Freedom From Super-Religion
A religious movement that pretends to be non-religious, thereby allowing its faith-based beliefs to be imposed on other religions and on secularism itself.
Example: The LGBT movement.
An Absurd Claim
“The fact is, any and all anti-LGBTQ+ language in any school’s polices should ban them from NCAA competition.”
That sentence appeared in a recent USA Today article, Oral Roberts University isn’t the feel good March Madness story we need, expressing a view that is becoming more and more vocal among progressives, and illustrating the inevitable result of a super-religion run amuck. The label “anti-LGBTQ+” is completely nonsensical based on any evidence I saw presented in the article. It only makes sense from within a specific faith-based vantage point: that of the LGBT movement.
I’m going to demonstrate why statements such as these are such nonsense and why we need to free ourselves from this tyrannical super-religion that has been increasingly dominating our society over the last decades, and I’m going to do it by comparing this supposed discrimination to an instance of actual discrimination. My writing here is going to be rougher than usual. I have something I need to say, and frankly I want to get it over and done with. I am weary. I have assumed a level of responsibility in this discussion beyond the reality of my current situation. Unless that changes, I need a break. But before I can take that break, this must be said.
Let’s talk about discrimination, real discrimination, and by real I mean provable. No ghosts. No spirits. No visions. No identities. Just empirical, raw, reality.
My goal here is to point out the extreme difference in the situations, and thereby highlight the presence of this super-religion that holds so much sway over our society.
The example of discrimination I’m going to talk about comes from my own religion. I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (often called Mormons). And let me be clear here: I am a believing member. I believe things that contradict society’s current understanding of provable reality, and yet I feel absolutely confident to hold my arguments up against anyone’s, alive or dead. Why? Because I understand which of my beliefs are secular, meaning I believe them because they are provable, and which of my beliefs are religious, meaning I believe them because I choose to believe them. I have two hats I can wear: a secular hat and a religious hat. And I know what hat I’m wearing at a particular time. Do you? Well, let me tell you, if you agree with the LGBT movement that a school that prohibits same-sex sexuality is “anti-LGBT”, then you most certainly do not.
And so, you can mock my religious beliefs all you want. Why would that matter to me at the moment? I’m not wearing my religious hat right now. I’m wearing my secular hat. This is the hat I wear when I tear super-religions to shreds.
Our society today likes to pretend that racism is the ultimate evil, as if everything wrong pales in comparison to it. Well, racism is certainly wrong, but it is only one sub-type of the unfortunately common evil of human division, of “us versus them”. Have you ever considered why racism is wrong? It’s wrong because it is a denial of the individual. When you are racist to someone, when you say they cannot eat at that lunch counter because they are black, or they cannot attend that graduation ceremony because they are white, or you don’t have room for them at your university because they’re Asian, you are not seeing them as an individual. You’re just seeing them as a nameless, faceless, soulless manifestation of a group. You’re denying their humanity. You’re denying their ability to be an individual.
I talk about race here because that is where my example of discrimination comes in: simply put, until around four decades ago, my religion didn’t allow black men to be ordained to the priesthood. Now, remember I’m wearing my secular hat right now, so don’t bother expecting any sort of defense or explanation from me here. I’m just dealing with the facts. And the facts are that until mid-1978, priesthood ordination was prohibited for black men.
This was obviously controversial toward the end. Let’s face it, we were late. The civil rights struggle had been effectively won years earlier, the only thing left was the wrapping up. Again, if you want to hear a defense from me, it’s not going to come while I’m wearing my secular hat. But I want you to imagine the conflict between my church and society right before the change in policy was made because I want you to see how very different that conflict is from the “anti-LGBT” claims of today.
Let’s focus on the reality of the situation, and to do so, let’s focus on one individual. We’ll call him Michael. Michael is a man. We can know this from looking at him. We can know it from testing his DNA. He is a man. That’s part of provable reality. And Michael’s racial lineage is from Africa. Again, this is provable. We can look at him. We can test his DNA. Put simply, Michael is a black man. That is the provable reality of the situation.
Now consider the two sides of the conflict. On the one side, you have my religion. We saw the reality of the situation, Michael was a black man, and because of the reality of the situation we said that our beliefs prohibited us from ordaining him to the priesthood. Very well. Now consider the other side. Again, they started with the reality of the situation, Michael was a black man, yet they stated that a man’s race shouldn’t block him from being ordained. Okay, so we have two conflicting beliefs, but notice this: there is one shared provable reality.
The provable reality of the situation, the only provable reality of the situation, is that Michael is a black man. Everything else is faith-based belief.
I want to underscore this because it is critical to understanding everything I’m trying to say: Secularism, at its core, is proof. Yes, a secular society has to have values, and those by necessity have to be faith-based (you can’t prove right or wrong), but everything must circle around that core of proof. Consider my example again. There was no question whether or not Michael was a black man. That was accepted as reality by both sides of the conflict. The conflict then wasn’t about provable reality, it was about what provable reality meant.
So what does this example mean? It means that you could have rationally justified calling our priesthood policy “anti-black” four-plus decades ago. Why? Because Michael was a black man. That is a fact. And because we prohibited Michael from being ordained to the priesthood because he was black. Also a fact.
(Does this mean you can refer to the policy of many religions today, including my own, to only ordain men as “anti-woman”? Whatever. Do as you wish and see who considers you wise. I’m wearing my secular hat, it’s past 2 am, and I’m too tired to tie that loose end up right now.)
Facts. Proof. Reality. I’m wearing my secular hat now. Are you? Very well, now let’s discuss why calling my religion’s beliefs “anti-LGBT” today is so different from calling our priesthood policy “anti-black” four-plus decades ago.
Let’s focus on an individual again. Once again a man, once again named Michael. But Michael identifies as a woman and changed his name to Michelle. Very well, names are just names, so we will call him Michelle. Michelle, obviously identifies as a transgender and considers himself to be a transwoman.
Now we have the background, so let’s introduce the conflict. Michelle attends a conservative university. Because he considers himself to be a woman, he expects the university to believe he is a woman, to let him play on the female sports teams, to let him use the female bathrooms, etc. The university disagrees. They don’t believe in gender identity. To them, gender is a synonym for biological sex. To them, Michelle is a man.
And what would the LGBT movement say about this? They would call the university “anti-LGBT”, “anti-trans”, etc. Why? Because, to them, Michelle is a transgender. To them, Michelle is a transwoman. To them, Michelle is a woman.
What are the facts here? What is the provable reality?
Imagine you are standing facing Michelle. No one else is there. Time is frozen except for you. You have been given a task to identity the reality of the situation. All empirical evidence is available instantly to your mind, everything down to the very atoms in the air you breath … and the atoms in Michelle’s body.
Now tell me. What are the facts? What is the reality of the situation? A human is standing before you. You have knowledge of all empirical evidence, of every atom within this human’s body. Is this human male or female?
The answer, obviously, is that Michelle is a man. He may or may not have had cosmetic surgery or chemical medications to make his body appear similar to a woman’s, but his body is a man’s. There might come a day when medical science can transform a body, cell for cell, from man to woman, but that day is not today. Today, men like Michelle are men. That is the provable reality.
“But Michelle is a transgender!”
Yes, but what is a “transgender”? That’s the core of the issue isn’t it? After all, how can you know if someone is “anti-trans” unless you know what “transgender” actually means?
Here is my definition: A transgender is someone who believes their gender is different than their biological sex.
And what is the definition according to the LGBT movement? Well, we can’t actually define it right off the bat. First we have to introduce a new concept called gender identity. Gender identity is an unseeable, unmeasurable, unknowable (by others) something inside people that dictates what their gender is. In addition to this new concept, we have to introduce two new rules: The first rule is that whatever someone says their gender identity is, you have to believe them. No proof. No chance for falsification. 100% faith. And the second rule is that gender identity overrides biological sex. In other words, if a person’s sex is male but they identity as a woman, then you ignore their sex and just focus entirely on their gender identity.
Okay, now that we have introduced that new concept and those two new rules, here is the definition of transgender according to the LGBT movement: A transgender is someone whose gender identity is different than their biological sex.
You’re wearing your secular hat, right? You’re ready to give preference to proof over faith? Great. Now tell me, which of those definitions fits within secularism? Obviously, only mine does because only mine aligns entirely within provable reality whereas the definition provided by the LGBT movement introduces a new faith-based concept and two faith-based rules which you are expected to accept … just because.
Picture it like a Trojan horse. Someone left a large wooden horse outside your city walls with the word “transgender” written on it. You figure, why not?, so you open the gates and wheel the horse in and suddenly it opens up and out pops a rainbow-colored mob. “Surprise! Now you have to believe in an invisible concept called gender identity!” “Surprise! Now you have to believe that someone’s gender identity is whatever they say it is, no proof required!” “Surprise! Now you have to treat people’s gender identity as more important than their biological sex!”
And that, my friends, is what I mean when I talk about super-religion. These are faith-based beliefs. There is no proof for them and there is therefore no obligation to accept them. But we’re told we have to. We’re told that someone is a transgender. We’re told that that’s part of provable reality. And then the Trojan horse opens up and these faith-based beliefs pop out and what in the world just happened? 2 + 2 = 5? The sky is green now? What happened to reality?
That’s why I call the LGBT movement a super-religion. We have allowed the faith-based beliefs embedded inside identities like “gay” or “transgender” to dominate our society. We have allowed the lie to be told that these faith-based beliefs are part of provable reality itself. And because of this, the LGBT movement has been placed in supremacy over every other religion. It has been placed in supremacy over secularism itself.
Which means that today we don’t actually live in a secular society. Today we live in a theocracy, a theocracy ruled by a tyrannical super-religion. “Anti-LGBT!” “Anti-Gay!” “Anti-Trans!” — the nonsense words of religious tyrants.
The reality of the situation is that men such as Michelle are men. That is the provable reality. So it is absurd for someone to claim we are discriminating against them when we treat them the exact same way we treat all other men. “But they believe they are women.” Yes, they do. And so what? I believe I have the religious authority to perform ordinances such as baptisms. Does that mean I can walk into a Catholic church and demand to perform the baptisms there? No, it doesn’t. I don’t have the right to demand people believe something simply because I believe it myself. No one has that right. You accommodate people’s beliefs by making room for them to believe them, not by forcing everyone else to believe them too.
Wrapping Up Too Many Words
Do you remember the example of actual discrimination I shared before? Remember that there was a conflict there, but it was a conflict that centered around a shared provable reality. Now compare that to today, where one side (my side) is centered on provable reality and the other side (the LGBT side) demands that a medley of unprovable beliefs be accepted, just because. This is not a continuation of the civil rights struggle. That was won (in the US at least) decades ago. This struggle is one of religious domination. It is a return to the bad old days when one religion grabbed hold of the power of the state and used that power to crush all other faiths. The human race has gone through this mistake before, countless times. Heed the wisdom of the dead. Reject the super-religion. Restore proof to its proper place within secularism. We will still have conflicts, yes, but at least they will be centered around reality once more.
Update 03/26/2021: Fixed wrong word error: “you” instead of “who”.
• If Gender Identity Isn't a Religious Belief, Then It's Really, Really Stupid
• Real-Gender vs Woke-Gender
• A Non-Religious Theocracy