Thank you for the share and the excellent comment, Bruce.
Like you, I am firmly in second camp. I don't think the system can be reformed or saved in any meaningful way. It took me a long time to reach this conclusion. Once I did, I was tempted to fall into despair for the reasons you point out, but I found strength in my faith - in exactly what the end of your comment emphasizes.
In Dallas, Texas, a jury - note that: a jury, not a Leftist judge legislating from the bench (although the Democratic Party judge is no doubt Leftist herself) - rules that a father has no right to prevent the "gender transition" of his seven year old son - note that as well: SEVEN YEAR OLD son - from a whole boy to a mutilated parody of a girl.
The father is to be denied, in effect, all paternal rights with respect to his own son, who is indeed his biological son, in favour of his estranged wife, who is not the biological mother of the boy slated to be abused and castrated in pursuit of the impossible, to which the boy himself cannot, at age seven, give anything like informed consent. The not-quite-mother who is agitating to "transition" the boy to faux-girlhood is a medical doctor. A paediatrician, no less.
This particular paediatrician appears to be an agent of the Left's war on manhood (white manhood, anyway), now pursued to the point of denaturing young boys on a woman's whim. She also appears to have forgotten the Hippocratic Oath. The boy himself doesn't appear to be convinced he is or should be a girl, as he responds to his name, James, and acts as a boy when he is with his father (such behaviour to be proscribed under this court ruling). When with his not-quite-mother, however, the lad does as she demands, and responds to the nick-name Luna.
One account of this crime against humanity stated - how accurately I don't know - that the "mother"-doctor claims she knew the boy was really a girl when he liked the film "Frozen." What more evidence could one need?
A system that can issue and enforce such an order is beyond redemption. It is a direct and brazen attack on families, fathers, the very nature of human beings. Whether the jury were acting out of some belief in 'transgender rights' or similar nonsense, or simply out of purposive evil is almost irrelevant. The fact remains that an American jury have ordered this anti-human travesty with the force of law.
And this is happening in Texas, generally considered a conservative jurisdiction. Granted, it is in Dallas, a large city that - like all large American cities - is completely dominated politically by the Left, thanks largely to uncontrolled migration of Left-leaning aliens into the United States. There should be appeals of this ruling, up to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary, until the father's rights and, most importantly, the boy's well-being are vindicated. But one should not hold out too much hope that that would be the result.
For years I've tried to believe that we're living within a merely corrupted system with a surviving core in need of restoration. But when obscenities like this happen, as they do more and more, it's hard not to believe something else is disordering society, and that that something is inherently evil.
@HRS - Moral inversion is the worst form of evil; an evil which preens itself as virtue. One would suppose that such vile mutilations of children would be regarded as the most obvious possible evils, but no - they are proudly advertised as new, sophisticated 'goods'. They are becoming common (genuinely so, such that everyone knows personally of such cases), and are increasing.
We are the most evil society ever known - because we are inverted in our morality. There is no mystery as to why; and what is needed. It is a challenge and choice for every individual.
23 October 2019 at 06:49
My penfriend Frank Berger has posted an outstandingly clarifying blog post today - short, punchy, exactly what is needed:
People who perceive the evil gripping the West can generally be divided in two distinct groups.
The first group believes the system has been corrupted, and they advocate for the removal of the evil forces and elements that have caused the corruption. Put another way, people in this camp believe the system is inherently good, or at least was inherently good before dark interests debased it. Purge the evil from the system, the first group argues, and the system can be saved.
The second group, on the other hand, sees the system as purposefully corrupt and evil. People in this group believe the system has been designed by evil for the purpose of creating chaos and promoting damnation. Evil cannot be purged from the system because the system itself is evil embodied. Purging evil from the system would result in the elimination of the system (which is exactly what most in the second group believe should / needs to happen).
So where do you land? Do you see evil in a corrupted but otherwise good system? Or do you see only an evil system?
My comment: I see an evil system - but I am afraid of the implications of such an insight, and so I resisted it for a very long time.
Acknowledging that the system is itself designed for evil implies it needs to be destroyed - and the system is almost everywhere now. Destroying the evil system probably means disruption (and presumably, suffering, disease, death) on a scale never before seen.
I see that as a kind of death grip that evil now has upon the world - evil holds us to ransom - at least so far as this-worldly aspects are concerned. We have a situation in which the destruction of evil will almost certainly mean triggering the destruction of our civilisation - and therefore (almost certainly) our-selves and those we love.
More accurately, I think it means making this happen earlier rather than later - because evil is parasitic and un-sustainable - so such a 'crash and burn' will happen whatever we do; but by supporting the evil system, this inevitable collapse can be delayed.
But the price of doing so escalates. It gets harder and harder to delay collapse, and we would have to give more and more to sustaining the evil system for this to happen.
The only 'answer' - which would ensure we 'did the right thing' (rather than being drawn into ever-greater evil, as is currently the situation) is a really solid and motivating belief in the Heavenly Life Everlasting beyond death, attained through following Jesus with love.
This is why I try to emphasise the teaching of the Fourth Gospel - it is the Christian understanding that we most need now and in the days to come.
"Is The System inherently evil, or merely corrupted - by Francis Berger"
3 Comments -
Thank you for the share and the excellent comment, Bruce.
Like you, I am firmly in second camp. I don't think the system can be reformed or saved in any meaningful way. It took me a long time to reach this conclusion. Once I did, I was tempted to fall into despair for the reasons you point out, but I found strength in my faith - in exactly what the end of your comment emphasizes.
20 October 2019 at 10:59
Evidence for inherently evil, from the Lone Star State, Texas, which is supposed to be conservative as American states go:
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/breaking-jury-rules-against-dad-trying-to-save-his-7-year-old-from-gender-transition.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/texas-father-blocked-from-stopping-gender-transition-of-son-james-7-to-girl-called-luna.
In Dallas, Texas, a jury - note that: a jury, not a Leftist judge legislating from the bench (although the Democratic Party judge is no doubt Leftist herself) - rules that a father has no right to prevent the "gender transition" of his seven year old son - note that as well: SEVEN YEAR OLD son - from a whole boy to a mutilated parody of a girl.
The father is to be denied, in effect, all paternal rights with respect to his own son, who is indeed his biological son, in favour of his estranged wife, who is not the biological mother of the boy slated to be abused and castrated in pursuit of the impossible, to which the boy himself cannot, at age seven, give anything like informed consent. The not-quite-mother who is agitating to "transition" the boy to faux-girlhood is a medical doctor. A paediatrician, no less.
This particular paediatrician appears to be an agent of the Left's war on manhood (white manhood, anyway), now pursued to the point of denaturing young boys on a woman's whim. She also appears to have forgotten the Hippocratic Oath. The boy himself doesn't appear to be convinced he is or should be a girl, as he responds to his name, James, and acts as a boy when he is with his father (such behaviour to be proscribed under this court ruling). When with his not-quite-mother, however, the lad does as she demands, and responds to the nick-name Luna.
One account of this crime against humanity stated - how accurately I don't know - that the "mother"-doctor claims she knew the boy was really a girl when he liked the film "Frozen." What more evidence could one need?
A system that can issue and enforce such an order is beyond redemption. It is a direct and brazen attack on families, fathers, the very nature of human beings. Whether the jury were acting out of some belief in 'transgender rights' or similar nonsense, or simply out of purposive evil is almost irrelevant. The fact remains that an American jury have ordered this anti-human travesty with the force of law.
And this is happening in Texas, generally considered a conservative jurisdiction. Granted, it is in Dallas, a large city that - like all large American cities - is completely dominated politically by the Left, thanks largely to uncontrolled migration of Left-leaning aliens into the United States. There should be appeals of this ruling, up to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary, until the father's rights and, most importantly, the boy's well-being are vindicated. But one should not hold out too much hope that that would be the result.
For years I've tried to believe that we're living within a merely corrupted system with a surviving core in need of restoration. But when obscenities like this happen, as they do more and more, it's hard not to believe something else is disordering society, and that that something is inherently evil.
23 October 2019 at 04:35
@HRS - Moral inversion is the worst form of evil; an evil which preens itself as virtue. One would suppose that such vile mutilations of children would be regarded as the most obvious possible evils, but no - they are proudly advertised as new, sophisticated 'goods'. They are becoming common (genuinely so, such that everyone knows personally of such cases), and are increasing.
We are the most evil society ever known - because we are inverted in our morality. There is no mystery as to why; and what is needed. It is a challenge and choice for every individual.
23 October 2019 at 06:49