Equality As A Social Evil

Money Team
The Utopian dream of equality.

The conservative response to egalitarian equality found in feminism is something called complementarianism. Feminism says that men and women are equal and similar, allowing for fluid interchange between men and women in the various areas of life. Conservatism rejects this and says men and women are equal and different, applying certain limits to men and women for the sake of roles geared specifically for each particular sex.

The problem with the complementarian idea is that it is still feminism, even as its advocates claim to oppose feminism. Its declaration that men and women are equal in value, but different in roles tries to emphasize the ideas of value and roles, but what is applied is equality and differences. The problem is made worse because progressives do not deny that men and women are different, only that those differences cannot be limited to specific roles. So the “equal but different” stance is the same for both the complementarian and the egalitarian. Both the conservative and the liberal are feminists.

In order to get away from feminism and its corrosive effect on culture, there needs to be another way to view men and women and that is to say that they share a common humanity. Both are human and humanity comes with its own inherent dignity. Men and women are not animals and should not be treated as such. Cruelty and maltreatment are rejected in favor of consideration. Hence, the Christian admonitions that a man should love his neighbor and a husband his wife.

However, this common humanity does not automatically mean equality. In society as a whole, inequality abounds and society is actually the better for it. When it comes to the health of a loved on, the doctor is over the murderer, though both are human. The man who tells the truth and keeps his word is over the liar and fraudulent, though both are men. Not all men are qualified to lead, to manage wealth, to fight for a cause though all men may be capable. Of course not. So, inequality is a part of life and it is not the evil it is made out to be.

In the same way, men and women share a common humanity, but that does not make them equal. Male headship is part of the natural order of life and female submission to men is part of that order. Women are simply not qualified for doing what men do simply because they are women. In the same way, men are not capable of doing those unique things women do because they are men. There should be no shame in this.

Men understand they are not women and find no shame in the fact that they lack those particular qualities that women naturally carry. However, modern women find it shameful that women are not doing what men do and push to leave behind their inherent femininity in order to pursue the world and work of men. At the same time, they push for men to find new-found shame over their lack of feminine qualities.

What drives the conservative / liberal push for equality is the idea that inequality automatically means devaluation. If every person is not equal to every other person, especially if women are not absolutely equal to men, then those who are not equal are less valuable. This makes sense if men and women are stripped of their common humanity and reduced to economic units, making money the measure of all things. If a man earns more money than a woman, then the woman is devalued, base solely on her potential for economic earning.

And thus we have the main issue behind the modern obsession over equality of the sexes. Men and women are measured by their ability to earn money for corporations and governments, under the guise of earning money for themselves. For the love of money, man is remade in the image of economic theories, forgetting that there is a God who made man for more than the pursuit of food and clothing. This make feminism and equality not just social theories or political rights, but moral evils and as such they should be opposed.

Let your manners be without covetousness, contented with such things as you have; for he hath said: I will not leave thee, neither will I forsake thee (Hebrews 13:5).

The face of the mortal sin of covetousness is equality.

Candles In A LED World

Modern Man’s candle.

Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven. – Matthew 5:15-16

The image of the Christian lighting a candle to be carried out of the Church into a dark world is a powerful symbol that illustrates what the Church believes about its place and reason for being in the world. The great cosmic battle has long been held to be the few brave souls willing to bring the bright flame of Christian truth into the dark room that is the world without Christ.

Modernity, however, has developed in such a way that the room is no longer dark. In the room, there is a new source of light, one manufactured by the flow of humanist optimism. There are two lights, both made from the latest in LED thinking, both burning brighter than the light of any candle. One light is science and the other is universal charity, the pillars of modern soft atheism.

Together, these two lights have lit the room so brilliantly that a Christian who dares to bring in his lowly, wax-fed, flickering flame, with its smoke and smell, is seen as dirtying up what is clean. The archaic, fragile flame of the old world of divine revelation, tradition, and sacred things cannot compete with the unwavering glare of the modern LED and all of its tiny, blinding glory. The Christian and his candle becomes a weak competitor with modern man.

This is why the Church has not only failed to effectively counter the Progressive culture war waged against it, but has allowed too many of its long-lit candles to be replaced by the brilliance of the tactical LED flashlight. Deception is found when the optimism of the modern world appears to shine brighter, so much brighter, than the light of the Church.

The candle of family is out shined by the LED of feminism while the modern man paints his feminist LED to look like a family flame, thus fooling himself into thinking he has gained one without losing the other. Equality shines brighter than natural reality, but is tinted to look like natural reality. The Church light looks dark and dim next to the light of modern skepticism, but the skeptic still covers himself in the color of the Church. In the end, it is artificial light tinted to look like the candles that modernity has tried so desperately to place behind closed glass.

The Christian must accept the reality that to most people the LEDs of modernity are brighter than the candles of the Church. At the same time, they must not be fooled into thinking that because Thomas Edison’s bulb looks brighter than a candle, it is somehow a mark of progress toward a better world. While directly challenging light with light is a kind of impossibility, the Church can keep faith that the genuine light of the lit candle and the smoke of prayers drifting up from it will outlast the empire of the LED, as it has outlasted all other man-made empires.

That Terrible Day

The Passionae

After a Good Friday Mass, I am in contemplation.

I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of Heaven and earth; and in Jesus Christ, His only Son Our Lord, Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended into Hell; the third day He rose again from the dead; He ascended into Heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of God, the Father almighty; from thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.


The Hollywood Conspiracy

Hollywood is purging itself of popular franchises that it deems in violation of its progressive mission. The movie-making culture is a closed group that excludes those who refuse to follow the progressive line. What American audiences have come to love, they hate.

Exhibit A. Ghostbusters


I’ve no plans to see it and seeing a boycott against it would prove amusing. It looks devoid of anything beyond that stupid form of comedy that preteens might enjoy and that drunk college students do enjoy (proving that college is an over-priced extension of high school).

The use of four female characters, dumbed-down comedy, and nausea inducing special effects are deliberate choices. Hollywood is taking a film that appealed to a mostly male audience and that inspired many a male writer and purposely destroying it with a sub-bar reboot. In other words, the Ghostbusters remake is not based on any love for the original, but sheer disdain.

In an article at The Daily Caller, Jim Treacher openly states:

As the Daily Caller’s resident Social Justice Warrior, it’s my duty to inform you that the original Ghostbusters is misogynist hate speech and must be destroyed.

Exhibit B: James Bond

In this clip from Goldeneye M openly calls Bond a “sexist, misogynist dinosaur” and then proceeds to tell him that she has no compunctions about his dying as an agent. While the death of a special agent is an accepted reality and the dead agents honored, her callousness reflects just how much she hates Bond and how much Hollywood hates men.

In this single clip, M proclaims exactly what Hollywood thinks about films like Ghostbusters. They are a sexist, misogynist dinosaur that needs to be sent to their deaths without hesitation. This is why Hollywood reboots films like Ghostbusters.

Exhibit C: Star Wars

the force awakens

Anyone who is a fan of the 1977 film Star Wars and the subsequent franchise and who know what Hollywood is doing hated Episode VII: The Force Awakens. It was a reboot of the 1977 film and followed the same formula. While pure fanboys overlooked the obvious and made it a top-seller at the box office, the film was not meant to perpetuate the franchise, but to sound its death knell. The plans to produce a new Star Wars film every year is an attempt to run the thing into the ground until the fan base grows tired of it.

J.J. Abrams, having introduced a goddess female hero into the Star Wars franchise, aiming to eliminate any possibility of another “Princess,” is now pushing for gay characters.

Of course! When I talk about inclusivity it’s not excluding gay characters. It’s about inclusivity. So of course.

This is not to appeal to the Star Wars fans, but to force a distaste of Star Wars, so they will abandon it. Hollywood has a disdain both masculine figures and men who are inspired. What Hollywood wants is for men to get in line with the feminist-progressive culture they are working so hard to perpetuate.

It is merely a matter of time before The Godfather is rebooted and deliberately ruined for the same reason. That which men treasure, Hollywood despises.

The Progressive Plague

screen capture
Home to Progressive Rome

After a decade of living within an intense Protestant faith, I decided to convert to the Roman Catholic Church. I have doubts concerning some of its doctrines, dislike many of the things Pope Francis has said as well as the ambiguous way the Church says things, and still harken for a type of hedonistic atheism that would allow me to do what the hell I want, but at the end of the day, I believe having a structured religion is the best way to express my faith. There is no more structured Christianity than what is found in the Roman Catholic Church.

But I am discovering that the Catholic Church has its own fair share of the Progresive sickness. During Mass, prayers are offered to end racism, sexism, and bigotry. Prayers are offered in remembrance of our Muslim brothers and sisters who are seeking a better life in Europe. All war is evil, etc., etc.

As I go through the RCIA (Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults), I am constantly reminded to take scripture as myth, look for the “real Jesus,” and to stand against racism, sexism, militarism, and nationalism (those are actual terms used). While some discussion is given over to the sacraments, the main purpose is to be on a “faith journey” that may take years while I try to “know Jesus.”

Of course, it all is ambiguous language masking the true intent. I am expected to be a Progressive who attends Catholic Mass. In fact, I learned my local parish is actually working to hinder orthodox / traditionalist Catholics in its midst. After being with my parish for two years and studying the church for that long, I am being denied Confirmation this Easter because the leader of the RCIA feels I am in a different place in my faith journey. I would say there is too much conservatism in me for their tastes.

It might seem a better option to join a conservative denomination, like Southern Baptist or Calvinist Presbyterian or Missouri Synod Lutheran. However, the evangelical Baptists are infected as well as the Calvinists and the Lutherans. Every church has, in small ways, adopted some aspects of the Progressive zeitgeist.

The best thing to do in these dark ages is to take a stand and weather the storm. I am continuing my push for Confirmation as well as repairing other aspects of my life in preparation for the day. Such is the plight of a man in the modern world. I’ve been fighting the Progressive Juggernaut for over a decade and this is just another battle ground.

Progressive Christians Should Call Themselves Atheists

Progressive Christianity

The idea of a Progressive Christian is an oxymoron. One of the main goals of Progressive thought is to leave behind the history and culture of Western Christianity for a superior culture, a more “evolved” culture. Claiming both Christianity and Progress is to claim allegiance to two ideas, one old, the other new.

One of the undercurrents of this new, progressive culture, this emerging civilization, is a soft atheism. It does not directly deny the existence of God, but it finds that God is not truly necessary for human progress. There are two things that are required and these take precedent over any gods. First is the elevation of humans through scientific knowledge and improvement. Second is the elimination of human suffering through universal charity. These two pillars of science and “love” are keys to eliminating war, disease, and difference.

What is not needed in the Progressive movement is a belief in a creator, sin, or the need of salvation by transcendent powers, core tenants of a Christian faith. If a man believes in such things, fine and dandy, but he should understand that such ideas should be kept private because they are not considered established facts in scientific circles. They are merely subjective beliefs and nothing more. Religion is allowed as long as it aligns with the goals of the Progressive movement.

This is where Progressives who claim to be Christians deviate from Christianity and become atheist. Their attendance at church services and religious practices are not reflective of belief in Christianity as revealed reality, but belief in religion as an expendable means to achieve the Progressive ends.

In church services, the symbolic facets of the worship do not point toward the existence of God or the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus as factual truth. Rather, they are symbolic of what Jesus symbolizes to them. For the Progressive Christian, Jesus was a mere man whose death is a symbol for universal pacifism and charity (God so loved the world). His death, burial, and resurrection are merely symbols to teach congregants that the old world of superstition and racism and sexism is dying and new world is emerging, a world of science and love.

Should there come a day where there are no more churches, bibles are relegated to museums, Jesus is a footnote in history, and God is a quaint thing vaguely remembered, the Progressive faith will continue strong. Their faith is not in God or Christ, but in man and man’s evolution toward utopia.

For all intents and purposes, they are atheists.

They just need to renounce Christ and be done with it.

One Final Look At The Marian Idea

Jesus and Mary
Glory be to The Father, The Son, The Mother, and The Holy Ghost.

In my previous two articles, I examined what I saw were the pros and cons of Roman Catholicism and directly challenged the veneration of Mary that is a major part of the Roman Catholic faith. In this third article, I want to lay out my reasoning behind my rejection of the Marian doctrines. I am coming at this from a position of observations I have made over the years, which frees me from the box of Protestant thought.

According to scripture, in the beginning there is Adam and Eve in Eden. There is the command from God. There is the disobedience. There is the fall.

Then to Adam He said, “Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat of it’: “Cursed is the ground for your sake; In toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life” (Genesis 3:17 NKJV).

So the curse of the material world, sin, came through Adam. Paul confirms this idea:

For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous (Romans 5:19 NKJV).

What I see is that inherited sin is a particularly male attribute. It is passed from father to child. The sin nature of king David was inherited from his father and he passed on the sin nature to his son, Solomon, and so on and so on.

Now we come to Joseph and Mary. In keeping with biblical history, Joseph had inherited the curse of Adam through his father and Mary through her father. But – and this is the big ‘but’ – only Joseph was culpable for passing on the sin to any children he might have. Though Mary was a sinner she nonetheless could not pass on sin to any children she might have.

So it makes sense that God interrupted the male lineage by supernaturally impregnating Mary with male seed, but not interrupted the female lineage through Mary. For Jesus to be born sinless, it was only necessary to remove Joseph from the process, but not Mary.

With this, the entire concept of the Immaculate Conception and the thought behind it looks unnecessary and unfounded. In fact, there is no biblical basis for the dogma. It is purely grounded in the tradition of the Church.

The core idea is that original sin infects both sexes and is passed on by both sexes. Jesus’ perfection had to be protected from both Joseph and Mary. So while the biblical account records a supernatural conception, church tradition holds the Immaculate Conception, which states that Mary was supernaturally born perfect and without sin.

But this raises questions. If Mary was born without sin to protect Jesus, why wasn’t Joseph also born without sin? Why didn’t God just give a special grace to a child conceived by Joseph and Mary so that Jesus was immaculately conceived? From the Catholic view, Joseph was dismissed as a sinful father and Mary was placed on a supernatural pedestal as the perfect mother.

As I revisit this doctrine, I cannot but help conclude that the Roman Church is in error and has tacked on the heavy weight of an unnecessary teaching that has very questionable foundations. And in this age of feminism, where the deception that befell Eve is spreading en mass, the Marian doctrine is feminism officially sanctioned by tradition, as it elevates Mary to equality to Jesus.

It makes a mere woman equal to God, which is the great temptation that struck Eve in Eden.

it pains me because I really admire the Roman Church in all its greatness. That admiration, however, does not nullify what I see as a serious and grevious error.