Why the constant harping about the separation of church and state, but not, say, the separation of naturalistic metaphysics and the state, the separation of feminist theory and the state, or the separation of Rawlsian liberalism and the state?
My answer might disappoint Mr. Feser: Because the founders of this nation denied the very object of metaphysics (reality), hated women as much as today’s feminists hate themselves, and were just as ignorant and confused about justice as John Rawls.
And yet Feser’s question hovers over Moloch’s second term like a threatening cloud about to waterlog the ship of fools the White House has become. If the federal government can replace irrevocable definitions of moral philosophy, then why not those of mathematics, physics, or logic?
But why would our government presume to create new laws of nature? Answer: The handiwork of a ferociously anti-intellectual sect of Germanic pietists with only makeshift educations, America has always denigrated philosophy, the science of reality. With few exceptions (Thomas Sowell springs to mind), today’s “philosophers” are academic state hirelings, ideological apologists for any progressive government in power, hence irrelevant to the larger society such governments seek to crush.
With 376 years of institutionalized pseudo-philosophy behind them (counting from the publication of Descartes’s error-ridden Discourse on Method) and 496 years of rebellion against apostolic authority, revelation, and reason (starting from the posting of 95 blunders by a feces-eating alcoholic from Eisleben), today’s Puritan-liberal establishment has gone from fundamentally transforming America in 2008 to fundamentally transforming the laws of nature in 2013.
For just as one who attempts to redefine the circle as a four-sided polygon shows complete ignorance of geometry, one who attempts to redefine marriage as a union of two persons of the same sex shows ignorance of moral philosophy, which I believe is a true science just as rigorous, exact, and objective as mathematics.
A people with 1,296 years of Christendom in their cultural makeup, the French have recently shown themselves capable of uniting around human nature’s laws. The million-person anti-gay “marriage” and adoption protests in Paris on January 13 included some of the most disparate elements. Leprous immoralists, socialist harpies, and liberal quadrupeds marched alongside Catholics, Jews, and Muslims.
These surprising coalitions were united by a common understanding of a foundational principle of moral philosophy, namely that human nature exists and follows laws in its very constitution.
Xavier Bongibault, president of the Plus Gay Sans Mariage association, came out in favor of this axiom and later helped organize the protest. In a Séronet interview last November, he displayed knowledge of moral cause and effect by declaring gay adoption “an opening to incest and polygamy.” For Bongibault, it is evidently one thing to degrade oneself through an unspeakable act against nature, another to institutionalize that degradation as “marriage.”
The French anchored their protest against gay “marriage” and adoption philosophically, in the constitution and nature of the human person—something some France’s most macabre leftists publicly acknowledged by participating in the protest.
How were such inconceivable coalitions of opposing organizations possible, to the tune of one million protestors occupying Paris? Simply put, philosophers are still popular chez les Gaulois.
In a November 8, 2012 article published in Le Monde, a group of prominent French philosophers and intellectuals expressed their collective rejection of gay adoption in a brief joint statement. “In the name of what ‘modernity,’” they ask, “would one deprive a child of half of his identity construction?”
The first name to appear on the list of coauthors was that of Chantal Delsol, a member of the Academy of Moral and Political Sciences of the Institut de France. Delsol is an oxymoronic liberal philosopher whose fervent European federalism bends her to the level of knuckle-dragging Hillary and Hussein.
Delsol is far from alone in her insistence that gay “marriage” is socially destructive. Many French intellectuals on the left have drawn attention to the same realities of human nature. Sylviane Agacinski, for example, is a prominent philosopher whose visibility has been increased by her marriage to former French Prime Minister Lionel Jospin, a howling communist.
Agacinski’s latest book, Women Between Sex and Gender, caused a sensation in academic circles because of its opposition to “queer theory,” a false “discipline” teaching that the sexual distinction between man and woman is a purely social construction. In the name of sexual differentiation, she also attacked gay “marriage” and adoption.
Agacinski militates in favor of children’s right “to know their personal history and the real conditions of their birth.” She explains that children can only develop when “inscribed in the order of sexuated generation.” She vehemently questions the idea of “anonymous gametes” since this creates the fatal illusion that children are merely “a commodity manufactured from anonymous biological material”—with all the potential human trafficking this implies.
In short, gay adoption is not adoption, because it cannot create a real filiation. “Filiation is universally bilateral (feminine and masculine) because it reproduces sexuated generation,” says Agacinski. “One is a father or mother in function of one’s sex, not one’s sexuality.”
The very term “matrimony” derives from the Latin “mater,” meaning “mother.” Clearly, a mother is not an anonymous gamete or the proud owner of a human pet. Society has an obligation to provide children with real parents and not just pleasure-seeking titleholders.
Through such argumentation, philosophers from all parts of the political spectrum provided the France-wide protest its conceptual foundation.
In intellectually defunct America, where homofascism has already extinguished the vitality of our social, political, and religious institutions—the usual sign that a civilization is ending—no such recourse to reality is possible.
Copyright 2013 TakiMag.com and the author. This copy is for your personal, noncommercial use only. You can order reprints for distribution by contacting us at firstname.lastname@example.org.