Category Archives: Relativism

Sexual Liberation of Women Leads to Sexual Slavery

Women-and-sexual-slavery-Essay

The article “We Were All Meant To Be Sluts” is one author’s attempt to liberate women from the sexual shackles placed on them by society.  The author, however, actually undermines the goal the author set out to achieve.  He wants to liberate women’s sexuality from society’s “system” of morality.  However, his postmodern advice will only lead to the sexual slavery of women.  (I do find it somewhat self-serving that a MAN would champion the sexual liberation of women, perhaps creating more willing sexual experiences for himself.)

Mark Groves, the author, asked “If sexuality and sexual freedom brings our character into question, then what do we think about the many wise and amazing human beings who found themselves and learned their lessons through sexual exploration and being open-mindedhit-by-bus about making mistakes?”  This statement assumes that personal experience is a preferred way of gaining wisdom.  You can certainly gain wisdom by walking in front of a moving bus, but wisdom from doing that is best learned from other people’s experiences.  There are consequences to sex outside of the safety of marriage, especially if those sexual encounters are frequent.  Sexual boundaries are meant to protect people from the consequences of promiscuity.

Mark also based most of his article on a straw man argument that those who promote the benefits of marriage and warn against the consequences of sex outside of the lifetime straw manexclusivity of one man and one woman have a “fear of sexuality.”  Yes, there are consequences for promiscuity that can have serious repercussions for families and society.  But, we do not fear the sex act.  Sex within the boundaries of marriage is satisfying and stabilizing.  Sex within marriage protects women from the savage, unrestrained sexuality of men.

Mark reduced marriage from a sacred status to simply “a beautiful thing” because the “divine heterosexuals who rule the institution” get divorced, commit adultery, and view pornography.  He is saying that marriage is only as important as people treat it; that the worth of marriage is wrapped up in the worth people give it.  By that logic black slaves were unimportant because slave owners treated them poorly; or that women in Saudi Arabia are less valuable than men because they are treated poorly.  Contrary to Mark’s assertion, marriage has inherent worth regardless of whether people treat it as valuable, because the One who created the institution of marriage defined and gave it value.  That people do not value what is inherently valuable does not reduce marriage’s worth.

In a bit of hypocrisy, Mark decried the suppression of female (promiscuous) sexuality in one breath, but then in the next breath, he shames the sexual freedom of rapists, child molesters, and people with sexual fetishes.  By what standard of morality does he condemn rape and child molestation?  Who decreed those sexual practices to be wrong?francis schaeffer feet in mid air.jpg  Mark Groves? Society?  If society has decreed rape wrong, isn’t that just another “system” that interferes with someone’s sexual freedom?  Didn’t society once say homosexual sex should be punished? Isn’t it society’s “system” that puts the brakes on female (promiscuous) sexuality?  Why is Mark upholding one system that suppresses someone’s sexual freedom while trying to tear down that system for sexual practices he prefers?  The truth is, Mark has no standard by which he chooses other than his own personal preferences.  Christianity, on the other hand, has a moral foundation for saying rape and child molestation is wrong because such acts are decreed wrong by a transcendent moral source, God.  In reality, Christianity promotes an eternal, objective standard of morality, while Mark promotes a relative, subjective standard that changes with the whims of society.

Towards the end of his article Mark offered a bit of postmodern nonsense advice.  He postmodernism relative truthsaid “There is no one way to do anything. And anyone who claims to have it all figured out is the very person to run from” and “There is no ‘right way’. There is only your way. And no one knows your life better than you. Live YOUR truth.”  He is essentially saying “You can’t tell people what to do” which is, of course, telling you what to do.  The problem with this advice is that it is self-defeating.  Self-defeating statements cannot possibly be true.  He is saying that truth is relative. The problem here is that he is making an absolute truth claim.  He is saying “It is true that truth doesn’t apply to everyone.” But in order for him to make that claim, his truth claim has to be true for everyone.  His assertion is self-defeating, and therefore, not true.  The truth is that truth is true for everyone.

Mark tries to summon the magic of John Lennon’s “Imagine” with his several “Imagine if” statements. He said “Imagine if we were told to just play, see, and feel.”  Yes, imagine acalvinhobbesmoralrelativism world where everyone did as he pleased.  Imagine if there were no judgments to prevent you from playing, seeing, and feeling what you’d like. Imagine no boundaries where the strength of men overpowers the weakness of women, but no one was allowed to make any judgments.  That is the world Mark Groves will find with his bad advice.

He tries to prevent this outcome by asserting “all of our decisions just need to be guided by our human capacity and desire to be kind. If every decision we made were based on the answer to the question: ‘What would love do?'”  But, Mark has no moral foundation to base his guidance on “human capacity and desire to be kind.”  “Human capacity and desire to be kind?” What if someone doesn’t want to be kind?  What gives Mark the authority to force someone to make decisions on kindness?  Who gets to define what “kindness” is?

Mark talked about “love” but then in the end just defines love as the sexual act.  “You are the expert of you. You know you better than anyone. You know how you love. You know what feels good, and you know what your heart beats for. You know what you want to try and what you are curious about.”  “Love” in his imaginary world is nothing more than the banality of sex for the sake of an orgasm.

human-trafficking.jpgAll that Mark has done with his article is to give people an excuse to “Live YOUR truth,” to abandon commitments because they are no longer pleasurable.  That world would not be paradise for women, but a hell on earth. Trying to liberate women, Mark Groves would put them in chains.

Advertisements

The Light of Christmas

The Light of Christmas
By Christopher S. Brownwell

One of my favorite Christmas movies is National Lampoon’s Christmas Vacation.  My favorite line in the movie comes when Eddie surprises Clark after they arrived in time to see Clark finally successful in getting the lights on his house to work.

Eddie asked Clark “You surprised?”  Clark responded “Surprised, Eddie?… If I woke up tomorrow with my head sewn to the carpet, I wouldn’t be more surprised than I am now.”

While watching this Christmas movie this year, however, I discovered a pernicious lie about Christmas.  Near the end Clark reflected on seeing a light in the neighborhood. “It’s the Christmas Star, and that’s all that matters tonight. Not bonuses or gifts, or turkeys or trees.  See kids, it means something different to everybody.  Now I know what it means to me.”

Griswold Family Looking at the "Christmas Star"This feel-good, post-modern, existential, pluralistic comment doesn’t enhance the meaning of Christmas.  Rather, it attempts to destroy it.  You see, kids, if Christmas means something different to everyone, Christmas has no meaning at all.

To Griswold, the true meaning of Christmas was to bless his family with a pool.  To Frank Shirley, it was to cancel Christmas bonuses and give out one-year subscriptions to the Jelly of the Month Club.  To Margo and Todd it was to avoid things that are dirty and messy and corny and clichéd.  But these different meanings ultimately clashed.

Post-modernism doesn’t believe in a fixed, absolute truth.  Everyone defines his own “truth.”  Existentialism is about defining your own meaning of life through your own personal experiences.  Pluralism has devolved into a personal philosophy comfortable with believing in contradictory truth claims.

Despite Griswold’s post-modern, pluralistic, existential philosophy, Christmas has a fixed meaning.  The message has been the same for 2000 years.  That message is that Light has come into the world to make a way for us to escape the darkness.

“The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.” John 1:5.  “And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and the people loved darkness rather than light because their works are evil.”  John 3:19.  “Remember, therefore, from where you have fallen; repent, and do the works you did at first.  If not, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent.”  Revelation 2:5.

Light brings knowledge.  “For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shone in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.”  II Corinthians 4:6.

America has always been a conduit for that Light to shine.  In 1630, the Pilgrims’ pastor, John Winthrop, encouraged his congregation in the New World that the establishment of their colony would be a city on a hill if they obeyed God. “[F]or wee must Consider that wee shall be as a Citty upon a Hill, the eies of all people are uppon us; soe that if wee shall deale falsely with our City on a hillGod in this worke wee have undertaken and soe cause him to withdrawe his present help from us; wee shall be made a story and a byword through the world, wee shall open the mouthes of enemies to speake evill of the wayes of God and all professours for Gods sake….”

The concept of a “City on a Hill,” from Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, was that all can see the city.  It is exposed.  While exposed, those in the surrounding valley would be guided by its light to a place of safety.  But, what was the source of this light to be passed down from one generation of Americans to another?

Our Founding Fathers knew.

George_WashingtonGeorge Washington in his Farewell Address: “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.  In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens.”

John Adams in his letter to Zabdiel Adams, 21 June 1776: “Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand.”

Benjamin Rush in an essay: “The only foundation for…a republic is to be laid in Religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments.”

That message handed down from our Founders is that the Christian faith, which carried the belief in the Light, was indispensible for liberty to exist.  Light had come into the world that first Christmas morn in the form of Jesus.  It is the Light of Christmas that shines from our City on a Hill.

Some, however, want to extinguish that Light because they prefer the darkness.  The Military Religious Freedom Foundation, which is not about the military, religion or freedom, and other angry atheists have stepped up their efforts to darken the Light ofShaw Air Force Base Christmas.  Groups like the MRFF swoop onto a military installation with supposed complaints from anonymous service members to get Nativity scenes removed from Shaw Air Force Base and Guantanamo.  Brave warriors, trained to fight despite fear, then cower at MRFF’s demands and remove the offensive Light without a fight.  This type of cowardice goes on throughout our country where public schools remove “Christ the Savior” from “Silent Night” or a Christmas tree from school grounds.

What turns brave men into moral cowards?  Atheism is not to blame.  The philosophy that has been the most successful in hiding the Light of Christmas is the philosophy of Clark W. Griswold.  The reason why there is a war on Christmas and that atheists are winning is because the vast majority of the rest of the country believes just like Clark Griswold, that Christmas means something different to everyone.

The War on Christmas isn’t so much a War on Christmas as much as it is a war on Christ.  There is a war on a specific meaning of Christmas.

You see, kids, if we can define our own meaning of the Star of Christmas, we don’t have to worry about the consequences of sin.  We get to choose our own morality.  We can define our “own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”

So, capitulating to the noisy atheists at Christmas is easier and more desirable than to stand for the Light.  By doing so, many have dealt falsely with God, as Winthrop warned against.

People love darkness rather than Light.  We, as a nation, have no moral clarity because too many of us are thinking in the dark.  Our moral cowardice as a nation is showing in areas like our acceptance of same-sex “marriage,” in our fondness for sexual promiscuity, in our idolatry of sports, sex and alcohol, in our divorce rate.

The light is going out in our churches because we have rejected the Light of Christmas.  As the light goes out in our churches because of moral cowardice in their members, our nation’s lampstand will be removed.  No one has the power to extinguish the Light, but there is One who can remove it.

The philosophy of Griswold is wrong. The ultimate meaning of Christmas must mean the same thing to everyone.  That Light is the only source for our liberty.  If we don’t recognize the true meaning of Christmas, the Light will go out of our nation and we will lose our City on a Hill.