Monday, June 01, 2015

Secular Progressives Move To Abolish The Family

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF

Is the "traditional family" a mere myth?

Does a put together family provide unfair advantage over the child in a one parent family, therefore creating in-equality and injustice?

Joe Gelonesi, host of "The Philosopher's Zone" on Australian Broadcasting Corporation, is calling the natural, biological mom-dad-kids model of family "a weathered institution ever more in need of rationale for existing."

Who cares what he thinks? Australia is on the other side of the world.

He is not an isolated voice.


Kevin Noble Maillard, law professor at Syracuse University---much closer to home, writes in the New York Times, "'Family Values' talk is literally fantastic, because it is utterly improbable---Republicans have shaped a collective memory of the family based on a sepia-toned version of Mom, America and apple pie."

Hillary Clinton, who is now in our homes every night, 2 weeks ago identified these traditional "values" as the last real impediment to social progress.

Dr. Maillard says, "Embracing the reality of a perpetually evolving culture is much harder than clinging to a retro ideal."

Their message to biblical Christians and those Republicans who actually agree with the Party's Platform: "Let it go. Get out of the way."

Our message to secular progressives: "You are not progressive. You are both digressive and regressive. And you're wrong."

Attacks on the traditional family are not new. Plato famously wanted to abolish the family and put children into the care of the state. Secular Progressivism has not progressed beyond Plato.

While secular progressives usually mask what they really believe about marriage and family, sometimes the mask slips.

Such is the case with Joe Gelonesi nationally known talk show host on Australian Broadcasting Corporation in a recent article in which he describes an interview with two intellectuals Adam Swift and Harry Brighouse.

In the article titled, "Is Having a Loving Family An Unfair Advantage?" Gelonesi explains that "The power of the family to tilt equality creates an unfair advantage for children without loving biological parents."

Children with a family---mom and dad, then have an unfair advantage over those who have only a mom or a dad.

While he admits it may be premature to abolish the family and put the children in the care of the state, in the end he advocates that may be the most "straight forward answer."

Yet while declaring that a mom-dad-kids family gives advantage, albeit unfair advantage, he strongly suggests the family model should be something different---something new.

Christian Lawyer Matt Barber read the article and doesn't like it. He says, "In the context of marriage, family and economics, the left's upside down brand of social justice, of ' equality', requires that, in order to level the playing field, we must bulldoze the playing field altogether---we must take from the haves and give to the have nots and dumb down everything else to its lowest common denominator."

Barber says, "If one person is suffering, then 'equality' demands that all must suffer (see Barack Hussein Obama, circa 2008-2016)."

In making his case for "equality," Gelonesi shows the real thinking of secular progressives regarding parental authority and the cultural advantages gained by a strong, put together family.

Barber says, "And so, whereas the conservative solution is to offer a leg up, the 'progressive' solution prefers a jackboot down. While equality of opportunity is a step in the right direction, equality of outcome is the statist endgame."

If mom-dad-kids family structure gives an advantage to children, why do the progressives strive to eliminate that model?

"For Swift and Brighouse," Gelonesi writes, "our society is curiously stuck in a time warp of proprietorial rights: If you biologically produce a child, you own it."

Swift continues skipping into the heart of the social cancer being created by the redefinition of the family through redefining marriage, "Nothing in our theory assumes two parents: There might be two, there might be three, and there might be four."

But he says 10 parents would likely be too many. "We want to defend the family against complete fragmentation and dissolution."

Insanity.

This is where moral relativism leads.

Closer to home, Dr. Maillard, with Syracuse University consistently works to debunk the notion that a "traditional" family can even exist. Or ever has existed.

Published in the New York Times a couple of years ago, he wrote, " 'Family Values' talk is utterly fantastic, because it is utterly improbable...", defining those of us who hold traditional family values as "clinging to a retro ideal" that never existed. He currently gives this speech to college students across the country.

Last Fall, the Washington Post published this headline, "Unlike In The 1950s, There is No 'Typical' U.S. Family Today."

The Post said a recent report for the Council for Contemporary Families notes that in the 1950s, 65% of all children under 15 were being raised in traditional breadwinner-homemaker families. Today only 22% are."

The Post quotes sociologist Philip Cohen from the University of Maryland--"There hasn't been the collapse of one dominate family structure and the rise of another. It's really a fanning out into all kinds of family structures...Different is the new normal."

More succinctly, Hillary Clinton recently said to those of us still clinging to the retro ideal of family values, "deep seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed..." in order to make social progress.



Secular Progressivism is, at its heart, rebellion toward God and the institutions God has established.

The contemporary culture is in deep crises regarding family and marriage. While this crises has important political, social and economic ramifications, in the ultimate analysis only a spiritual return to the biblical foundations will address the root issue of the current crises.

Andreas J. Kostenberger, Director of Ph.D Studies and Professor of New Testament Studies at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary has written an excellent paper titled, "The Bible's Teaching on Marriage and Family".

Take a few moments and be informed.

I'm talking more about this on the radio today. Join me live from anywhere in the world at 9 AM PDT or rebroadcast at 7:30 PM PDT.

Here's how.

Be Informed. Be Vigilant. Be Prayerful. Be Blessed.


8 comments:

  1. Insanity rules! God help us. Martin W. Howser

    ReplyDelete
  2. I got about halfway through and it was as if a spirit of jealousy was doing the talking.

    So what would they like to do with tall basketball players? Get rid of them because some people are shorter?

    ReplyDelete
  3. And the socialists march on, enlisting whatever they may.

    ReplyDelete
  4. No doubt that self justification goes hand in hand with jealousy in this march.

    ReplyDelete
  5. When things that are not right are called rights and made to be rights by laws, the laws then are unjust, and those things that are right and have been legal rights, those which have been normal, everyday common rights, because they are indeed right, get infringed upon or taken away, as if all were from the same bundle of sticks, two people or groups having about the same amount.

    Legal and just rights which are right, usually don't take away what is right from another. In fact if they are really legal, just, and right, I should expect that they would not be taking away anything that is right from another.

    This nation needs to return to that which is right. All of what is right that we need to know is in the Bible somewhere.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Gary, you can try to whip up hysteria, but the fact is that none of my liberal friends want to see the family unit ended. The good news is that your political impact is almost nill at this point. In fact, I welcome your opinions because I believe you are chasing away the younger generation. So carry on, but don't fear, the family unit has the full support of liberals - although we may allow for some variations that you don't.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hillary Clinton reminds me of Adolf Hitler.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Joseph Lenin said "The family must be destroyed so that Communism can flourish." In other words, he didn't want anyone relying on their family. All reliance is upon government. Our source is government. Our religion is government. Our loyalty belongs to government. Liberals are truly on this track.

    ReplyDelete

Faith & Freedom welcomes your comment posts. Remember, keep it short, keep it on message and relevant, and identify your town.