Jason Whitlock doesn’t think the secular left is listening. He believes the problem is that believers are trying to play the “diversity and inclusiveness” game. He’s tired of playing by the left’s ground rules.
He has a point but there’s also a flaw.
I agree with him that we shouldn’t allow the left to set the margins of our debate. However, science is NOT their purview. They claim #science but what they’re actually pushing on us is not science. I think Matt Walsh is smart to just use straight facts to argue the point about gender.
Here’s the thing though. Who on the left is watching Matt Walsh’s documentary? None. They’re enclosed in an impenetrable bubble. But that doesn’t mean we still shouldn’t engage.
But in the end, this is God’s universe or a godless universe. Any debate as fundamental as gender or humanity itself is essentially a debate about God. In the end, in a godless universe there is no truth, no objective truth. In a godless universe, gender is a social construct because everything is a social construct, including God himself.
So I think it’s good to argue on scientific terms but in the end this will always come down to whether one believes in an ordered universe:
Or a chaotic universe:
June 7, 2022 at 12:10 pm
I think it probably would have been a mistake to make this an explicitly religious film, not because there’s any reason in and of itself to shy away from that, but precisely because that would be exactly what those pushing the gender confusion would want. Matt made such a point in his show yesterday, and I think he’s largely correct.
To be sure, the left will not be convinced by a film like this, let alone bother to even engage with it. But that’s not who it’s for. There is a giant squishy middle in our country which is apparently easily swayed; one only needs to look at how support for SSM lost in every state where it came up not so long ago, to now being somewhere around 70+% now not long after the Supreme Court ruling. That indicates a large portion of the populace which is not strongly principled in many of its positions but blown along by the prevailing winds. That’s what projects like this, I think, seek to engage, and I think it does a good job of doing so. Just as hi-res sonograms are more convincing to this group than sermons, the same is true of the approach taken here. My fear would be that making it overtly religious would make it just another Christian film and thus easily dismissed. The fact that it has drawn so much controversy demonstrates to me that the correct approach was largely taken.
June 8, 2022 at 8:34 am
You make a great point and I think I agree with you. However, in the end the question must come down to whether there is such a thing as objective truth.
June 7, 2022 at 12:35 pm
One of the main reasons I became a Christian (having been an atheist scientist into middle age) is that without religion (indeed, without Christianity) there is no science; because no transcendental value of truth. Consequently, there is essentially no science Now – except among amateurs and on the fringe – just a subtype of generic careerist bureaucracy, controlled by funding, institutions and committees.
I do not think we should ‘debate’ or ‘argue’ with people in the transagenda movement. As soon as you engage with people who do not recognize the reality of sex, you have moved beyond stupidity, beyond insanity, into the realms of very advanced evil.
Such people will Never be convinced by science, because they are denying one of the foundational realities of the human condition/ God’s creation.
June 8, 2022 at 8:35 am
Yes. Because the squishy middle is not listening to science. They are simply going along with those they consider to be on the winning side.