![]() Courts remove children from parents who don’t accept their new “gender identity.” Schools help “transition” students behind the backs of their parents. Disney and Nickelodeon promote radical gender ideology to small children in cartoons and movies. Pride flags fly on federal and state buildings, mainline Protestant churches, businesses, and in classrooms across the country. Our governing institutions, media companies, schools, corporations, and religious institutions have all been queered. Whatever the name, the most influential denomination in the theocratic junta is the LGBTQIA+ political lobby. Some call it wokeness, while others describe it as leftism. Moral neutrality is not an option.įrench fails to grasp that we already live in a political culture in which government power is used to destroy opposing views and enforce “religious viewpoint supremacy.” The United States already has a state religion. Someone will inevitably set the standard for determining right and wrong. This kind of drag queen conservatism has failed to protect religious liberty or promote a healthy, thriving society. Any political philosophy so slavishly devoted to the concept of expressive individualism that it defends the right of teachers to use their classrooms to indulge their kinks is both morally bankrupt and culturally corrosive.Īll governments should do at least three things: protect rights by respecting the limits of the state’s sphere of sovereignty, preserve resources by stewarding the public fisc, and promote righteousness by rewarding good and punishing evil. He first needs a working definition for the word “Christian” and a standard by which to judge those who claim to be one. Here French seems to have a much larger problem than figuring out the appropriate role for religion in the public square. ![]() After all, there are churches that host drag queen events, as well as churches that condemn drag queens. He writes:īut we shouldn’t fool ourselves into believing that the “moral vision” of the signatories broadly reflects the diversity of Christian belief and practice in the United States. And yet he places churches that host drag shows on the same moral footing as those that do not. But would he publicly criticize black politicians who sought to block schools from teaching “scientific racism”? Would he defend “Blackface Story Hour” as a “blessing of liberty”?įrench is an evangelical Christian. This quest for power is evident in the desire, for example, to overturn decades of First Amendment precedent to stop drag queens from using public facilities for public events, to prohibit particular racial viewpoints even in private corporate diversity training programs, and in the goal to force private social media companies to host expression they find abhorrent.įrench characterizes the use of state power to protect children from sexual perversion or to shield workers from mandatory “white fragility” training as an assault on liberty. Not every so-called conservative shares this perspective.ĭavid French has claimed “National Conservatism Is a Direct Threat to Religious Freedom.” He sees a “quest for power” as the besetting sin of NatCons: ![]() ![]() The robust promotion of God in the public square was well-received at the conference. It provided a stark contrast to an administration that insists men can become pregnant, abortion on-demand is “reproductive justice,” and mutilating the genitals of teenagers is “gender-affirming care.” National conservatives prefer a government guided by the scriptures to one devoted to the spirit of Moloch and gender-bending experiments of John Money.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |