A Huffington Post Humanist Urges the Church to Stop Using the Bible as a Moral Guide

/1 Comment/in , /by

It’s one thing when a humanist attacks the Bible. That’s expected. It’s another thing when a humanist attacks a Christian denomination for using the Bible as a moral guide. But that’s exactly what humanist author Clay Farris Naff did in the Huffington Post on April 29.

Naff was upset that the highest court of the Methodist Church struck down the consecration of Bishop Karen Oliveto. Her only infraction was being married to another woman. How, he wondered, could the church punish her for love?

He writes, “To anyone free of ancient prejudices, the injustice of condemning Oliveto is plain. How can love be wrong? How can love enfolded in commitment and fidelity be wrong?”

The answers are simple and self-evident. Love is not always right, even when it’s “enfolded in commitment and fidelity.”

Marriage Has Meaning

A father may love his adult daughter in a romantic way, but that doesn’t make the relationship right. Twin brothers in their 30s may love each other in a sexual way, but that doesn’t make their sexual activity right. A man who no longer loves his wife may now love his female co-worker, but that doesn’t make his adultery right.

It’s possible, of course, that Naff has no problem with consensual adult incest or with adultery. And maybe he has no issue with polygamy or polyamory. But as a thinking man (which he clearly is), he should be able to understand that conservatives have reasons other than “ancient prejudices” for opposing gay marriage. After all, there were ancient cultures that celebrated homosexuality. Yet they still recognized marriage as male-female only.

That’s because marriage has had a specific function and purpose through the millennia. It’s not just “ancient prejudices” that cause many of us to reject its redefinition. Or is it only prejudice that believes God designed men for women and women for men? Or is it only bigotry that believes it’s best for a child to have a mom and dad?

Naff asks, “What possible harm can her marriage cause? Not even the claim of setting a ‘bad’ example holds water. People do not choose their spouses on the example set by clergy. If they did, there’d be no Catholic children, and poor, sultry Elizabeth Taylor could never have married even once.”

Actually, many people do follow the examples set by their leaders (including clergy). As for Naff’s argument regarding Catholicism, wouldn’t he argue that the sins of some pedophile priests have been especially heinous, because they are looked to as religious leaders?

Of course, I’m not comparing Oliveto’s “marriage” to her partner to a priest abusing boys. I’m simply saying that clergy have a special responsibility to set good examples. Their bad examples have a wider, ripple effect.

“Sacred Scripture” — Or Not?

Naff then focuses on the Bible itself. He uses the same hackneyed, pro-gay arguments that have been refuted time and again. (For example, he claims that Paul’s categorical prohibition against homosexual practice in Romans 1 is merely “a tirade about some unnamed people who turned their backs on God and indulged in, er, Roman-style orgies”).

He also seems oblivious to the idea that when Methodist leaders speak about “Christian teaching” on homosexuality, they don’t refer exclusively to the Bible. They’re speaking in general about the unanimous teaching of virtually all branches of Christianity for nearly 2,000 years. And they’re speaking in particular about the clear teachings of the Methodist Church throughout its history.

But this is not important for Naff. He he feels there’s a much deeper problem with the Methodist Church: hypocrisy. Why, he wonders, does the Church not ban divorce like it bans homosexual practice?

Because according to Scripture, there are some legitimate causes for divorce. These are recognized by the Methodist Church. It is remarriage that’s in question. But that’s a question he fails to ask. (He could have made a better argument had he addressed that question.)

Either way, Naff isn’t calling for a church ban on divorce. Instead, he explains:

I am trying to help you see that the Bible may be many things — historical treasure, poetical comfort, and sacred scripture — but as a moral guide, it is hopeless. Some claim to follow its commands literally, but they deceive themselves. No one can do so, for the Bible is a hodgepodge of contradictions and morally obscure or outrageous injunctions.

So, it’s fine if we take the Bible to be “sacred scripture.” But we must realize it’s “a hodgepodge of contradictions and morally obscure or outrageous injunctions.” Not to mention “hopeless” as “a moral guide.”

Thanks but no thanks.

That kind of “sacred scripture” is neither sacred nor scripture. Why anyone would take comfort in its words and find guidance for life if the Bible is what Naff describes it to be?

Bad Logic

After launching a few more (weak) salvos against the Scriptures, Naff writes:

Look at the Bible with fresh eyes, and you’ll find the record of ancient peoples who, lacking any police force, detectives, or proper jails, did their best to construct rules for getting along with each other and used the fear of God to enforce them. Look even closer and you’ll find that those in power often bent the rules in their favor. I suppose God might have wanted the people to heap silver, gold, and fatted calves on their priests, exempt them from any real work, and give them a retirement plan (Numbers 7 – 8), but I find it more likely that the priests themselves heard the Word of God that way.

Put another way, this is not the Word of God, so don’t treat it as the Word of God. Instead, Naff states:

I’ve shown that the United Methodist Church is interpreting the Bible to privilege the heterosexual majority while sanctimoniously applying ancient “laws” in a questionable way to Bishop Oliveto. But more important, I hope I’ve shown that Methodists, and all other religionists, would do well abandon the effort to apply scriptural codes to contemporary life. Draw inspiration, by all means, but recognize that the hard work of thinking through right and wrong remains a moral duty for us all.

In truth, Naff did not prove his points at all, let alone demonstrate them in such fashion that Methodist leaders should feel beholden to follow his counsel.

But it is not merely Naff’s attack on the Bible that falls short. It’s his logic that falls short as well. If he is right in his description of the Bible, there’s no reason for the Methodist Church (or any church) to exist. There’s not even a reason for a single synagogue to be found on the planet if what we call sacred Scripture is merely a compendium of human ideas, many of them flawed, and none of them perfectly inspired.

In short, if Jesus is not the Son of God who died for our sins and rose from the dead, Christians are believing lies. End of subject. And if the Torah was not given by God through Moses, Jews are believing lies. That’s all that needs to be said.

If the Bible is not a moral guide, it cannot be a spiritual guide, since it purports to tell us who God is and what He requires from us, His creation.

Human Reasoning vs. God’s Word

I do understand Naff’s concerns about religious fundamentalism, which he has articulated elsewhere. But he fails to understand that

1. The Bible’s moral witness is quite coherent when studied holistically and in-depth

2. Scholars have answers for the questions he has raised, along with many more

3. There are solid reasons, both practical and moral, to stand against homosexual “marriage.”

What is lacking is not the inspiration of Scripture or the wisdom of Scripture or the moral authority of Scripture. What is lacking is the understanding of human beings (including Naff). That’s exactly why we need God’s Word.

Human reasoning alone will always fail us. God’s Word will never fail. (For more from the author of “A Huffington Post Humanist Urges the Church to Stop Using the Bible as a Moral Guide” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

GOP to Pro-Life Voters: What Planned Parenthood Defunding?

/0 Comments/in , /by

At the 44th annual March for Life this past January, Vice President Pence told thousands of eager, dedicated marchers that “life is winning again in America.” However, the Republican Congress’ capitulation on Planned Parenthood funding in the latest round of budget talks tells quite a different tale.

Following a national election cycle in which the pro-life cause became a conspicuous and consequential issue in the wake of the Republican Party’s trifold victory in the House of Representatives, Senate, and Oval Office, the GOP is already squandering the momentum of that victory by passing a budget resolution that … wait for it … still funds Planned Parenthood.

Under the gun to avoid the closet-dwelling bogeyman of a government shutdown, congressional leadership has reached a last-minute deal that still funds Obamacare subsidies, doesn’t allocated border wall funds, and keeps the pipeline of federal dollars flowing to the abortion industry’s flagship operation completely untouched, according to POLITICO.

There were and are a host of reasons to stand firm – if not for the simple necessity of keeping one’s most salient promises, for the various reminders such as a new video about Planned Parenthood’s dealings in baby parts or a haunting mountain of colorful baby socks dumped on Capitol Hill. Still, we get: nothing.

This debate over the flow of tax dollars to America’s largest abortion provider is, of course, a debate that goes back farther than the 2016 election, as then-Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana led the House to cut the flow in 2011.

Furthermore, in addition to the cornucopia of campaign promises and the pro-life political drama during the campaign of fret and worry about whether the presumptive nominee would stand up for the cause of the unborn – despite all the apprehensions to the contrary – abortion became a clear watermark issue during the debates, in which the relatively recent convert to the cause squared off against the tired, second-wave feminist extremism found in Hillary Clinton’s rhetoric.

As recently as a week ago, the Democratic Party itself, in contrast, had the beginnings of a decisive moment it its own history. Tom Perez’s statements that pro-lifers do not have a home in the party of Jefferson merely serve as a reminder of how extreme the group’s leadership has allowed it to become. Yet, they’ve won this hill for now, extremism or no extremism.

What this moment shows is that pro-lifers are more and more finding themselves in the midst of a tragic dichotomy, between a party too hostile to their views to entertain them and one that takes their support for granted – even if they don’t realize it. But alas, dead babies don’t vote, they don’t run Fortune 500 companies with the clout to stymie years-long campaign talking points (See: Obamacare repeal), and they definitely don’t write checks. All the promises, all the posturing, all the work of the pro-life movement — gone.

As this goes forward, pro-lifers who placed their hopes on a Republican Congress – all of whom ran on the most pro-life platform in party history – will be told that there will be some next great hurdle they must cross in order to finally do what they’ve been promising for so long.

For now, it seems that the Republican Congress has adapted that old Democrat fig leaf in order to pass a budget. They are, after all, “personally pro-life,” but don’t seem to have the gumption, pluck, or will to do anything about that conviction. (For more from the author of “GOP to Pro-Life Voters: What Planned Parenthood Defunding?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

World’s Oldest Woman Shares Her Secret for Living Long

/0 Comments/in , /by

A 117-year-old Jamaican woman recently became the world’s oldest living person. She’s still able to be up and around a bit and talk with lucidity. Her secret? Her faith and serving God.

When asked what has contributed to her long life, she says, “My faith in serving God, and believing strongly in the teachings of the Bible.” She is especially fond of the scripture, “Honor your parents that your days on this earth may be long,” reported CBN. She also said she worked hard and ate well. “I don’t eat pork and I don’t eat chicken,” she said, “But I eat any other things: greens, mutton, beef, fish, that’s what I eat.”

Violet Mosse-Brown was born on March 10, 1900 to a Christian family in Duanvale, Trelawny, Jamaica when it was still part of the British Empire. She still lives in the town.

Baptized over 100 years ago at the age of 13 at Trittonville Baptist Church, Brown still remembers the Bible verse Rev. A.G. Eccleston gave her that day. “I cannot forget that on my baptismal day the pastor gave me the Scripture, Psalm 119:133 to keep in my heart: ‘Order my steps in thy word: and let not any iniquity have dominion over me.’ From that day, I have not forgotten that Scripture and I allow it to lead and direct my life,” she said to the Jamaica Baptist Reporter.

Brown spent her life serving her church in various ways. She was recently honored for her more than 80 years of service to her church, much of that spent in children’s and music ministry. Brown has given “many years of dedicated service to the church and many of the songs that the church members and choir now sings, they learnt it from Sister Brown,” said her pastor, Rev. Harrif Allison. He added that the community agreed that Mrs. Mosse-Brown’s legacy is “undoubtedly that of a Christ-centered and spirited contribution to the work of Christ in Duanvale and Sherwood Content in Trelawny.”

The Prime Minister of Jamaica, Andrew Holness, tweeted congratulations to Brown on becoming the oldest person alive:

Brown told the Jamaican Baptist Reporter exactly what she does that contributes to a long life: “I love God, memorize His Word and follow His way.” (For more from the author of “World’s Oldest Woman Shares Her Secret for Living Long” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Planned Parenthood Admitted Abortion ‘Kills the Life of a Baby’

/0 Comments/in , /by

Planned Parenthood touts in-facility abortions as “a very safe, simple and common procedure.” It also proclaims abortion is “one of the safest medical procedures you can get.” The abortion provider says abortion ends a pregnancy, but never refers to the new life as a baby. But Planned Parenthood once said exactly the opposite.

Abortion “Kills the Life of a Baby”

Obianuju Ekeocha, founder of Culture for Life Africa, came across two Planned Parenthood pamphlets, one of which was dated 1952. Both pamphlets declared that abortion “kills the life of a baby.”

One pamphlet answers the question, “Is [birth control] an abortion?” with “Definitely not. An abortion requires an operation. It kills the life of a baby after it has begun. It is dangerous to your life and health. It may make you sterile so that when you want a child you cannot have it. Birth control merely postpones the beginning of life.”

The pamphlet admits that, not only can an abortion make a woman sterile, but that abortion is killing a life that has already begun. Glenn Beck commented on Monday that “[w]e’re now advocating for murder of children according to their own pamphlet.”

That Was Then

That was then. Planned Parenthood’s website now says that aborting a child is easy and safe with “no risk to your future pregnancies or to your overall health.”

Multiple studies have found just the opposite. One February 2014 study found that induced abortion is linked to an increased risk of breast cancer. And that the risk increases as the number of induced abortions increase. Another study also found that there was an increase in risk for cancer with multiple abortions.

Abortion can also lead to fertility problems later, the Mayo clinic reported. Sterilization after an abortion can happen when baby body parts are not completely removed. It can happen when a woman gets an infection after an abortion. It can also happen if the woman’s cervix or uterus is damaged by an abortion.

Planned Parenthood does not tell women what happens if they choose abortion. It doesn’t tell them the risks they’ll take. Once, 65 years ago, they told the truth. (For more from the author of “Planned Parenthood Admitted Abortion ‘Kills the Life of a Baby'” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Here’s Why the Religious Freedom Clause Doesn’t Protect Female Genital Mutilation

/0 Comments/in , /by

A Michigan grand jury recently indicted two Michigan doctors and a medical office manager for allegedly removing part of young girls’ clitorises. Shannon Smith, an attorney for Dr. Jumana Nagarwala argued that her client was being persecuted for her religion and that the procedure was part of a “religious practice” for the community.

The head of a Christian legal organization explained to The Daily Caller News Foundation why the religious freedom clause does not apply in the case of female genital mutilation, and will likely fail to provide legal cover in these cases.

“It’s not an absolute right that just because someone has a religious belief, they’re protected to do it. And it’s subject to when there’s a compelling state interest to the contrary,” Brad Dacus, head of the Pacific Justice Institute, explained to The DCNF.

The court usually allows religious accommodations in medical situations, Dacus went on, but not if the medical procedure permanently harms a person or causes death . . .

Female genital mutilation performers usually try to justify their practice by comparing it to male circumcision. There are, however, no similarities between the two procedures, Dacus said. (Read more from “Here’s Why the Religious Freedom Clause Doesn’t Protect Female Genital Mutilation” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

STEM Academy Assistant Principal on Leave for Screaming at Pro-Life Teen

/2 Comments/in , , /by

An assistant principal at Downingtown STEM Academy in Chester County has been placed on administrative leave after a video surfaced of him yelling at pro-life teenagers last Friday.

The video, posted on YouTube by one of the teens, showed a heated verbal exchange between Dr. Zach Ruffs and a 16-year-old protesting the “holocaust of abortion.”

The argument transpired as students were leaving school for the day. Ruff appeared to be directing traffic away from the school when the incident was recorded.

“Innocent children are being murdered in our society,” declared one of the protesting teens in video footage.

“They’re not children. They’re cells. Go home!” yelled Ruff. (Read more from “STEM Academy Assistant Principal on Leave for Screaming at Pro-Life Teen” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Methodist Court Ruling a Blow for Openly Lesbian Bishop

/0 Comments/in , /by

The first openly lesbian bishop in the United Methodist Church can stay on the job for now, but she is subject to a disciplinary review that could lead to her removal, the top church court ruled Friday.

Bishop Karen Oliveto’s civil marriage to another woman violates church law that bars clergy who are “self-avowed practicing homosexuals,” the Judicial Council said. However, a decision over whether she can remain in the position must come from a separate disciplinary process, the court ruled.

Oliveto was elected last year to lead a Denver-area church region that is part of the Methodist Western Jurisdiction, which has rejected the denomination’s position that “the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching.” Within minutes of her election, a challenge was filed by the Oklahoma-based South Central Jurisdiction, leading to Friday’s ruling. (Read more from “Methodist Court Ruling a Blow for Openly Lesbian Bishop” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Do Women Wearing Bikinis Deserve to Be Sexually Assaulted?

/0 Comments/in , , /by

A teenager in Australia pleaded guilty to sexually assaulting 9 women and girls but was not sentenced to prison. Instead, he was put on two-years’ probation. Why? The judge reasoned that, as a Muslim who had immigrated from Afghanistan, “seeing girls in bikinis is different to the environment in which he grew up.”

Seriously? This young man assaults 9 different women and girls on a beach in Australia, and the court finds him not guilty because he came from a different culture?

A Closer Look at the Case

I understand that in Afghanistan, women are required to be completely covered. And so, it would be quite a shock for a Muslim teen raised in that country to come to Australia and see so much flesh.

It’s for that very reason that some believers who come from conservative religious backgrounds avoid going to crowded beaches. They’re not into the bikini culture.

I can relate to that personally, which is why I avoid crowded beaches myself. I’m no more comfortable surrounded by women in bikinis than I’d be surrounded by women in their underwear.

But I fully understand that these women are not asking to be sexually assaulted, no matter how they’re dressed. And it would never dawn on me in a million years that I had the right to assault them because of their scanty attire. God forbid.

You might say, “But you were raised in America, so this is not foreign to you. You understand the culture, which is similar to Australia.”

That’s true.

But do you mean to tell me that this 17-year-old teenager from Afghanistan thought that what he was doing was fine? That, as he swam in the water and “spent two hours grabbing women, aged between 15 and 24 years,” he had no idea he was upsetting them?

The court was told that the “defendant grabbed his victims on their bottoms, breasts and, in three cases, their vaginas.” And the Crown attorney, Nick McGhee “said the defendant was seen swimming up to his victims ‘in quite a predatory manner’.”

And he had no idea this was a bad thing? He had no idea he was at a beach where these girls went to swim, not get assaulted? And, after the first girl reacted to him, he still thought they were inviting his predations?

The judge also noted that the young man had a difficult background, having lost his father in 2011.

But how, exactly, does this lessen his guilt before the court? How, precisely, does this mitigate his responsibility?

It is all too common for convicted criminals to have troubled pasts, and our prisons would be nearly empty if judges looked the other way because the guilty party was raised without a dad. (I don’t mean to sound uncaring here. I’m simply talking about a judge doing his or her duty.)

Let’s Take the Judge’s Decision to Its Logical Conclusion

As for the idea that the teen came from a different culture and therefore was not fully responsible, how far will the courts take such logic?

“Your honor, I killed my daughter because she disgraced the family by dating a non-Muslim boy.”

“Your honor, I poisoned by son because he apostasized from the Islamic faith and became a Christian.”

“Your honor, I burned down the TV station because one of the hosts made disparaging comments about the Quran.”

“Your honor, I butchered the cartoonist because he mocked the prophet Muhammad.”

“Your honor, that’s just what we do in our culture. Please understand I wasn’t used to your way of doing things, and I’ll do better next time.”

Would the judge accept arguments like these? Hardly. (Or perhaps this same judge would accept such arguments. That’s what is really scary.)

What if you came from a cannibalistic culture where tribal disputes were settled with knife fights, and the winners ate the losers? How would this play out in court?

“Your honor, yes, it’s true that I roasted and ate my neighbor, but it’s a cultural thing. If I had lost the fight, I assumed he would have done the same to me. So, can I go home now?”

The Message It Sends

It’s bad enough that these girls and women have to deal with the trauma of being assaulted and groped. It’s even worse when the court sympathizes with their attacker rather than with them, finding a reason to look the other way. And what kind of message does this send to other Muslim immigrants, who will surely hear of this court case in the days to come?

Ironically, if an Australian woman living in Afghanistan decided to dress as she did in her home country, she’d be lucky to escape a mob assault on the streets, let alone experience leniency from the court. Yet in Australia, a young man guilty of multiple sexual assaults is let off the hook because of his Muslim background.

This is being open-minded to the point of utter foolishness. It sets a very dangerous precedent too. (For more from the author of “Do Women Wearing Bikinis Deserve to Be Sexually Assaulted?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Planned Parenthood’s Health Services Decline as Abortions, Tax-Payer Funding Rise

/0 Comments/in , /by

Planned Parenthood is receiving more government funding and performing more abortions than it did 10 years ago. Meanwhile, non-abortive services like cancer screenings are on the decline.

Pro-life activist group Live Action summarized the data in a new video released Monday. (Scroll down to watch.)

The abortion provider is attempting to stave off a heated effort to strip its tax-payer funding. Earlier this month, President Donald Trump signed a bill allowing states to defund Title X of the Public Health Services Act, which funds family planning services. The bill was passed by the Senate in March with a tie-breaking vote from Vice President Mike Pence.

An obvious swipe at Planned Parenthood, the bill was called a “major pro-life victory” by House Speaker Paul Ryan. Democrats decried the action, claiming it would rob women of critical health care.

Planned Parenthood defenders often point to the fact that federal law already prohibits tax-payer funding of abortions. They also cite numbers claiming abortion makes up only 3 percent of Planned Parenthood’s work. But that hasn’t stopped pro-life activists and Conservative lawmakers from fighting it.

Planned Parenthood currently receives over $500 million in government funding. That’s reportedly up from $272 million in 2004, as Live Action pointed out in its new video. Despite the bump in tax-payer dollars, Planned Parenthood’s clientele is the smallest it’s been in a decade. Live Action reports that the number of Planned Parenthood clients has dropped by half a million in six years. In the last 10 years, the organization closed over 200 facilities.

Also in the last decade, Planned Parenthood’s annual breast exams have dropped by 60 percent. It now does less than 2 percent of the nation’s breast exams. Pap tests have dropped by 77 percent, now accounting for less than 1 percent of all pap tests in the nation. Abortions, however, increased by 27 percent between 2004 and 2014. Today, Planned Parenthood performs nearly 35 percent of America’s abortions.

LifeSite News listed the exact numbers, which come straight from Planned Parenthood’s own reports.

“America’s women and children deserve better,” Live Action president Lila Rose told LifeSite. “Washington must ensure that taxpayer money spent on health care for women is actually spent on health care, not on keeping the doors to America’s largest abortion chain open.”

(For more from the author of “Planned Parenthood’s Health Services Decline as Abortions, Tax-Payer Funding Rise” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Caitlyn Jenner Is Not the ‘Former Stepmother’ of Kim Kardashian

/0 Comments/in , /by

If anything underscores the confusion of transgender activism, it is Kim Kardashian’s recent interview with Ellen DeGeneres about (Bruce) Caitlyn Jenner’s new book.

Kim spoke in a gracious, non-condemning way, and she made clear to Ellen that she only wanted the best for Caitlyn. That was not the problem. The problem lies with the words she used and how those words were reported.

As reported on Pink News, “Kim Kardashian hits out at ‘untruthful’ stepmother Caitlyn Jenner on Ellen.” Yes, “Kim Kardashian has lashed out her former stepmother Caitlyn Jenner.”

Well, here’s a breaking news alert. Bruce (or, Caitlyn) Jenner was not Kim Kardashian’s stepmother. Not ever. You can believe that Bruce Jenner is now a transwoman. You can decide to refer to him as “her.” You can even say that “Kim Kardashian’s former stepfather is now a transwoman named Caitlyn Jenner.” But don’t recreate the past and say that Bruce Jenner is Kim’s “former stepmother.”

Bruce was married to Kim’s mother, Kris, and Bruce was Kim’s stepfather. End of story, simple and clear. What is not simple and clear, however, is the way this must now be described. (I’ve italicized some of the words for emphasis.)

She Was my Stepdad

Kim said to Ellen, “I’ll always love her. That was my stepdad for so many years. She taught me about character growing up, and I just feel like I don’t respect the character she’s showing now.”

Yes, she was my stepdad.

Sigh.

What about Bruce’s biological children, Kendall and Kylie? What did Kim have to say about their relationship to Caitlyn?

“For Kendall and Kylie, that’s their dad,” Kim said.

Bingo! She hit the nail on the head. Bruce (Caitlyn) Jenner is the father (not mother) of Kendall and Kylie Jenner, and no matter who Bruce has become, he will not be their mother. Ever.

It Takes a Mother and a Father

This leads to a second breaking news alert. If Bruce Jenner fathers two girls named Kendall and Kylie, then has “sex-change” surgery and becomes a transwoman, he does not become Kendall and Kylie’s mother. They already have a mother, named Kris, and Bruce is their father, not their mother.

You see, fathers provide the seed and mothers provide the egg. And fathers don’t carry babies in their wombs and give birth to them. Mothers do. (Sorry for the advanced biology lesson, but it appears some people have forgotten this.)

That means that no matter how Bruce Jenner identifies today, he/she will never be Kendall and Kyle’s mother, nor do I believe that he/she would ever claim to be their mother.

But in the mad, mad world of extreme LGBT activism, Bruce Caitlyn Jenner is now the “former stepmother” of Kim Kardashian.

When will society wake up?

Modern Madness: A Ticking Time Bomb

In the book 50 Ways to Support Gay and Lesbian Equality, Noelle Howey spoke about her dad, who years earlier had sex-change surgery. Although Howey completely embraced her father’s new identity, there were some problems to overcome:

Names, like pronouns, were initially a challenge for us. The conundrum might have been solved by defaulting her title to ‘Mother,’ as most kids of transsexuals are inclined to do. Call us old-fashioned, but my father and I had little intention of altering the name of our relationship, regardless of peer pressure. I already had a mother, who was more than a bit proprietary about the title. Also, I had a father. She might have changed her gender, but that didn’t change who originally brought the sperm to the party.

And it’s the one who brings “the sperm to the party” who is the father.

No amount of activist pressure or semantic doublespeak or deconstruction of reality will alter this simple fact.

This is another reason why I still believe that LGBT activism will ultimately defeat itself. The cultural madness can only go so far before something snaps. (For more from the author of “Caitlyn Jenner Is Not the ‘Former Stepmother’ of Kim Kardashian” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.