LifeSiteNews is a site that I find beneficial for news about and promotion of the Pro-Life stance. I appreciate their work. However, two articles I recently read there I found troubling – and wonder just how and why they passed muster. Both are by the same author, Nick Bell.[i] I do not know the author, but question the worth of these articles in the promotion of the cause of God and truth.[ii]
First, there is “Until Republicans point to dangers of COVID shot, their opposition to mandates rings hollow.”[iii] This rather curious article suggests we should not oppose mandates that might be good for us. It makes an ill-advised comparison between “mandating” against abortion, which is murder, and mandating for a vaccine that has both benefits and risks.
“If the COVID-19 vaccine is effective enough that you dedicate an entire ad to asking people to take it, why not mandate it? Most Republicans support a mandate that prohibits killing a child in the womb. Why not support this mandate that save lives too?”
Bell’s comparison is apples and oranges. The
first is opposing the murder of human life. The second is mandating a form of
health care. We should not support mandating things just because those things
might be good for us. Bell implies that mandating the Covid vaccine would be fine
if it were good for us, and the reason to not mandate is that it is dangerous. I
agree that the Covid-19 has dangerous knowns. I further assert that it is full
of unknowns. However, I do not have to know that it is, or even might be, dangerous
to be against government entities mandating the Covid vaccination. A better
comparison would be between Covid vaccination and our brushing our teeth. It
does not matter whether brushing our teeth is good or bad; it is outside the
government’s purview to start mandating that everyone must brush their teeth
three times a day because it is beneficial.
Bell’s article does well to point out the dangers of the Covid vaccination. The invalid comparison to abortion as a similar “mandate” actually diminishes the strength of the case against abortion. Abortion is not just a health issue – it is a murder issue, the immoral snuffing out of a life created in the image of God.
Second, there is “Matt Walsh’s debate with transgender activists on Dr. Phil show left a lot to be desired.” I cannot speak for Matt Walsh, but when I stand for a cause, I always look back and see where I could have done better (i.e., “left a lot to be desired”). I do not mind constructive criticism in such cases. Nevertheless, rather than applaud Matt Walsh for taking on the enemy in the marketplace of ideas, Nick Bell sits on the sidelines and nitpicks.[iv] And weirdly so. I find it shocking that in the midst of criticizing Walsh, Bell defends the transgendered guests on Dr. Phil as “likable people” and “well-meaning people.” That they have struggles is certain. That they need prayers and even pity is true. However, we should not defend those promoting this ungodly agenda as “well-meaning.” Bell further suggests that we should acquiesce to their personal delusion by “simply using their preferred pronoun.”
“Conservatives can only win this debate in American society by forthrightly responding. This requires making the case that transgenderism inflicts unacceptable damage not only on those who dissent from it but also on the transgenders themselves, as well as children caught up in a ‘social contagion.’”
Why does transgenderism inflict “unacceptable
damage?” Bell appears to have gone over to the philosophical side – it is wrong
because it does damage. It does damage. It does damage because it is wrong. It
does damage because it inflicts disorder to the order of God’s creation.
Ultimately, Bell’s conclusion misses the mark. “The argument for truth and honesty in sex and gender is dramatically more powerful when the true stakes of the issue – the happiness and wholeness of real, vulnerable people – are at the forefront.” The “true stakes” of the issue is that God made man in his likeness – and “male and female created he them.” If that biblical truth is not the foundation of the truth of two genders, then the entire case fails. There we must drive down our stake. There we must begin.
I am neither prophet nor fortuneteller. I do not know how these things will end in our society. I do know that God, the Bible, and science are all on our side in the abortion debate and the gender debate. Taking the eternal perspective, that is a winning combination.
[ii] In addition, Nick Bell got some of the basic facts wrong, including how he identified the two transgender guests and what one of them said about the bathroom issue.
[iii] To be clear, I favor not only Republicans, but also public servants in general, doctors, nurses, and anyone with the platform to do so, to point out the dangers of Covid-19 vaccinations.
[iv] Complain if you will, but Matt Walsh went alone into the enemy camp, faced them down 3-against-1, and stood for the biblical and biological truth that there are only two genders. Further, Walsh seems to have made the arguments that Bell says he did not make. This is not a personal defense of Walsh, of whom I know little.
No comments:
Post a Comment