The Rights of Evil – Part 7.


God’s Biological Society – The Family

The first component, and an obstacle to the secularist goal, is the authority of the genetic family.  There is no continuation of the species of man without procreation.  As such, it is the physical center of humanity and has been such since man climbed out of the mud of the bog.  With such an understanding, all cultures in the past have naturally delegated authority to the family; first to the father and mother, second to the community, third to the state, and so on.  It had always been a fundamental practice that generated opportunity and stability for all, and despite its frequent inequities due to the abuse of authority by self-centered individuals and groups – a condition that exits in all authorities across all philosophies – it is a proven model.  It works because that is God’s creative plan and it is His genetic formula for created man.

Secular man sees another model; one not based upon genetics, but rather upon desires.  The first is stable and evolves at a pace that society bears easily and without notice.  The second is continually disruptive by nature for it gives preference to immediate and temporal desires, and redistributes resources, which had been acquired through the stability of the family structure, to those who have not had to work for those resources.  The secularist, in pursuit of providing resources for the impulse of feelings and desires, has to separate work from reward.  Individuals and groups that had spent their lives working for what they thought was theirs, are left to watch those things of value taken away from them and given to another individual or group so that a new desire may flourish.  Institutions that struggled for generations in order to reach the higher echelons of quality provisions for specific purposes have found their successful programs sacked and redefined by those who merely desired what that institution earned and offered, and saw no reason why they should have to meet the very requirements that made the institution desirable to them to begin with.  The secularist creed is, “Take what you choose not to earn or accomplish”.

In advancing desires, the secular society must reverse the order of authority, giving first authority to the state, second to the community and third to the father and mother.  The simple reason for this is that the family structure is definitive, finite, and authoritarian due to the genetic makeup of the family, where children are naturally dependent upon the parents; thus the authority of the parents are insured and enshrined.  Parents are the gatekeepers of desires.  In order for secular society to appease desire it must demote the authority of the parents beneath that of the community and state.  Hence we see practically all of the institutions of the family of man being redefined or eradicated.

And so the dissolution of marriage is but a step in the reassignment of authority from the family to the society.  Deacon Keith Fournier, in Catholic Online, recently gave a good definition of God’s sacramental and genetic form of marriage.

“Marriage is ontologically between one man and one woman, ordered toward the union of the spouses, open to children and formative of family.  Nothing else is a marriage.  Family is the first vital cell of society; the first church, first school, first hospital, first economy, first government and first mediating institution of a truly human and just social order.  Heterosexual marriage, procreation, and the nurturing of children form the foundation for the family, and the family forms the foundation of civil society.”

There is little in that statement that secular society is not attempting to convert and redefine to its own purpose of degraded equality.  I came across an excellent example of such infected backwater of secular thinking in an online newspaper article in the Alomogordo Daily News:

On August 14th, 2013, Chaplain Richard Frazier was offended while attending a rodeo that included a Christian prayer at its beginning, along with a Christian flag being displayed by a rider on horseback.  His comment afterwards was:

“We are a country founded on religious freedom, and with that freedom comes responsibility.  We have a responsibility to respect the fact that not everyone shares in the same religious belief, and we must be mindful not to impose our beliefs on others.”

His argument here is that, in order to have religious freedom, those who wish to practice it must never display their faith in any manner in the public realm.  He argues that religion must be only be kept within one’s personal experience and only made visible for others within the context of a clearly designated event and location that promotes that religion.  This an interesting form of freedom; is it not?

If I were to carry his logic forward….

The Declaration of Independence, in its Preamble states:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

The declaration appears to be defining these rights as freedoms of man’s consciousness and action within his society, but Chaplain Frazier seems to be arguing that in order to have Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, one must experience it privately or only within a designated event and location that promotes one’s Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.  To Chaplain Frazier, a rodeo is not such a place.

And what about America’s Bill of Rights?  Just looking at the 1st Amendment:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Chaplain Frazier has already adjudicated on the religion portion of this amendment, so what about the other portions?  By Chaplain Frazier’s interpretation of freedom this would mean that human communication is a private concern and only permissible at a clearly specified event and within the walls of a clearly designated location that promotes communications; of any kind.  It means that no person may assemble with another person or persons, except in those locations that are clearly designated for that purpose, and only after notifying the general public of their intent to communicate.  And it means that no one may petition – a form of communications – the American government for anything except through those clearly designated locations for communication and after due notification had been set forth.  Of interest here is that Chaplain Frazier has not defined who is to approve of these clearly designated events and their locations, nor how they are to be designated, but he has clearly designated that this rodeo is not one of those places, as it did not clearly inform its audience that a Christian prayer and flag would be on display as part of the ceremony.  Obviously, I could proceed through the rest of the Bill of Rights, and it would become increasingly obvious the flawed nature of such thinking.

Chaplain Richard Frazier went on to defend his opinion two weeks later; writing an open letter in the same online newspaper:

“As a Marine combat veteran, I carry the steel of my country’s enemies inside my body.  To see the Griffin bunch parade my country’s flag and promote their intolerant, bigoted, fundamental religious view offended me and many other veterans.”

Putting aside the chaplain’s obvious, vitriolic tone, by his own words he is making the argument that to demonstrate a religious conviction or belief in public is in itself an intolerant and bigoted act, and as such is not protected by our 1st Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.  So what makes his statement any less bigoted than that which he is condemning?

And what of the recent decision made by the Supreme Court of New Mexico, in its ruling against a photography company for its decision not to take pictures of a same-sex marriage?  The court decided that the company had no right to deny their services to this same-sex couple; that to do so was to discriminate against them as the New Mexico Human Rights Act details.

In a separate, written opinion, Justice Bosson stated that, “at some point in our lives all of us must compromise, if only a little, to accommodate the contrasting values of others.”   He went onto clarify that the photographers would have to put aside their religious beliefs in order to accommodate an act (same-sex marriage) by a protected group, under the NMHRA, that is not recognized by the state itself, in order to promote the good of the society.

What is being missed here is the obvious.  The photographers are being told they must compromise their religious conscience, their right of religious freedom as expressed in the 1st Amendment of our U.S. Constitution, in order that the society may enjoy its traditions and laws in an equitable fashion.  We have before us a simple redefinition of our own Constitution in order that the secular ideology of society may be supported, promoted and made mandatory over all other religious belief and action.

Now, this is a prominent boulder in our vision of a future, but I find it but a pebble in the degradation of mankind.  By far the larger rock is the reinterpretation of man’s free will and choice; that very condition that secular man so pursues.  The court endorsed the growing concept in Western society that a business, in its goal to be non-discriminatory in its conduct, cannot deny anyone their product and/or services.  If one wishes to live – through the means of commerce – one cannot choose whom they will provide product or service to, and must put aside their free will and choice for the betterment of society as a whole.  To stretch this logic into the future conduct and actions within a society is another discourse of some great length and some true dystopian vision.

The point in my several examples of the nature of things, from the realities of architecture, transportation and communications, to the examples of ideas regarding freedoms, institutions, and the dignity of man, is to illustrate the nature of evil, and how it always establishes first its right to existence before it enacts its judgment upon mankind.  In so doing, one’s rights become the focus of responsibility for evil and one’s intent the path to an evil act:

Though automobiles kill approximately 1,200,000 people each year around the world, according to the World Health Organization, we see no purpose or desire to curtail the automobile.  As a result, the architecture of man and how he communicates is fundamentally redefined in order to ensure the right and intent to drive an automobile.  I learned the word “technocracy” recently, and I find it an appropriate word now to describe the state of our world.

Though man’s selfish inclination to his own desires kills approximately 44,000,000 people each year though intentional abortion, with an additional 70,000 maternal deaths each year due to unsafe procedures and facilities, we see no purpose to curtail abortion.  As a result, the dignity of mankind is fundamentally redefined to ensure that one group of people (women) are more equal than another group of people (children), a condition of people (the haves) is more equal than another condition of people (the have-nots), and one period of time (the present) is more equal than another period of time (the past and the future).

Though the secular society prizes scientific justification for their mission statement, they pick and choose from the barrel of scientific information for that which the embrace with their preferences and desires, and discards the rest.  Take for example divorce and the effects of it on the children from broken marriages.  Science has demonstrated that children suffer from lack of attention by divorced parents.  Children receive less financial support and lack strong emotional support from their divorced parents.  Children from a divorce experience depression, less happiness, less satisfaction and contentment, diminished social skills, poor academic performance, chronic substance abuse, and generally suffer from a loss of well-being and confidence.   Relationships are harder to come by in a healthy manner for children of divorce.  Their own marriages suffer through greater conflict and increased divorce, than for those children, now adults, who come from married parents.

And yet the parent(s) only see the further appeasement of their own desires over that of their children’s needs.  To achieve such an end, the secular society redefines marriage as merely a convenience that all parties should have access to in the belief that traditional marriage is a stigma of moral proportions and to separate marriage away from such a condition is to alleviate marriage from such a false and inequitable burden; hence it becomes a true bond of relationship between any two or more people or things.  With a magic wand, the secularist believes that all of the anxieties of mankind, that have been maliciously brought about through genetics, evolution, natural selection, traditional marriage, and theistic reasoning, is dissipated as gas in the air, and children everywhere will reap the holistic and real benefits of the new marriage in the new society.  Bold plan, indeed.

I must say that evil truly appears to be a woven tapestry of human rights and intents; rights and intents that are all meant for the good, but when woven only for the warmth of man and not for his conjugal nature and existence with natural authority, God and His will, we have a living, authoritative evil in our midst.  If this is the case, then we have no one to blame for evil but ourselves.  I have to become quite hard here and state that, if this is a truth, we have little right or reason for sadness and grief, for moral outrage and indignation, or for a claim of innocence in a society where all are guilty of damnable complicity with evil.  How anyone could love another in this world is a gruesome testament to our ability to hold all our collective breaths, and noses, while standing defiantly in front of our father, God.

Again sorry for being quite direct.  This came upon me with the truth of our fallen nature and its true depth of depravity.  Though many of us may be proclaimed Christians or moral people, the truth of the matter is that the Christian society has long been replaced by the secular society and its doctrines in America.  We have all been indoctrinated into secularism from our birth, and while we profess morality, our secular-bred assumptions silently lead our minds, tongues and toes in a direction that we refuse to admit as our true path of darkness; preferring to walk our hypocritical, public existence down the appearance of God’s path, knowing all too well of its false ability to save us or the one’s we love from the hammer of evil.  Personally, and as an under-educated person in the arts of philosophy and sociology, to call out an efficient cause of this type of thinking, I would have to look into the Enlightenment Period of Western Man, the Reformation of his Christian church, and the resultant confusion that holds primacy in man’s mind between the authoritative powers of physics and metaphysics.

I’ll be returning to the Second-Person Relationship as God created it in my next post.

God Bless and Buen Camino – Reese

One thought on “The Rights of Evil – Part 7.

  1. Hi Reese,
    You are truly a remarkable man. A shinning star in God’s plan.
    Thank you for sharing your remarkable thoughts. Its an honor to know you.
    God bless you
    Kathryn Bickford

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s