Sooner Or Later

Column by Paul Hein.

Exclusive to STR

We are living in a world in which the absurd is accepted, the foolish is ignored, and just plain evil is tolerated. Eventually, I expect, things will get so bad that what is accepted, ignored, or tolerated will no longer enjoy that status. Enough will be enough.

These thoughts were triggered by an article in a newspaper detailing the woes of a certain atheist—we’ll call him Mr. A--who, at a city council meeting in Quebec, heard the word “God” used in a prayer that’s customarily used to start the meetings. It was a rather bland, non-denominational prayer, employing the “God” word but a single time. Nonetheless, Mr. A’s exquisitely sensitive feelings were traumatized, and he sought relief in the courts. It was there determined that any harm experienced by Mr. A was trivial and inconsequential, and his complaint was dismissed.

Thirsting, as he was, for (in)justice, Mr. A took his case to a higher court, where the judges determined that his rights had been violated, and awarded him damages of C$30,000.

So far, so bad. Now let’s add fantasy to the facts, which are fantastic enough already. Suppose that the organization fined C$30,000--presumably the City Council--were to write to the court as follows:

Dear Court:

We are in receipt of your order that we pay C$30,000 to Mr. A, because he has been discriminated against, in your opinion. We don’t give a damn about your opinion!

Well, sirs, we are not going to do it. Not one cent will he get from us. We charge you, in fact, with discrimination against us for attempting to punish us for doing something we’ve done for years, while in your court you do the same thing daily: having witnesses swear—“so help me God”--before testifying.

Mr. A is, in effect, a thief, and you are his ally and abettor. His absurd claims should be ignored, and so should you absurd order.

Yours truly,

Well, I realize this isn’t going to happen, but, sooner or later, it will and must.

I’m sure you are familiar with the sad plight of the baker who opted not to provide a “wedding” cake for two men, a groom and—a groom. They, also, had recourse to the court system, which was properly sympathetic to the two sweethearts, and punished the baker for exercising his own preferences in his own bakery.

Do you suppose the court would admit that it was biased? Of course not. It would insist, I’m sure, that it was impartial and fair in its ruling. Very well.

Let’s suppose now that you want to celebrate your son’s Confirmation. You go to the bakery--it happens to be a Muslim’s bakery--and ask the baker to make a cake for the celebration decorated with a cross, with the words “Jesus Christ, Savior” on it. The baker refuses, indignant and outraged that you would expect him to violate his religious beliefs. Do you suppose the courts would grant you the same relief that it granted the homosexual pair? Sooner or later, the bias of the courts must be admitted, or eradicated. Probably later, rather than sooner, but eventually, it must.

In recent years it has become almost a fad, it seems, for a young man (for example) to announce that he feels that he is a woman trapped in a man’s body. Indulging this fantasy is highly profitable, thus he will be able, for a very substantial fee, to have his body mutilated into something resembling that of a woman’s, and to receive large doses of estrogen to give his chest the contours of Dolly Parton’s. How can he afford this? Obamacare covers such surgery, so YOU will be paying for it. A judge in California recently ruled that denying a prisoner in the California prison system a sex-change operation violated her rights, so Californians will pick up her/his tab, which can amount to $100,000. Sooner or later, sanity must prevail. “Look, sir, you are a man. You were born a man, and you will die a man. Your body may have been contorted into something resembling that of a woman, but you are not, and will never be, a woman. Can you conceive and bear a child?” Can the woman whose body has been surgically manipulated into a masculine form become a father? I feel that there is a superb concert pianist trapped in my body, but I can’t play worth a hoot. Can’t the taxpayers DO something for me?

People can, and do, have all sorts of fantasies and beliefs. They are entitled to them, but they are not entitled to our acquiescence in their beliefs or mental quirks. Sooner or later, reality must be faced. I’m hoping for sooner, but I’m not optimistic. Insanity rules---for the time being.

Your rating: None Average: 10 (1 vote)
Paul Hein's picture
Columns on STR: 150


Mark Davis's picture

I keep wondering when enough will be enough; people can only take so much.

ReverendDraco's picture

"“Look, sir, you are a man. You were born a man, and you will die a man."

Funny - every time I see or hear the nausea-inducing phrase, "Caitlyn is a beautiful woman," I have much the same thought. . .

"Bruce, we need to talk."
"Call me Caitlyn."
"Sorry, Bruce - not gonna happen. You're a man - horrifically mutilated, but a man nonetheless. Rocky Dennis? The Elephant Man? Ever hear of them? They're - both of them - saner than you. They were born, lived, and died as what they were. . . you should have taken a tip from them before you got yourself maimed."

Along with transgender and transracial - now there's also "transchrono" - a person self-identifying as being of a different age than they actually are - and "transabled" - an otherwise healthy individual self-identifying as disabled. . . even going so far as to mutilate their bodies in order to make their "mind and body match."

So, now a straight, white, female, 37 year old Jr. High teacher could have sex with multiple male students, and be celebrated for doing so - instead of, you know, being locked up - by claiming to be transgender transracial transchrono transabled. . . because they self-identify as a 14 year old gay paraplegic Asian male.
According to the Jenner/Dolezal Principle - that what I claim trumps objective reality - this must be accepted - after all, who are judges and juries to tell them otherwise?

Paul's picture

"awarded him damages of C$30,000"

Don't forget, from the taxpayers, people who didn't commit the crime of uttering the word "God" in that meeting.

We are certainly in Heinlein's "Crazy Years". Only question is what to do. I tend toward Mencken's preference:

"Here (in America) the daily panorama of human existence, of private and communal folly, the unending procession of governmental extortions and chicaneries, of commercial brigandages and throat slittings, of theological buffoneeries, of aesthetic ribaldries, of legal swindles and harlotries, of miscellaneous rogueries, villanies, imbecilities, grotesqueries, and extravagances is so inordinately gross and preposterous, so perfectly brought up to the highest conceivable amperage, so steadily enriched with an almost fabulous daring and originality, that only a person born with a petrified diaphram can fail to laugh himself to sleep every night and wake up with all the eager, unflagging expectation of a Sunday-School superintendent touring the Paris peep-shows."