In an entry I wrote in ‘Our Corner’ I mentioned the debate on the definition of ‘Family.’ I wanted to give another aspect of my point of view on the matter, and it seems more appropriate to do it here in ‘The Family Room.’

I believe the debate we are seeing in the world around us in regards to family definition is heading toward an inevitable chasm of separation. I think we need to come to terms with the severity of consequences that hinge on either direction this door ends up swinging. On the political front, one side claims inequality, prejudice, and social and legal deprivation of natural rights for freedom.

These aren’t feelings that go away with the drop of a gavel. These are deep rooted and inescapable feelings of oppression of the kind that, when shared by a significant number of people, have ultimately hemorrhaged into the Revolutionary, Civil, and World Wars.

In the debates that have unfolded in recent years, Bethany and I have noticed that the counter arguments (in favor of traditional family) consistently seem to appear weaker and weaker. But for those who are in favor of traditional family, how can this be?

It reminds me of an English class I had my senior year of High School. For those of you that attended Chaparral High School in Las Vegas during my years, you’ll probably remember Mrs. Literini. Well, she did something that, even at the time, I thought rather bold. She asked those who believed in God to raise their hands. About a third of us raised our hands. She then asked for those who didn’t believe in God to raise their hands and again, about a third. Finally she asked those who didn’t necessarily believe in God but in perhaps some higher intelligence or power (i.e. alien or extraterrestrial life forms) involved in our existence to raise their hands. Well, you guessed it, about a third.

She then divided us into three groups and gave us each a corner of the room. What happened then was one of the most eye opening experiences of my life. She told us we had 15 minutes to formulate, as a group, our arguments to prove what we believed.

This caused the kids in my group quite a bit of sudden shock. We had to prove that God existed-and in 15 minutes! The first few minutes were spent with people trying to pull things out of the bible, talk about miracles, personal experiences, perspectives that the earth was too complex for chance, etc. But as we talked something began to become clear to me. On the stage of debate with the other two groups, all of our arguments were going to appear blind, naïve, and full of holes, or as the academic world loves to say, “circular.”

I realized that when it came time to argue our platform, the definition of the word “prove” would not be equal. To the other groups, proof would be expected to lie in a limited physical/scientific realm of the five senses in which their own arguments were based. For us to bend, break, and compromise our arguments to fit into their box, we would inevitably lose the debate. This was the first time it occurred to me that the arguments between God and Atheism were not on common ground.

I spoke to my group and explained that none of us, though we were all of different faiths, held our beliefs on any principles that would be recognized by the other teams. If we stepped inside their “box” the debate was lost. Our arguments of proof needed to remain in our own realm of acceptance.

Well, opening my big mouth got me suddenly elected “spokesperson” and when it came time for each group to share their arguments, I explained that the proofs we had for what we believed were in sensitivity to and recognition of things that were not arguable by generally accepted institutional standards. We certainly had sufficient proofs for ourselves, but that they couldn’t be argued on a platform that only accepted proofs by certain methods. Instead of appearing weak, I watched Mrs. Lit (a bit of an institutional rebel herself) get somewhat excited and respectful of our position. By keeping the argument on our own terms, faith maintained its integrity and dignity.

Watching the current debates on family, I’m finding a similar situation, but with higher stakes. While many of those in favor of traditional family attempt to argue all the reasons why it’s historically better for the community, or why they don’t want their children influenced by the acceptance of other family types, those in favor of alternate definitions only feel more justified in their claims of persecution and inequality. Attempts to structure a reasoned argument behind maintaining the traditional family on the platform of the opposition gives way like a house of cards in a hurricane.

I believe that all the arguments in favor of traditional family can only fall back to one singular foundation: We believe that God’s entire plan for this earth revolves around the structure of the family unit and that if we as a people embrace anything else, He will have no choice but to destroy us and replace us with others who will raise His children properly. And like feelings of oppression and inequality, defense of one’s nation and family is just as motivating a call to battle.

But why are we not speaking in these terms? Why are we looking for statistics and case studies to prove the validity of what we know is right by other means?

If I might take a stab at this, let’s take a careful look at the following definitions from the Merriam Webster Dictionary:

Religion - a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Atheism - a: a disbelief in the existence of deity b: the doctrine that there is no deity

I believe that in the course of the last two hundred years, one religion slowly and carefully spread its doctrine so subtly that we are now having to wake up to the awful reality that it has us in chains. We are not allowed to speak on our terms. This party convinced us that the separation of church and state means positions of faith are invalid and naïve, that God has no place in the discussion of important issues, though they ultimately affect us spiritually. It convinced us that freedom of religion means don’t mention God in public. It taught us that religious tolerance means its offensive to express your beliefs in God to others.

This party convinced us that it was evening the playing field and promoting fairness and equality. It convinced us its intentions were peaceful. We accepted its rules of engagement since they were presented to us as “neutral.” We were convinced that silence on our most basic fundamental beliefs was appropriate. Somehow we missed the fact that this neutral common ground was simply the home court of another team.

There is no official label or organization to this team. It is formed by many different Individuals and institutions. They worship an ideology of social Atheism which presents itself as harmless, fair, and impartial, but in banishing and suppressing all other creeds, enthrones its own believers and secures the unrestricted proliferation of all the things we consider poisonous and malignant to our nation.

And so in the name of equality, we allow ourselves to be suppressed. In the name of justice, we allow ourselves to be condemned. In the name of free speech we allow ourselves to be silenced. In the name of tolerance we give up who we really are. In the name of freedom we allow ourselves to be bound. In the name of neutrality we pretend there is no assault, and in the name of peace we let our moral safeguards get stripped away and stand by watching our loved ones attacked by the filth that flourishes unchecked in a “neutral” moral void.

So, what do we do? If we believe the outcome determines the survival of our nation, then we have only one choice-Stand up and fight.

I’m in no way advocating hate or hostility; I am advocating that this fight is better fought BEFORE it gets to legislation. It’s a fight of words, ideas, risk, confidence, and bold public ownership of what we believe. We can no longer hide behind the socially and politically correct traditions of our opponents. We can no longer hide the true nature of our position. I am advocating that we stand up and talk about God so much that the subject will once again become commonplace, as it was during the creation and development of this nation.

I am advocating that we break the recent legal trends and, on our own terms, let people know who we are and what we believe in the work place, in school, on the bus, in city councils, in state and national legislatures, and on the news. It wasn’t our idea to compartmentalize times when we believe and times when we pretend not to. That was their platform, and I for one am tired of it. Besides, we still represent a majority-they can’t fire all of us.

I’m advocating that we stand up and risk the hate and hostility of others; isn’t that what believing is all about? Take the hit, and as other believers see you, they will rise up too. We may not all believe the same things about God, but I would rather have you free to disagree with me in the open peacefully, than both of us silently cower in fear of unbelievers.

If you and I truly believe the sanctity of family is essential to God’s plan and support of our nation, and the adopted social conventions are not in our favor, then it’s time to drop them and start new social conventions that are in our favor. Contrary to what our opponents might think, we don’t need their permission to do that.

“Are you a believer? Then Merry Christmas, Happy Chanukah, and Salaam!”

Tags: Uncategorized //