Sep 12
22
ChristianGovernance eletter – September 21, 2012
Our humanistic age has such a preoccupation with data. That’s how people who pretend to be scientific justify their views. Thankfully – in one respect – the corruption in humanist research – the manipulation of statistics and the massaging of data to justify preconceived notions – is increasing. As a result, humanists are going too far and are being exposed.
In the realm of pantheistic earth-worship, this has become most obvious in the revelations of internal correspondence about fudging climate data. The green energy cult is collapsing in the face of data about perpetual, and massive, government subsidization and unsustainable fantasies in the form of bankrupt companies. Advancements in science are also making humanist positions ever more embarrassing to hold, whether in terms of support for abortion, early sexual activity or homosexuality. Humanism is looking ever more like the realm of blind faith, irrational exuberance and fundamentalist extremism – a body of thought that only kindergarten dropouts and tenured university professors would feel comfortable defending.
The modern left is exuberant about what the latest census data on the Canadian family – released this week – says about the normalization of deviance and the collapse of the natural family. Media headlines reveal the liberal excitement: “‘A sea change’ in attitudes toward Alberta gay marriages”, “Composition of Alberta’s families rapidly evolving”, “Canada’s new modern family”, “Meaning of family changing”, “Family data show need for changes in policy.”
What the data actually say is that when you reduce the cost of something, you will see a greater demand for it. Today, we are in the midst of a war between the humanist vision of a sovereign state and the Christian vision of self-government and the family under God.
Fundamental to this current theological war is the humanist commitment to destroying the family. A key strategy for doing this has been to steal taxpayer dollars to subsidize deviant behaviour that produced destructive, unsustainable family forms.
Man is largely a rational being. He responds very predictably to cost-benefit projections. Men weigh the pros and cons of various choices and mostly act accordingly. Most people today, including probably most Christians, deny this fact. They have embraced the implications of Evolutionism in this area of thought. This CHANCE theory leads them to believe that human behaviour is unpredictable, not tied to rational considerations.
The one area where humanists have committed the greatest fraud on this point – or provided the most embarrassing examples of ignorance – is when it comes to sex. They assume that people will act like irrational rutting animals when it comes to sex: that they aren’t capable of demonstrating restraint, that they won’t engage in cost-benefit analysis regarding sexual activity. That’s why they want contraception given to the youngest of children; that’s why they want sexually transmitted disease treatments to be taxpayer subsidized. That’s why even the cost of sex-change operations is pushed on to the taxpayer.
On the other hand, elsewhere you will read about how many modern women will intentionally live alone, and control their sexual activity and relationships based on their financial and business goals. The state of modern humanist social theory is pathetic. The inconsistencies and irrationality that pervades humanistic sociology is almost entertaining.
The point here is that if every bit of government-subsidization of the family was eliminated, a remarkably large amount of the deviant behaviour surrounding sex, relationships, marriage and child-bearing would disappear.
If people had to fund the treatment for their own sexually transmitted diseases, you would see a sharp drop in the amount of promiscuous sexual activity, including same-sex activity.
If government schools stopped exposing children to sexual content much too early, you would see far less sexual activity among school children.
If governments stopped subsidizing family expenses for all people, there would be a dramatic drop in the number of single parents.
If governments repealed parental leave laws, eliminating this government-imposed cost on businesses, then you would probably see an increase in the number of single-income families.
If governments stopped providing social welfare to people, far more parents and children would work out their problems because the children couldn’t afford the easy way out of leaving home and sponging off the taxpayer.
If governments didn’t subsidize in vitro fertilization procedures, you would see a much smaller baby-factory industry.
If governments didn’t provide perverse financial incentives to divorce, there would be far fewer divorces.
If governments didn’t ratify the invented concept of same-sex “marriage,” it wouldn’t be able to continue to pretend to exist.
If government schools didn’t lie about the moral legitimacy of different family forms, you wouldn’t see as much support for them among the indoctrinated younger generation.
The list goes on.
You have rather desperate foolishness and dishonesty in many attempts at analysis of the latest census family data. This “analysis” asserts such claims as: social conservatism is dead, and the natural, biological intact family is a thing of the past. This is self-serving drivel. It can be entertaining to watch reporters and analysts put their foolishness on display like this. Are there not some Proverbs which issue warnings about this?
The reality is that Humanism is unsustainable. Humanism produces nothing. It is a purely parasitic ideology. It consumes. It sucks life out of things. This is probably best illustrated in its political manifestation of the social welfare state. The social welfare state depends on the existence of a productive class because the civil magistrate produces no wealth of its own. This is the nature of Humanism.
Would that Christians would stop adding their support to this humanist welfare state. It might give the impression of being just and merciful, but it’s not. And it’s not sustainable. The natural, biological, intact family is the only type of family that is consistent with an ethic of progress and productivity. It is the only family form that is sustainable without subsidization by current or future taxpayers. It is God’s family form, so it is the only one consistent with reality. It will endure, while the others fall away.
Until then, we will continue to get what we pay for. The governments’ subsidization comes at a cost to the natural, biological, intact family. Many politicians and propagandists deny this fact. They are lying. The relative cost of being part of an intact family is increasing. The relative cost of deviant family forms is dropping because the civil government manipulates society by covering the costs of these bad choices, spreading them among all citizens or defraying them so that the next generation will have to pay for them.
Some Christians will misinterpret our point and pretend that we are utopian. Utopia, though, implies perfection, and that is not what we are claiming. Some Christians may believe that a belief in sin precludes a significant number of people changing their behaviour due to a rational assessment of the costs/risks. They need to ensure that their skepticism arises from Scripture and not from evolutionary chance theory. We are sold on the reality of sin and the total depravity of man, so we don’t believe this analysis undermines that conviction.
We are also not saying that economic factors are the only ones that people respond to rationally. Economic factors are, however, often representative of what people are thinking about other things.
The unrelenting forward motion of time guarantees the victory of the normal family. As in the past, the far fewer manifestations of broken families will be manageable through the support of family networks and churches. There isn’t a remotely Christian social model that justifies theft from taxpayers (who are supporting their own children) to subsidize the deviancy and brokenness of other families.
State-ism is an ideology of the walking dead. It can’t survive. Help it die sooner by exposing it, condemning it and, where possible, refusing to subsidize it. As a taxpayer, you are subsidizing it, so you have a right and a responsibility to speak out against it and its moral offensiveness. It’s sapping you and your family of its social, moral and spiritual strength. How can you be silent?