We Want Equality

by C Douglas Love Love

  Recently a woman was thrown out of a Planet Fitness for refusing to shower in a locker room with a transgender woman.164 At the same time, Scarlett Johansson bowed out of a movie role after backlash over her being cast to play a transgender man. The argument was that the role should have gone to a transgender actor. This is foolish. It’s acting, not real life. Should poor characters only be played by poor actors? The impulse is to laugh, but creating a gender hierarchy is no laughing matter.

  If we continue down this reckless path of gender confusion it will be catastrophic for children. What the SJWs are doing here is worse than demanding preference over equality, they are trying to change human nature. As Virginia Valian says in her book, Why so Slow? The Advancement of Women, “We don’t accept biology as destiny … We vaccinate, we inoculate, we medicate … I propose we adopt the same attitude toward biological sex differences.165

  Treating boys and girls the same is not equal. Girls, no matter how feminine, wear pants, play sports and do other things considered to be boy traits. Boys may do these things, but these actions are also normal for girls. The same cannot be said of the traditional girl activities some want to force boys to do. Encouraging boys to play dress up or to do make up when they are not asking to do so, is not allowing them to choose. Those who think that boys only act differently because we guide them to do so must not have male children.

  Many of the behavioral differences between boys and girls are not taught. If the SJWs believed this, they wouldn’t be trying to ‘correct’ this behavior out of boys. The fact that they don’t see the need to correct girls’ behavior is proof that there is a difference. If you give the average 4-year old boy a Barbie doll, he will wrestle with it or tear its head off. Many will say it’s simply behavior that he observed, but it happens even earlier than four. Here’s a story to illustrate this.

  I was picking my son up from day care one day. When I arrived, he was playing with some other kids so I decided to wait a while and observe them. What I saw was a basic lesson in male/female differences. There were about eight kids in the area, half boys and half girls. The girls were sitting at a table working on some sort of crafts. The boys were running up a set of toy stairs and sliding down a slide. My son was the youngest of the four boys. Each boy would run up the stairs and climb over the boy at the top to go down the slide first. This lasted until we finally told them to stop stepping on each other. The children were between 18 months and two years old. I guarantee that my son had never seen anyone step over someone to go down a slide. Male nature needs to be focused, but it is definitely different.

  For years, women have been asking if chivalry is dead, now the SJWs are saying it should be, because it’s sexist.166 Does anyone wonder how the push for the genders to be the same will affect dating or marriages in the future? These traditional male and female roles are strongest when choosing a mate. Without them, male/female relationships will be a ball of confusion.

  As the next generation comes of age, they will find it difficult to navigate the dating scene. How will the SJWs differentiate themselves from those raised with traditional values? Male SJWs will alienate traditional women when they show up for their date and honk the horn so she can come out. Female SJWs will bristle when a traditional man offers to open the door or pay the check on a date. These diametrically opposed views on gender roles will limit the dating pool for both groups.

  The divorce rate is already high and fewer people are marrying. These views on gender will compound this issue. Women will continue to postpone marriage until they establish their careers. As for the men, they will struggle to get a mate as the average male will be less successful than his female counterparts and women will find it hard to let go of the desire to have a mate who is her equal. Of those that do marry, the lack of gender roles will create feelings of animosity as inequality of the marital load takes its toll. All of this will lead to fewer children.

  How will we maintain our society with fewer children being born? For those who believe that overpopulation is a contributor to global warming, this is a good thing. But this is in conflict with one of the SJWs greatest fights, income redistribution. Taxes are the raw materials needed to supply all of the ‘entitlements’ they propose. Future workers are necessary to generate income to be taxed. Look at countries like Germany, Italy, and Spain, countries the Left loves to emulate. They are aging and having fewer children. This is threatening all of their government programs. Something will have to give.167

  The bottom line is that the gender equality push is based on fallacies and misconstrued data. However, if the argument was true, the consequences would still be dire. Those who are discriminated against represent an infinitesimally small percentage of the population and we are trying to reshape a society of 330 million people to improve the lives of less than one million. I would argue that it’s not improving their lives at all, but if it is, hurting millions to accomplish it is wrong. Yet, our legislators have been eager to participate in such unfair tinkering, whether it be due to ignorance or a calculated effort to advance selective achievement. Either way, they have been intentionally supporting inequality.

  • 6 •

  Religion: It Sounds the Same

  At this point in my life I seriously wonder why we have religion. I am not so sure it does more good than harm. I think that the battle for church-state separation has to be a continuing fight.

  —Alton Lemon

  America is a country founded on Judeo-Christian principles which are woven in the fabric of its history. A quote from Leviticus 25:10 is inscribed on the Liberty Bell, the Declaration of Independence speaks of “Nature’s God” and rights “endowed by our Creator …”, in 1775, the Continental Congress proclaimed “a day of publick [sic] humiliation, fasting, and prayer”, ‘In God We Trust’ is printed on our money, and the Holy Bible is used for swearing in ceremonies. With this rich history of a religious populace and 250 years of practice, you would think that this would be the one area free from any unequal treatment; you’d be wrong.

  The approach used to combat alleged religious inequalities is different than the approach used for most other categories; therefore, the examination has to be different as well. The way the Left crafts their argument is ingenious. So much so that I coined a new term to describe it: negative equality. Negative equality is correcting a situation deemed unequal by bringing down the advantaged group rather than raising up the disadvantaged group. This can be done by taking away from or increasing the negative treatment of the advantaged group. Here’s an example of the first type of negative equality:

  Let’s say that two people have pie but one has a much larger slice than the other. In the typical approach to make this equal, you’d take enough pie from the person with the larger piece and give it to the person with the smaller piece to make both portions equal. With negative equality, you’d simply take from the person with the larger slice without giving the other person any, or you would take all of the pie away from both. Both actions create the same result: equal pie, but few would choose the second course of action. Here’s an example of negative treatment:

  There have been reports of a disproportionate number of black students being suspended and/or expelled in public schools. This has been deemed a form of inequality. In an effort to correct the problem, there are three courses of actions the administrators can take: (1) determine the root cause of the behavior and work to correct it (This is the most logical step, so they won’t do it); (2) simply reduce the number of blacks being disciplined regardless of behavior (the Obama approach); or (3) discipline more white students, even if not warranted, to get their numbers up to the level of the black students. The third approach is an example of negative equality.

  If you look at all of the other areas where people complain of inequality, no one suggests using negative equality to correct those imbalances. If black unemployment is too high, no one suggests firing enough whites to bring their unemployment up to the same level. If
there aren’t enough women in executive roles, no one suggests firing the men, without cause, until you get the gender levels to match (You could, however, say this is what the Title IX program has done to male college students).

  Religion is different from all of the other areas because the SJWs are not fighting on behalf of any minority religion against a dominant one. In the previous areas we discussed, they were demanding more for blacks, Hispanics, women, the LGBT community and poor people. Here when they argue against Christianity, it’s not on behalf of Jews or Muslims. What they really want is less religion. They use the guise of fighting inequality because they cannot attack Christianity head-on.

  Even in our increasingly secular nation, more than 70% of Americans describe themselves as ‘Christian.’ I put Christian in quotes because many of them don’t live in the manner the Bible dictates Christians to live. They loosely adhere to scripture, rarely read the Bible, and some say they don’t pray. Their lifestyles are very different from what the typical American Christian’s was just 20 years ago. I’m sure there are many books and studies as to why they still self-describe as Christian, but the important thing is they do. This tends to show itself in two ways.

  On the one hand, if you make a direct charge against religion, they are likely to challenge you. However, if you simply say that a religious belief is outdated or that it causes inequality, they will likely say nothing. Because of the shift in our culture, these ‘Christians’ don’t know whether or not the charges made against Christianity are true and are ill-equipped to mount a defense. In some cases, they side with those making the accusations. Unfortunately for many Christians, and Jews as well, leftism trumps their religion. So those who really want less religion start with a more palatable approach: inequality.

  Devout Christians see this for what it is and cry foul. They say there is a war on Christianity in America. That argument is quickly shouted down by the media, fact-checkers and even fellow Christians. The problem isn’t in the intent of the claim but in the intensity of the language.

  The words used are important. They can gain you allies or cause you to be ignored. When Christians and supporters of traditional American values argue there’s a ‘war’ on Christians or Christmas, they get eye-rolls and people tune them out. “It’s absurd,” detractors will say, “to say that the dominant religion in the country is being attacked.” They are correct about the term, considering how most would define war, but not about the hostility Christians are experiencing.

  When people hear ‘war,’ they assume it means that Christians are prohibited from practicing their religion or they are victims of a large number of physical attacks. Neither is the case; however, there is a deliberate effort to weaken Christianity in America. While calling it a war is too strong, saying Christianity is under attack is accurate. The problem is that the term ‘attack’ will still seem too extreme to most. Perhaps the best way to fight back without being accused of being hyperbolic is to call it a calculated smear campaign.

  The first example of inequality is the dominance of Christianity. They feel that America, being a Christian majority nation, does not exhibit equality for all religions and therefore needs to be changed. Celebrating Christian holidays marginalizes other religions and religious expressions in public is discriminating to non-believers. But take a closer look at their argument. Those saying the dominance of Christianity is unfair are not calling for increased representation of Judaism or Islam. What they want is to bring the public displays of Christianity down to the levels of the other major religions, virtually non-existent. In other words, minimizing Christianity under the guise of equality gets them closer to their actual goal, less religious influence on American culture.

  There are two problems with their equality argument. The first is constitutional. In many areas, the constitution’s brilliance is in its brevity. The Establishment Clause, like the 2nd amendment, has caused heated debates on its interpretation. People often add words that are not there to try to make their argument. The clause simply says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …” This has largely happened with no interference, but those seeking equality disagree.

  Those arguing against Christianity are confused as to the definition of ‘establishment’ of religion. They mistakenly think that free to exercise means equal amount of exercise. If the majority of the country practices the same religion, obviously the religious expression you see will not be equal. But unlike many countries, we do not have a state religion.

  Take a moment to read the clause again. It says Congress shall make no law. This is critical to the argument because it proves the intent was not to limit any desires of the people, only to prevent Congress from mandating religious acts. Earlier we discussed Spain and Rome’s laws against blasphemy and heresy. This is an example of establishing a religion. However, if Congress decided to decorate the Capital from end to end with Christmas decorations and Bible scripture, it would not violate this portion of the 1st amendment. If you disagree, I’d ask you to tell me what law Congress established surrounding the decorations.

  The other problem with their argument is that it comes dangerously close to prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Many countries have majority cultures and with it, majority religions. The majority in India practice Hinduism; in Cambodia and Thailand, it’s Buddhism. The majority of African countries, with the exception of those in northern Africa, practice Christianity; and the majority of the Middle East practices Islam.

  It is safe to say that when the majority of the citizens of a country have similar cultural practices, including religious ones, those practices will permeate throughout the society. No one in their right mind would go to a Muslim majority country and try to remove Islam from the culture. The same should go for those in America. Unfortunately, the anti-religion crowd cannot allow that influence on the culture to continue.

  They’ve made several challenges against religion in society in the last 50 years. While they weren’t successful in the majority of cases, they were in an alarmingly high percentage of them. Even when they lose, they win; moving the needle ever-so-slightly towards their goal.

  Their biggest win, as it was a direct run at religion, was the Supreme Court’s 1962 decision to strike down prayer in schools. In Engels v. Vitale, it was deemed unconstitutional, in a 5-4 decision, for New York public school students to open the school day reciting the “Regent’s Prayer.” This, even though the prayer in question didn’t promote a particular religion. Here is the prayer they recited:

  “Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers, and our Country.”

  At its core, the decision seems flimsy. The prayer was not specific to any religion, was voluntary, and was not created through legislation. The prayer did mention God, which some would argue narrows the list of religions it could be referencing, but the first amendment doesn’t say ‘you have a right not to hear someone else say God.’ At the time, most assumed there was an easy fix. Just have a moment of prayer every morning but no specific prayer and everything would be fine. Not surprisingly, this case was used as a precedent to prevent that and other religious actions at schools as well as colleges and universities.

  In 1971, the Supreme Court heard the case of Lemon v. Kurtzman. The key takeaway here was that the justices established, seemingly out of thin air, the ‘Lemon Test.’ This created a three-prong test to determine if a law violates the Establishment Clause. The three prongs are as follows:

  The statute must have a secular legislative purpose.

  The principal or primary effect of the statute must not advance nor inhibit religion.

  The statute must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion.

  This test is highly problematic for two reasons: (1) For a group tasked with maintaining the integrity of the Constitution, it seems odd that the justices
would create their own criteria using a baseline that virtually adds meaning to the Constitution that simply doesn’t exist. (2) The first part of the test gives every law pertaining to religion a built-in reason for constitutional challenge. It inherently strengthens the Establishment Clause and weakens the free expression portion of the amendment. How can any law protecting free expression have a ‘secular purpose’? What is the secular purpose in allowing prayer in school, blue laws on Sundays, or a Jew to wear a yarmulke when in his military uniform?

  Put plainly, there will always be a secular purpose for denying these laws and never a secular purpose for approving them. This began the diminution of free expression of religion. Each challenge and eventual win by the SJWs has come based on the Lemon test. What’s worse, most of the wins claimed by those fighting for religious freedom did not come from passing the Lemon test. In most cases, the justices simply chose to ignore their own test. This means they could change their minds on a whim. Let’s look at some of the cases decided after this highly suspect Lemon Test.

  In 1980, the court struck down a Kentucky law mandating the display of the Ten Commandments in classrooms because it had no secular purpose (Stone v. Graham). In 1983, the Nebraska legislature was sued for opening each of its sessions with a prayer. To complicate matters, the person leading the prayer was a chaplain and he was paid with public funds. The court ignored their own test, which the prayer clearly violated, and upheld the constitutionality of the prayer due to the “long historical custom of the practice” (Marsh v. Chambers). In 1984, the court heard a case where Rhode Island was accused of violating the Establishment Cause by including a nativity scene in a public park. The court ruled that, “notwithstanding the religious significance of the creche, the city of Pawtucket has not violated the Establishment Clause of the first amendment.” Oddly claiming that the law passed the three-pronged test (Lynch v. Donnelly).