I AM Superman because I self-identify as Superman

Angel Soft recently produced a commercial which has people telling their single mothers “Happy Father’s Day.”  Have we really come to this?

I understand the sentiment, since many people have grown up with single mothers having to carry a burdensome load and doing remarkable jobs bringing up their children in an ever deteriorating culture.  But Moms are not Dads, right? 

DISCLAIMER:  My mom is probably the most wonderful human being I have ever known.  For Mother’s Day, I wrote a post celebrating her qualities A Mom Who is Just Like Jesus.  Her qualities speak for themselves.  But she was not my dad. 

Now, back to the commentary.  No, I’m not going to go on some binge about how awful Angel Soft is for doing this.  The commercial has an inspiring message about mothers doing the best they could under difficult circumstances.  But the underlying message seems to be that moms can be dads.  I guess if Bruce Jenner can be a woman and Rachel Dolezal can be black then moms can be dads.  This reminds me of Doug Henning, the late magician who used to say something like “reality is illusion and illusion is reality.”  Doug was, apparently, more right than he knew.  We can now decide for ourselves what we are, whether it’s illusion or reality.

So I guess we can end Mother’s Day and Father’s Day and just have Parent’s Day, right?  Better yet, let’s just have People Day, where we “celebrate” people in “whatever form” those people come.  Even if it’s your Pomeranian, since you “believe” Poopsy is a person, he is a person.  Better yet, let’s just have Animate Beings Day, then we can celebrate every living thing that is higher than a protozoan.  You know what, let’s just include everything and we’ll have Things Day.  Now Angel Soft can have a commercial in which a rock just sits there and says nothing, but a voice over comes on and says in a deep voice “I am so glad the universe exists and I was spewed out of volcanic eruption.  It’s great to be a rock.”  Now we’re celebrating all possible people, animals, cellular organisms, living things, and inanimate objects.  As Dash in the movie “The Incredibles” told his mom “if everyone is special, no one is special.”

My concern is in our desire to be “fair” and “concerned” and “kind” we are really doing just the opposite.  We are trying to wipe out all possible differences among people as if that makes those differences go away.  Those who preach this kind of dogma better prepare themselves for the ramifications, which are significant and consequential.

For instance, wiping out differences between men and women means that Title IX, the much-loved law that requires colleges to have equality among men’s and women’s programs, goes out the window, right?  I am calling for men to be allowed to compete for spots on the women’s sports teams, immediately.  Moms are dads, after all, and, therefore, women ought to have to compete on a level playing field for spots, including much coveted scholarships that go with those spots.  Quotas of any kind should immediately be disbanded.  Moms are dads, after all.  Let’s make clear that since anybody can be any other body, then all laws aimed at discrimination no longer matter, right?  I mean if Rachel Dolezal “identifies as black” and some other person who is black “identifies as Asian” and so many men are “identifying as women” then discrimination doesn’t make sense.  If you discriminate against me because I’m a man, I’ll just decide to be a woman.  If you discriminate against me because of my race, I’ll change my race.  If you discriminate against me because of my physical characteristics, I’ll identify as something else.  Moreover, can't I self-identify at will, whenever I want?  I can switch back and forth as the mood strikes me, right?  Who gets to say I can't?

Wow, I just had an epiphany while writing this post.  I’ll identify as Superman!  Yes, America (and the world!) I’m Superman.  I identify as Superman.  I’m feeling all man of steely right now.  It doesn’t matter that I can’t fly, that I’m not super strong, and that I don’t have x-ray vision, right?  I mean if I “identify” as Superman, then I am he, correct?  Isn’t that how this “identifying” thing works?  Who gets to say I’m not Superman?  None of you get to tell me I’m not the man of steel, right?

Gosh, the things that I will be able to do.  First, ISIS better watch out.  Second, Iraq you're next.  Third, Keith Olbermann, oh your mouth could use a bar of Dial.  Finally, Joel Klinkenberg from eight grade – dude, you don’t know what’s coming!

Okay, I’ll leave Joel out of this.  It’s not his fault I was a pugnacious little jerk. 

Back to earth.  I can’t just “identify” as something just because that’s what I believe I want.  Moms can’t be Dads.  Why is that such a problem?  There is a very small fraction of people who have true physical or mental “identity” issues.  We don’t change everything because of a few people.  We treat such folks with kindness, compassion, decency and respect.  But we don’t start pretending that all differences are irrelevant or immaterial or that we can wish them away.  Bruce Jenner will always be chromosomally male.  All the surgery, and hormones, and make up won’t fix that for him.  Rachel Dolezal will always be Caucasian.  All the hair weaves and skin darkening won’t change that because it’s part of her DNA.

Moms aren’t Dads.  Men aren’t women.  White people aren’t black people.  Roses aren’t Petunias.  Dogs aren’t cats.  

But wait: breaking news, Justice Anthony Kennedy just determined there is a constitutional right for us to all self-identify in whatever way we see fit.  Brilliant: so it turns out I really am Superman?

 

 

Of Riots and Bribes: How Genesis 1:1 Explains They're Wrong

While difficult to catch in a blog entry, I want to explain the rioting in Baltimore, Maryland and the FIFA bribery scandal with one verse from the Bible: Genesis 1:1.  How?

Genesis 1:1 tells us that God was there “in the beginning” and “created the heavens and the earth.”  This means several things.  First, God existed before time and space.  Second, since he created all that we know, he is in control of it.  Third, it means that he is the ultimate power in or out of the universe.  Finally, it means he has the right to exercise whatever authority he chooses over his creation in whatever manner he chooses.

If there is no God, then time and space are eternal.  No one and no thing is in control of anything.  There is no ultimate power in the universe.  Therefore, there is no authority over creation except that which we create on our own.

So people are rioting in Baltimore and other cities in the United States because they claim there is injustice.  Upon what possible theory can they claim to even understand the idea of injustice?  Injustice presupposes justice exists.  Justice, at least so far as my own puny mind can comprehend it, requires an authority to dispense it.  The authority must come from somewhere.  From whence does the authority come for the people who rioted in Baltimore to claim they are experiencing injustice?  It cannot come from a cold, heartless, non-thinking, non-rational, non-living, non-being universe.  Some might argue justice arises from our laws.  Maybe, but, if there is no God, our laws are mere whims of men, put into place by mortal and finite human beings whose understanding of the totality of our universe doesn’t even begin to fill a thimble.  Justice/injustice, good/bad, right/wrong:  these concepts have no meaning in a universe that merely exists.  Thus, rioters in Baltimore can act without remorse, without thought, without concern, without fear of consequence because in such a world nothing matters anyway.  No one is in control, there is no ultimate power, and there is no ultimate authority.  Consequently, everyone and no one is in control, everyone has ultimate power and no one has any power, and everyone has ultimate authority and no authority, all at the same time.  Riot or not.  Who cares?  The universe takes no notice.

The FIFA bribery scandal arises from the same worldview.  Bribe, don’t bribe.  Does it really matter?  Qatar gets a World Cup, Qatar doesn’t get a World Cup, who cares?  Sepp Blatter and his minions are doing what natural people ought to do when faced with a Godless, mindless, cold, non-living, universe – whatever they can.  The same motives that compel the Baltimore rioters compel the FIFA bureaucrats.  Blatter’s acceptance speech for his presidency was rife with the notion that since there is no transcendent authority, he is the authority.  He makes the rules, then decides who has to follow them and when they must follow those rules.  Seth Blatter was FIFA's God.

You see, in both instances, these folks are doing precisely what comes from a Godless reality in which there is no ultimate authority.  When human beings are the ultimate authority, then each one of us has every right to proclaim ourselves king of however much of this puny planet we can control.  That might mean a few square feet of the City of Baltimore, or it might mean a multi-billion dollar enterprise like FIFA.  In this world, Hillary Clinton’s refrain “what difference does it make” is true.

Of course, the irony is that even those who hold to the view that the universe is all there ever was, is and ever will be still want there to be morals.  Atheists routinely claim they can behave in morally good ways.  But what do morals mean?  Is Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner acting morally in changing his outer body from a man to a woman?  Is the baker who won’t make a wedding cake to celebrate a gay wedding acting morally?  Why does society seem accepting of Jenner but not the baker?  How does one make such distinctions with any rationality without a transcendent authority?

I once had a friend tell me that I was the most rational person he knew EXCEPT when it came to my Christian belief.  Well, my friend was wrong.  The opposite is clearly true.  It’s irrational to claim Jenner is okay but the baker is wrong when you can’t point to anything other than human ordained rules as your authority, since there is no rational basis for claiming any one human authority should be followed rather than another.  This is mere preference, and is precisely identical to whether I prefer chocolate or vanilla ice cream (vanilla, by the way). 

If, however, there is a transcendent authority to whom we all owe allegiance, then that’s a game changer.  Then, suddenly, morals make sense.  Suddenly one can see the riots in Baltimore as a symptom of problems in the world due to man-made systems which consistently and routinely fail those intended to benefit from those systems.  The riots are immoral because it’s wrong to harm others just because you have been harmed, not because human beings have decided this is true, but because the transcendent creator of the universe says so.  It is wrong for FIFA officials to engage in underhanded bribery not because we have laws that say so, but because fraud is lying and the transcendent creator of the universe demands that we not lie.

I am regularly stunned by the complete lack of rationality by those who say they hold it dear.  Atheists of the world: you are irrational if you ever claim any human authority should be followed over any other human authority – you have no rational or even reasonable basis for making this claim other than your own self­-proclaimed love of reason, which is, itself, based on nothing more than your mere preference.  The only rational basis for arguing there is any order to be followed in this chaotic world is to return to Genesis 1:1 and recognize that “In the beginning, God . . .” and acknowledge the transcendent creator of this world has both the right and authority to tell us how to operate it.  Until you do, we’ll continue to have riots and bribes. 

Where's the Courage, ESPN?

Bruce, ahem, Caitlyn, Jenner gets ESPN’s “Arthur Ashe Courage Award” because he did . . . nothing of significance except change his sex.  The utter irrationality of secularist thinking arises again.  Follow the insane illogic here:  Bruce Jenner is a man.  He wins a gold medal in the 1976 Olympics and becomes famous.  He uses his fame to make tons of money and marry the Kardashian woman.  He decides along the way that he is going to become a woman.  Publicly “coming out” that he is becoming a woman is supposedly an act of courage.  Yet, we are told, in the next breath, that this is all just part of the normal ebb and flow of life in our world.  If what Bruce Jenner is doing is just a normal thing, just part of “who he is,” than where is the courage? I’m not really following the logic. 

I always understood courage a little differently: a guy jumps on a grenade to keep it from harming his buddies; a young black woman attempts to buy a cup of coffee at a whites only lunch counter; a mom looks her son in the eye and tells him if she catches him smoking weed again, he’s out on the street because she isn’t working two jobs so he can screw up his future; a young German pastor accepts hanging rather than kowtow to the Nazis who try to co-opt Christianity for their own purposes.  Courage is acting when we’re afraid, knowing the consequences of our actions could hurt us, physically, financially, emotionally, or otherwise.  There is a significant risk inherent in acting courageously.  Right?  Right?  I mean, I’m not alone here, am I?

Bruce is taking zero risk here.  For crying out loud, he’s on the cover of some really “cool” magazine (I forget the name).  Social elites are already cooing about how great it is.  ABC “Family” already has a television show normalizing this as just one more possible way to be a family.  Brucey-boy is getting lauded as if he were an angel from heaven announcing that all will be right with the world now.  Courage?

Of course, for ESPN courage is when a linebacker goes back into a football game with a pulled muscle, or a player in some sport “takes one for the team.”  I understand this is courage of a sort – there is risk here.  But the difference is that, in the main, these athletes are doing what they do for their own benefit.  Moreover, as part of the ABC conglomeration, ESPN’s editorial views lean decidedly toward the “you’re okay, I’m okay” mode of morality, making courage something of a subjective notion which depends heavily on how the world looks right now.

Here’s what will be really difficult.  What does ESPN do when there’s nothing left for people to “come out” about?  Will there eventually have to be a guy who has frog eyes placed on his finger tips and comes out as a manphibian to show “courage?”  Where does such nonsense end?

I am not saying any of this to bash Bruce Jenner for accepting the award.  It’s not his fault ESPN decided on this.  Nonetheless, does he have even a shred of dignity left?  Surely there is someone out there in the sports world (something Jenner has not truly been part of in almost 40 years) who has shown courage, true courage, that we could laud as meaningful and hope inspiring?  How about a young woman who, instead of taking a basketball scholarship,  went out as a missionary for two years to teach young children in an underdeveloped country where she would be in danger of rape, death, disease, and natural disaster?  Wouldn’t that qualify?  Whoops, that won’t do since that would be bad to try to evangelize others to become Christians, even though it clearly takes courage.  How about finding a young man who at 15 was being courted by Nike and the seemy world of AAU basketball who, instead of chasing basketball as a dream, used it to launch himself into a college that got him into medical school and who has moved back to his old hood where he provides basic medical services to those who can’t afford it, while every day fighting off claims he sold out and dodging bullets on his way into the clinic?  Such people are out there and exhibit courage every day.  ESPN could find them if it chose to do so.

Bruce, Caitlyn, whoever you claim you are, if you have any dignity, tell ESPN no.  Or, better yet, during your acceptance speech, talk about someone who has actually shown true courage and then explain how you will be giving the award to them because you are so embarrassed that ESPN would give you the award for just living your normal life.

Of course that won’t happen.  Because that might take an act of courage.