Michael Bresciani
January 12, 2016
New York's "pronoun" law defies science and ignores logic
By Michael Bresciani

In my inquisitive years I traveled around the nation not driven by mere wanderlust, but by the desire to learn and see just what the nation was all about. Now that I'm old, I see that this nation no longer knows what it is about.

On one blistering summer day cruising through Illinois a stifling stench crept into my car even with the windows tightly closed. It was a dairy farm smell, but I saw no dairy farms. While gassing up I asked someone what the smell was all about. I was told it was the Chicago Stock Yards, now closed since 1971. I exclaimed that I was glad I left it behind and I couldn't wait for the odor to subside.

The biggest surprise came when someone asked me the direction I was traveling, then laughed out loud and said, "You haven't left it behind, the yards are still about twenty miles ahead of you."

It was the smell of bull dung, which to this day has never been paralleled, except in the recent social engineering changes made to the nation by people who believe that subjectively declaring something to be true is all that's needed to change laws, mores, folkways, traditions, protocols, nature, scientific evidence, the constitution, the Bible and any remote semblance of common sense.

The discrimination laws of New York have now been updated to impose a whopping $125,000 fine for using the wrong pronoun to describe a transgendered person. Willfully calling a former male "he" can get you a hefty $250,000 fine in the city that has long since gone to sleep.

It is a law that begs to be tested and the NYC Commission on Human Rights and Mayor De Blasio, will no doubt see this social engineering nightmare coming under scrutiny when and if the nation leans back toward conservatism following the 2016 elections.

In the interim, we see that the psychiatric professionals who once declared homosexuality as a mental disorder have completely changed their minds. LGBT along with its array of various extended acronyms has successfully curbed any counseling to deal with homosexual tendencies on a state by state basis.

The Constitution has been trashed on free speech about homosexual and transgendered people, not by what it says, but curiously – by what it does not say. If the framers failed to mention it – it must be perfectly OK! Intentions have been lost to liberal inventions, but along with that specious victory the truth has been battered and left for dead.

Assuming that the silence of the founders meant that men may marry men is the equivalent of believing in ghosts, we can't prove that they are not real, but we don't create laws guided by the word of departed souls – or do we?

With the help our self-appointed exegete and theologian in chief Barack Obama, we have decided that the moral laws of the Bible, specifically those dealing with what the scripture calls the "abomination" of homosexuality, are all now relegated to the realm of meaningless, powerless, anachronistic and obscure passages that no one should take seriously.

While the Bible warns that ignoring these "obscure" passages can cost our eternal destiny, we think we have moved up from ancient myths and meanderings of the religious and pious to the more enlightened discoveries of the empiricists.

The final waltz into full blown hypocrisy is accomplished by ignoring what modernity has proclaimed is the new substitute for the Bible and the Constitution – science.

It is science that says no matter what pronoun you use or how many hormones you take, or even what mind set you adopt – when your DNA is tested it will tell no lies. Clothing, makeup, haircuts, hormones and mind sets cannot change the outcome of anyone's DNA testing. If you were born a man, DNA will not lie for you – it cannot.

The question that begs to be asked is this; if science has dispelled the myth of religion, why don't we believe it when it addresses the matter of transgenderism? True empiricism cannot be charged with hypocrisy, but we can, and the indictment against us is forthwith.

It is the great King Solomon who offers the sagacious trio of scripture passages, timeless, inscrutable and well able to speak to ancient or modern man. To wit:

"There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death." (Prov 14: 12)

"The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going." (Prov 14: 15)

"A wise man feareth, and departeth from evil: but the fool rageth, and is confident." (Prov 14: 16)

The purveyors of the new morality may not be unable to discern moral truth, but they are fully "confident" in their error. For the morally challenged, perhaps it would be more effective to quote Christian apolegeticist Josh McDowell, rather than Solomon.

It is alleged that Josh was the first to say, "I'd rather know a few things for certain than to be certain about a whole lot of things that just aren't so."

Forcing the social engineering of liberal minded hyper subjectivism on our citizens against the clear evidence of science, is not mere error, it is wholesale hypocrisy. It is not civil – it is silly. Will we change the definition of pronouns to follow? Is it safe to say, that now, a pronoun no longer takes the place of a noun, but rather it takes the place of a brain?

If science is the new deity for today, then not only have we given up the God of the Bible, but we are not even true to our latest deity du jour.

For this writer, these so called human rights laws are too much like approaching the stockyards – yet one again.

© Michael Bresciani

 

The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)