion but says something obtuse like "women who get pregnant out of wedlock are out of luck" will cause them to believe this is the majority position, as it is convenient to their position to believe so. 

 

All of this in mind, it is actually still not hypocritical to hold these beliefs that even I would argue are inconsistent. It is unwise and thoughtless, surely, but the difference between shrugging your shoulders at a teenager who made poor decisions and is facing the consequences is worlds apart from "it is okay to murder a baby". There is nothing hypocritical about these positions. A person who would not care about the plight of the women who typically choose to abort is certainly thoughtless, as these two issues are tightly interwoven, but the reasoning behind the two positions do not conflict with one another. On one hand, murder is wrong, and on the other hand, suffering the consequences of your decisions is just part of life. They do not advocate, for example, the execution of teenagers who find themselves pregnant - they merely believe those teenagers should not kill their own children. These beliefs are fully congruent. Low effort, yes, certainly ill-advised, and, exceptionally, heartless, but not hypocritical.

Perhaps the conclusion that it is "easy" to advocate for the unborn has a few valid points to be made. It's easy because it's very obviously bad to murder the unborn. It is not a complicated situation to dissect. The conclusion is easy to come to for even the most room temperature of IQs. I would argue, though, that it is not truly "easy" to advocate for the unborn. We fight for a group that is undeniably innocent, but inexplicably difficult to represent. The very things the Methodist pastor claims makes the unborn "convenient" to advocate for, actually makes it quite difficult. It's very hard to relate to an unborn child, as while we were all once in such a position, we will never be again. It's easy to consider, "what if I were arrested for a crime I did not commit?" or "what if I found myself homeless through circumstances outside of my control?" In fact, many congruent situations ("what if I were in an irreversible coma and my family had to decide if I lived or died?") are not actually very similar when analyzed more seriously. There is no similar situation we could find ourselves in to that of an unborn child.

 

For lack of a better phrase, we have to do all the work. It is easy to find a convicted criminal, buy him a suit, and have him speak about what rehabilitation means and how difficult it is to find humanity in the prison system. It is easy to find a woman who believes she is "better off" for having an abortion and have her speak to a crowd about how important ending her child's life was for her own personal welfare. The people who suffer from abortion are not able to defend themselves, while the people who perpetrate it are free to speak unopposed. It is impossible to have an unborn child speak to a crowd. Even more difficult, they are nearly entirely invisible. It is easier even for animals to have their emotional pleas made visible and publicly for the world to see. An actual 20 week old ultrasound will be met with people genuinely arguing that it's not even a real picture. Despite the overwhelming availability of prenatal care information, people who seek to deny the humanity of the unborn simply do not look at this information or educate themselves.

Worse yet, people who advocate for the unborn are accused of nefarious ulterior motives. While the unborn as a group is morally uncomplicated, abortion itself is actually a very intense conversation. It is entirely understandable to be worried, scared, or feel helpless and, yes, even like your entire world is ending, to find yourself pregnant when you didn't want to be. It would be tone deaf to believe that it is an easy situation. The problem stems from the unavoidable reality that the unborn child is a human life, and that it is wrong to voluntarily end that life. The argument itself is simple, but the lived reality takes a much larger toll. Pro-life advocates, then, are viciously accused of being heartless and indifferent to the plight of the people who would seek abortions. The unborn may be morally uncomplicated, but advocating for them - and everything that comes with such a conviction - results in aggressive personal attacks that are difficult for the average person to stomach. People who would likely not support abortion in the majority of cases will compromise and attempt to appeal to the emotional attacks of abortion advocates to try and receive slightly less slandering and vitriol, simply because a hard "abortion is always wrong" stance comes with it so much infamy.

It is, in fact, very tone deaf to attempt to argue that the unborn are "convenient" to advocate for - as the people who advocate for the unborn are dehumanized alongside them.

Rationalia's At It Again

I already explained my opinion on Neil Degrasse Tyson's proposed virtual country of Rationalia. Recently, he addressed the fact that a large number of people and news outlets wrote pieces about how bad of an idea it was.

Apparently there was a video where he discussed this idea more in-depth, though I did not see it and, full disclosure, still have not. This address of his is enough to point out his own inconsistencies.

The first thing I will mention, and most interesting thing, is that the vast majority of pieces explaining why Rationalia is a terrible idea bring up, as I did, the mass amount of attempted utopias that ended in dystopian nightmares that were predicated on this same idea. What's interesting about that is that Neil does not address this at all in his, what we will call, rebuttal. He even links to some of the articles discussing his idea negatively that mention this very important, glaring, and well observed issue with "rationality based government," without even attempting to explain why that tooootally wouldn't happen again.

The second most interesting thing to me is how Neil was "intrigued" by how many people hated the idea. His failure to even attempt to understand or see the problems people had with his idea is very telling. Tying this into his failure to even partially address the obvious, historical fact that his idea has been tried before and turned into an utter nightmare - multiple times - shows how out touch he is. This sort of mentality was actually mostly what I discussed before - the imagined "war" between logic and emotion.

We can skip over and ignore his failure to understand how morality can't exist without an unchanging, foundational standard upon which to base them. That is a very normal problem atheists and relativists have and entails quite the discussion. We can easily point out the inconsistencies without this explanation.

We will, however, briefly touch on his failed attempt to bring the bible into this. He discusses how morals have "evolved," and can be quoted saying:

The Bible, for example, is not a fertile place to find anti-slavery commentary, nor discussions of the equality of women.

It's interesting how much different issues all tie together sometimes. This goes back to my discussion on the realities of equality and fairness. Now, it is clear from what Neil believes and the context that he thinks the bible describes women and their role in life as being "less than" a man's, when the reality is that men and women are not, and never will be, equal - because men and women are different. The bible acknowledges the reality that men and women are different and fulfill different roles and the doctrine of Christianity does not insist that women are or should be treated less good than men.

Let me recap real quick if you are lost: men and women are not equal, but neither is better. Apples and oranges are not equal, but neither is inherently better. They are different, and ironically the denial of this evidence-based reality is rather illogical.

It is worth noting that the bible also does not condone slavery, but I don't want to get too carried away. Summarized, let me start with Exodus 21:16, "Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death." There are passages that discuss slavery, but slavery is not condoned - the bible discusses slavery and how slaves and their masters should behave because slavery was a reality of life. Interestingly enough, "slaves" in these times and in this context of history were more akin to indentured servants than what we think of when we imagine slaves. This is a common misunderstanding that because the bible says something like, "if you're a slave, be a good slave," that someone can twist this to mean, "the bible said slavery is ok!" No, the bible is discussing how to behave according to God's will regardless of your life situation. It says it's not okay to be a terrible person due to your circumstances in life - even if your life sucks and you're a slave, you're still supposed to do all things for the glory of God because ultimately that's all that really matters.

Moving on.

Neil attempts to "clarify" that when he said everything would be based on evidence and reason, he only meant government policies - and by this, somehow implies that anyone ever thought differently. Neil, we all knew exactly what you meant.

The rebuttal goes on to talk about how scientists deal with problems and how that would then be applied to policy making and governance. In collecting links and reading a bit more, I came across this interesting passage that covers that quite well. According to the twitter user who posted it, it's from 40 years ago, but that is irrelevant.

This passage even directly references the concept of policy that Neil is so intent on reminding everyone that "that's all I'm talking about!" Where to build a road has no clear and defined answer. What our children should learn to best prepare them for adulthood has no clear and defined answer. Most, if not all, social policies and social concerns not only have neither clear answers nor solutions, but are frequently unclear themselves. Sometimes, we don't even know what the problem is, or whether or not there even is a problem. 

This rebuttal goes on to define how, exactly, Rationalia's citizens and government would look and behave. There are several interesting points to make here, but this one I will quote entirely because it's rather important:

In Rationalia, the sciences that study human behavior (psychology, sociology, neuroscience, anthropology, economics, etc) would be heavily funded since much of our understanding of how we interact with one another derives from research within subfields of these disciplines. Because their subjects involve humans, these fields are particularly susceptible to social & cultural bias. So the verifiability of evidence will be of highest concern.

While I wasn't entirely sure why at first, reading this was actually very disconcerting. It was perhaps the most uncomfortable part to read in the entire piece. After considering what about it was so distressing, I was brought back to something else I discussed briefly in yet another post.

When psychology and psychiatry were new fields of study, the scientists who did many of these studies performed a great number of immoral and absolutely nightmarish studies on people. Some of these studies scarred them for life or even caused physical abnormalities along with plenty of other issues. Some studies were performed on animals, and as such were a little less outright terrifying to learn about, but some of the experiments and subsequently terrible things imposed onto human test subjects were chilling enough that you'd think it was the plot of a macabre torture movie. Devastatingly, a lot of scientific advancement was actually made during the holocaust, as Nazi scientists immorally performed excruciating experiments on living humans without their consent, like how long does it take a newborn baby to starve to death if deprived food starting immediately after birth.

These terrible practices were brought to an end due to our natural emotional reaction to how immoral they were. Neil talks about how morals "evolve" and are "shaped" by "rational analysis of the effects and consequences of a previously held moral." The problem with this line of thinking is there is no rational analysis of emotional morals. This brings us right back to the first and foremost important thing to note about this entire idea: there is no evidence-based, rational, scientific, or logical reason to not cause harm to humans, up to and including execution. The only reason these terrible practices were stopped was because of emotional, moral responses to the atrocities that were performed.

Now, I'm not saying that the first order of business of Rationalia's psychology program would be to ignore human rights and start subjecting people to these atrocities once again, no. No, I'm just saying that it would get there. It would definitely be a possibility. Any denial that a purely logic-based society that ignores emotional and non-logical things like dignity, the right to life, and compassion is entirely capable of getting to the point of nightmarish experimentation "in the name of progress" and euthanasia of the physically and mentally disabled is naive. It has literally happened before. I'm not sure why astrophysicists are such bad historians.

Another interesting clarification made in this rebuttal is that Rationalia would entail complete freedom to be irrational, if you desired. You'd simply not be able to propose policy or changes etc. without evidence and reasoning. He then states that "For this reason, Rationalia might just be the freest country in the world."

This is somewhat funny because there is no evidence anywhere in his proposal that this would be the case. It is simply something he has thrown into the pot to attempt to quell people's fears about the obvious and inevitable tyranny that would result from this sort of thing. What, exactly, is the reasoning that it would be okay for a common, every day citizen to have the freedom to be irrational? What, exactly, is the reasoning that it would be okay for a common, every day citizen to have the freedom to do literally anything? There is nothing logical about freedom. We know, understand, and cherish freedom because it is self-evident - we very obviously have the freedom to do anything, to think anything, and perform any action we want. There is no evidence for freedom, it is merely something we know. Without God, relativists, naturalists, atheists, and people like Neil do not understand why freedom is real, but they simply understand that it is. What restricts it is the possible consequence of the utilization of our freedom depending on your location and the government of the area you reside. You could run down the street naked if you wanted - you have the free choice to do this. But you may get arrested, as public nudity is illegal.

This example entails the problem. Yes, you have the freedom to do anything you want, but the policies and laws of a government will impose punishments upon people for doing things that said government has established is not okay to do. You have the free choice to murder, but it is illegal. You have the free choice to sell meth to children, but it is illegal. You have the free choice to eat a dead rat you found in your garage, but you might die. There are consequences for our free choices - some of them are natural, some of them are imposed by the governing body of the country where you perform these free actions.

How, exactly, does anything proposed about Rationalia necessarily entail that citizens would have the freedom to be irrational? We are currently living in a world where there are countries that will execute civilians for practicing religions - either be it any religion, or particular religions that are specifically deemed not okay. It's not like this is something that "couldn't happen." Why has Neil been able to establish this policy of "the freedom to be irrational" upon Rationalia without first providing evidence, reason, or rational for it? What qualities of a country founded upon the idea of pure logical reasoning would somehow preserve the freedom of a person to not abide by the founding principles of that country?

This is perhaps the most ironic part of his entire rebuttal. It is entirely unsubstantiated, it does not follow necessarily from the established doctrine, and is directly opposed to the entire foundation of the country in the first place. What Neil is attempting to insist is that Rationalia would have the one line consitution of "All policy shall be based on the weight of evidence," and that, somehow, this entails freedom for the citizens. There is a very good reason why not only the Constitution is very many lines long, but that the Bill of Rights was passed shortly thereafter. The Bill of Rights, if you'll recall, also containing very many lines.

This is not the only line of his rebuttal that is unsubstantiated and does not follow necessarily from the established doctrine. He even attempts to say that practicing religion would be entirely allowed in Rationalia, as well. This is quite interesting. How did he extrapolate all this from "All policy shall be based on the weight of evidence," anyway? How does Rationalia's basis disallow the government from proposing the idea that "religion is harmful," and then providing "evidence" such that, as far as the governing people are concerned, religion is "directly attributing to the irrationality of citizens," who then vote for or grow up to be irrational government workers, then subsequently creating policies that disallow people from practicing their religions? Is it because "Neil said so," or is there actual evidence or reasoning for this?

The vast majority of his "clarifications" can be analyzed this way. There's one more fun point to make, however.

He discusses the idea that Rationalia would have an "Office of Morality" where morality was discussed. He concedes that Rationalia may (read: will, definitely) get their morals wrong, but then he throws in this fun tidbit:

Is slavery moral? The USA's Constitution thought so for 76 years. Should women vote? The USA’s Constitution said no for 131 years.

This is fun for me, because, taken quite literally, the USA's Constitution in fact did not think slavery was moral. Slavery was made illegal literally, quite specifically, and exactly because of the USA's Constitution, or more specifically the Declaration of Independence. You can argue that these are "two separate documents," but it was understood and established that the Declaration of Independence was "the promise," and the Constitution "the fulfillment." It was an oversight, or possibly a "misunderstanding," for 76 years that allowed slavery to exist. The reason slavery was made illegal was specifically because it was found to be irreconcilable with the Constitution/Declaration of Independence, seen here:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

To treat blacks as less than whites and keep them as slaves was inconsistent with the established doctrine of the United States as a country - the founding principle that started the whole thing, that all men are created equal. You'll also note the handy "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights," which actually establishes that morality is not dictated by the government, but by a higher power. But we've already made it quite clear that Neil is not a historian.

So, no, the USA's Constitution did not legislate the morality of slavery. It in fact did the opposite, and it was - wait for it - fallible, finite, biased, and flawed people that caused the self-evident moral law to be ignored. Please explain to me again how Rationalia's one line constitution will do anything to preserve freedom or human rights? Literally the reason slavery was made illegal was because it conflicted with the self-evident truths bestowed upon us by our Creator, not "bestowed upon us by our super rational government."

And, briefly, the Constitution also didn't "say no" to women voting - it was the interpretation of the document, once again, by the governing bodies. Nowhere in the Constitution did it say "oh btw chicks can't vote." Allowing women to vote was due to the fact that new amendments could be added to the Bill of Rights because the Constitution allowed for it if it was voted in by a majority of the people and the government. This brings further light onto the reality that Rationalia's "one line constitution" does not allow for the ratification of new amendments. Neil literally is just taking the Constitution and applying parts of it to his idea of this virtual country without realizing that's not how countries or constitutions work.

So, not only does Neil's attempt at rebutting the evidence-based rational behind the massive dislike of Rationalia fail to actually address anyone's concerns (like dystopian murder societies), but it in itself was not based on the weight of evidence. He just said some things that sounded nice to ensure people that his imaginary virtual country would totally be great because he didn't want to be wrong.

I've said this before: if a "smart person" doesn't understand why they're wrong, they might not be all that smart.