Recent victories of the New Sexualism movement in America’ Culture Wars, especially the exponential spread of the power of the transgenderism wing of the movement, are creating in American culture and law an earthquake of ten-point magnitude. The epicenter of this earthquake is the U.S. Supreme Court. Its 2020 decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia (described in “Taproot of Truth 1.0”), reveals how the tectonic plates of philosophy and theology/religion basic to American law and culture are being tossed about like grains of sand by America’s internal enemies. These members of the frenzied transgenderism movement, a component group of the Humanist worldview, are characterized by a deadly hatred for Judeo-Christian truths and advocates.
Humanism’s varied and numerous successes against the Judeo-Christian worldview in America’s Culture War are due in substantial measure to the U. S. Supreme Court, the self-appointed “arbiter of truth” in American law and culture. The Court moved us much farther into the danger zone with its Bostock decision. In this series of studies on the transgenderism movement (“TM”), we shall analyze some of the most compelling arguments against TM, arguments of fundamental fact that we label “truth tenets.” In order to present the broadest possible picture of transgenderism, law, and the Culture War, we must take excursions not only into the law and Bostock per se, but also into theology, philosophy, history, etc.
In so doing, Judeo-Christian advocates must master, and be able to articulate and act on, the truth that TM is a dangerous and evil system, not just a matter of individual values and behaviors. This evil system threatens all of society and all societal institutions (family, church, and civil law/government) – protection is thus needed for at least three reasons, each expressible in both Scriptural and secular terms.
(1.) The protection of our nation in general. James Madison, our fourth president and the “Father of the Constitution” spells out the first reason: “Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.” (Letter from James Madison to W. T. Barry [August 4, 1822] in The Writings of James Madison [Gallard Hunt ed.]). Madison’s declaration stands squarely on the Scriptures: “When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice; but when the wicked [e.g., TM] beareth rule, the people mourn (Prov. 29:2 - Bible, KJV).
(2.) The protection of our legal system as a system. What is required for a legal system to survive and thrive as a system? There are three essential qualities, according to the preeminent British legal scholar of the Twentieth Century, H. L. A. Hart (The Concept of Law, 1961). These qualities expressed in simple terms are “certainty, consistency, and continuity.” To be explained later, these qualities prevail when civil law/government fulfill the purposes prescribed for this system in the Scriptures: (a.) the “political purpose” (maintaining peace and order) – Gen. 6:11-13, 9: 5-6; I Tim. 2:1-2; (b.) the “pedagogical purpose” (specifying and punishing wrongdoing) – Rom. 13:3-4b; I Pet. 2: 13-14; (c.) the “didactic purpose” (recognizing and encouraging that which is right and good) – Rom. 13:3c.-4a.; I Pet. 2:13-14. TM viciously and directly attempts to subvert every effort of civil law and/government to pursue these Biblical purposes.
(3.) The protection of Christian rights, which are under such ferocious attack by TM and its cohorts. A prime example of this involves the fact that the New Testament does not just recognize the rights of Christians, but the Divine requirement placed on Christians, to “be ready always to give an answer to every man [who asks a reason for the hope within us] – an absolute requirement (I Pet. 3:15). However, our Humanist archenemies, including TM, attempt to derail Christians’ exercise of their rights and responsibilities by resort to disingenuous arguments, among which none is more frequently and fiercely invoked than the “DEI” battle cry (“Diversity, Equity, Inclusion”) – a mantra of the radicalized far left in America. “Diversity” and its progenitor, “pluralism,” have converted their demand for “tolerance,” into a Humanistic battering ram against Christians, the Humanistic charge being that Christians’ words and actions are “bigoted, dogmatic, intolerant, discriminatory,” etc.
A plethora of refutations of these flawed Humanistic arguments can be/has been made: (a.) Total pluralism/diversity is impossible: “[pluralism] is a word society employs during the transition from one orthodoxy to another. . . A society cannot remain permanently fragmented with respect to values” (Twentieth Century British historian, E. R. Norman). (b.) The demand by TM and other Humanistic groups for “pluralism” and “tolerance” of anti-Christian values is blatantly anti-Christian and hypocritical:
An indefinitely elastic pluralism is not possible. . .Values are necessary for the functioning of any society, and if they are not consciously adopted and publicly acknowledged, they will be smuggled in surreptitiously and often unconsciously. Values are always in real or potential conflict, and the state inevitably favors some values over others” (Historian James Hitchcock, Law and Contemporary Problems, 1981).
In every corner of American society and at every level of government, TM has clearly, but surreptitiously, smuggled its way into positions of power, demonstrating the undeniability of Hitchcock’s assertion.
It is thus obviously necessary that the Judeo-Christian community master and articulate the superiority of its worldview in the Culture War battles with TM. And it is necessary that we launch this educational effort by now examining Truth Tenet #1, 3 which focuses on the essential and inherent nature of the Transgenderism Movement – the ontological Tenet.
One of TM’s most egregiously anti-Christian arguments illustrative of this truth tenet is TM’s rejection of the existence or nature of God, of His acts of creation, etc. as depicted in orthodox Christianity. Such a rejection does not render the Humanists’ arguments secular. Rather, their arguments simply rest on a religious foundation opposite to that of the Biblical foundation of the Judeo-Christian worldview. Each of the two worldviews is secured to a theological/religious foundation, a fact clearly embraced and articulated by Humanists themselves, especially in earlier Twentieth Century debates when Humanism 4 was not so surreptitious about its real nature and scope [cf., The Humanist Manifestos, I, II, and III]. This fundamental fact must be acknowledged if honest, scholarly debates on the transgenderism movement are to occur.
Online searches for a definition of “ideology” reveal a plethora of formulations. But the essence of these is cogently captured by the Encyclopedia Britannica in a posting dated June 17, 2023: “[An ideology] is a form [i.e., “system”] of social or political philosophy [i.e., beliefs and ideas] in which practical elements are as prominent as theoretical ones.” “Economic” beliefs and ideas are also commonly mentioned by other sources, along with “political” and “social” beliefs and ideas as characteristic of “ideologies.”
TM clearly displays the qualities specified in these definitions which are, just as clearly, not definitions of “religion” as such. In this display, we can also see the interrelationships of the core concepts of a “worldview.”
With these understandings in mind, we can clearly see how far America has strayed from Biblical foundations. One of TM’s most cherished mantras as it has led us astray is the call for “tolerance.” But the hypocrisy of that argument is summarized well by a leading contemporary Christian pastor and activist. His words provide a segue into our next “Taproot of Truth” article:
Tolerance is the last virtue of a depraved society. When you have an immoral society that has blatantly, proudly, violated all of the commandments of God, there is one last virtue they insist upon: tolerance for their immorality (Dr. D.James Kennedy, quoting Hutton Gibson).
