I try to write about every one of these cases that I can, no matter what country they occur in. Why? Because I think these cases do the best job of illustrating the hostility that the feminist culture has to male leadership in the home. It’s terrifying for men to see emotion-driven female judges, lawyers, teachers, social workers, therapists, etc. using the law as a weapon to overrule protective fathers.
A Texas father is fighting in court to prevent his ex-wife from subjecting their son to experimental transgender medical interventions after she moved to California, seemingly taking advantage of the Golden State’s “transgender sanctuary” law.
A California judge has taken the extraordinary step of hiding the entire case from the public in the lead-up to trial, and even preventing lawyers from accessing case documents.
“My ex-wife, Anne Georgulas, wants to castrate my son, James,” Jeff Younger, the father, told The Daily Signal in a statement Wednesday. James is 12 years old. “Judge Michelle Kazadi denied me access to my own case records. She illegally sealed my case with no public access.”
He also blamed Presiding Judge Shelley Kaufman and Judge Mark Juhas of abusing the system against his claims.
“Judge Shelley Kaufman’s court has misrouted orders to the wrong address,” he added. “Judge Mark Juhas denied me access to crucial evidence by setting a too-early trial date. I can’t even get an independent medical exam of my son.”
“The corrupt Los Angeles courts sealed my case to hide their corruption as they castrate my son,” Younger concluded.
Jeff Younger has been fighting to preserve the bodily integrity of his son, James, since 2018. That year, Georgulas filed a restraining order seeking to prevent Younger from entering James’ school and referring to James as male. A jury declined to give Younger or Georgulas full custody and required Younger’s consent for any medical procedures.
[…]Younger appealed to the Texas Supreme Court, warning that Georgulas intended to subject his son to irreversible transgender interventions. The court rejected Younger’s case after Georgulas told the court she did not intend to subject her son to those “treatments.” However, in February, she filed a motion in Los Angeles County Superior Court, aiming to dissolve the protective order preventing her from subjecting James to “gender-affirming care.” Georgulas’ motion cites the opinions of psychologist Brigid Mariko Conn, who stated that James “is interested” in “puberty blockers,” estrogen, and “bottom surgery,” i.e. the removal of his penis and testicles.
She promised not to trans the boy, but then she just changed her mind later. Did she do it to feel better about herself? Or to virtue signal to others about her cool new trans child, like women celebrities do? Or did she do it to get revenge on her ex-husband? Who knows. But the key point about these sorts of cases is that men looking on understand that regardless of who they choose to marry, there is a whole team of radical feminist lawyers, judges, social workers, therapists, teachers, etc. arrayed against male leadership in the home. And very often, the man-blamers in the churches are completely on the side of those feminists.
At the very least, traditional conservatives have very little to say about this, and I doubt they even see the common denominator in all these cases that interest men. The common denominator is the view that men should just be slaves who exist only to protect and provide, but they have no authority to lead on moral and spiritual issues. And also that men should not be allowed to have any standards or plan for relationships – they should just sign up to be slaves whenever a woman decides that she wants them to sign up. This is the same view that you find in the books of popular evangelical feminists and egalitarians. It’s held by some of the most pious and chivalrous pro-traditional marriage Christians.
On the one hand, evangelical feminists and egalitarians want to take the view that women are always the real leaders in the home. Then on the other hand, they expect men to sign up to pay all the bills and fight all the battles, but with no leadership role. Do they really think that men will take an offer like that? Do they really think that men are stupid, and can be shamed into being the victim of a system that hates traditional male roles? I don’t think it’s going to work.
Many people in America today vote in order to feel good about themselves, and to look good to others. But what is the long-term effect of voting this way? In this post, we will look at 13 stories of Americans who died at the hands of illegal immigrants who were welcomed in by the “don’t judge” crowd. Will the “don’t judge” crowd face any consequences for their actions?
Here is the article by Virginia Allen up at Daily Signal:
Over the past 12 months, illegal aliens have been arrested in connection with the deaths of at least 13 Americans. Seven of those victims were minors.
“The simple fact is that every crime committed by an illegal alien is one committed by an individual who should not have been at large in the country in the first place,” House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Rep. Mark Green told The Daily Signal.
That’s a key point. A lot of secular leftists like to claim that illegal immigrants don’t commit huge numbers of crimes compared to legal American taxpayers. But the issue is that every single crime committed by an illegal immigrant could have been avoided if that person was never able to get in. Also, the whole job of the people in government is to work for the people who pay their salaries. And that work is supposed to mean protecting the taxpayers from criminals. They’re not being paid by illegal immigrants to make their lives better.
Anyway, the Daily Signal article has 13 stories of taxpayers being killed by illegal immigrants, and here’s one of them:
Victor Antonio Martinez-Hernandez, 23, crossed the U.S. southern border illegally in February 2023, according to Harford County, Maryland, Sheriff Jeffrey Gahler. Six months later, in August 2023, Hernandez is suspected of attacking, raping, and killing Rachel Morin, a mother of five, while she exercised on the MA & PA Heritage Trail in Bel Air, Maryland, about 30 miles northeast of Baltimore.
After a lengthy investigation, authorities arrested Hernandez in Tulsa, Oklahoma, on June 14 on charges of rape and murder.
Now, you might expect that Christian leaders would be speaking out about these kinds of crimes, and advocating for government workers to protect the taxpayers who pay their salaries. But you’d be wrong. Many Christian leaders, including Southern Baptist leaders, have decided that open borders are more consistent with Christianity than protecting innocent people from criminals. They just want to “love everyone” and “don’t judge”.
The video of the debate was posted by ReasonableFaith.org – Dr. Craig’s organization. This debate occurred in March 2017 at the University of Dublin, in Ireland.
The video: (91 minutes)
My non-snarky summary is below.
Dr. Craig’s opening speech
Two claims:
1. There are good reasons to think that theism is true.
2. There are not comparably good reasons to think that atheism is true.
Five reasons for God’s existence:
1. The beginning of the universe
– actual infinite past is mathematically impossible
– BGV theorem: any universe that is on balance expanding in its history (like ours) cannot be past eternal
2. Fine-tuning of cosmic quantities and constants
– slight changes to quantities and constants prevent a universe from supporting complex embodied life
– the multiverse response of atheists conflicts with observations, e.g. the Boltzmann Brains problem
3. Objective moral values
– God’s existence is required to ground objective moral values and duties
4. Minimal facts case for the resurrection of Jesus
– there are good reasons to accept the most widely accepted facts about the historical Jesus (empty tomb, appearances, early widespread belief in the resurrection)
– the best explanation of these minimal facts is that God raised Jesus from the dead
5. Experience God directly
– in the absence of any defeaters to belief in God, a person can experience God directly
Dr. Daniel Came’s opening speech
1. The hiddenness of God
– if God wants a personal relationship with us, and a relationship with God would be the greatest good for us
– God ought to reveal himself to us, but he does not reveal himself to many people, the “non-resistant non-believers”
2. The inductive problem of evil
– many evil events occur that are pointless – there is no morally sufficient reason why God would allow them to occur
– examples: animal suffering, children born with disease, tsunamis
– the theistic response to this is that humans are not in a position to know whether there are morally sufficient reasons, due to our limitations of knowing the consequences
– but this ripple effect defense has 4 possible outcomes, 3 of which don’t do the job of justifying
Dr. Craig’s first rebuttal
1. The hiddenness of God
– God’s goal is not to make his existence known, but to draw them into a love relationship
– it’s speculative that overt displays of God’s existence would draw people to him in a love relationship, they might resent his bullying
– atheist would have to prove that God could draw more people into a love relationship with him by revealing himself more overtly
2. The inductive problem of evil
– as humans, we are not in a position to know for certain that any apparently pointless evil really is pointless
– William Alston article: 6 limitations of human knowing make it impossible to judge that an evil is actually “pointless”
– Dr. Came says that there are 4 possibilities for the ripple effects, and since 3 are bad, it’s likely that there are not morally sufficient reasons for a apparently pointless evil
– it is logically fallacious to assert probability conclusions without knowing the probabilities of those 4 options
– there is actually an argument from evil: since the problem of evil requires an objective standard of good and evil by which to measure, and God is the only possible ground of objective morality, then pressing the problem of evil actually requires the atheist to assume God, in order to ground this objective moral standard
Dr. Came’s first rebuttal
3. Objective moral values
– there are naturalistic theories of moral realism where objective moral duties and objective moral values exist in a naturalistic universe
– I’m not saying that any of them are correct, but there are many theories about object morality in a naturalistic universe
There are naturalistic theories for all of the 5 arguments that Dr. Craig presented. It is Dr. Craig’s responsibility to present those naturalistic theories and prove that they are not as good as his explanations. I’m not going to defend (or even name!) a single naturalistic theory for any of these 5 arguments by Dr. Craig.
Dr. Craig’s explanations for the 5 evidences he gave can’t be admitted, because we have to know how God did something in naturalistic terms before we can know that God did it supernaturally. Explanations are only valid if they are naturalistic.
1. The beginning of the universe
– naturalism explains how the universe expands after it came into being, so that explains how it came into being
– the God explanation, that God created the universe out of nothing, is not admissible, because it is not naturalistic
– how does God, as an unembodied mind interact with the physical world?
– the only agency that we know about is human agents, and we have bodies, so how could God perform actions without having a body?
The theistic hypothesis does not make any predictions, but naturalism makes lots of testable predictions. God could do anything, so he is not constrained and is therefore untestable. We can’t infer God as an explanation in principle because we can’t predict what is more probable if God exists than if he does not.
2. Fine-tuning of cosmic quantities and constants
– the university was not set up to make embodied intelligence plausible, because the vast majority of the universe is hostile to life
– there are models of the multiverse that escape the Boltzmann Brains problem that Dr. Craig raised
Dr. Craig’s second rebuttal
Some of Dr. Craig’s arguments are deductive (e.g. – the beginning of the universe, objective moral values), so that the conclusion follows from the premises if the premises are true. The resurrection passes the standard tests for historical explanations.
1. The beginning of the universe
– the whole point of the argument is that there is no naturalistic explanation for an ultimate beginning of the universe
2. Fine-tuning of cosmic quantities and constants
– the whole point of the argument is that there is no naturalistic explanation for a design of the universe to support life
– he has to prove that intelligences has to be attached to bodies
– human beings are non-physical minds united to physical bodies
– naturalistic attempts to explain mental operations fail
– the arguments prove that unembodied minds exist
– the vast expanse of the universe is required in order to form the galaxies, stars and heavy elements needed for complex life
– why expect that the entire universe should be small, or that life would be everywhere?
– a non-fine-tuned world is more likely in the multiverse, and in a multiverse, we are more likely to have a Boltzmann brain world than a world with complex, embodied life
– Dr. Came has not advanced any naturalistic explanation for the fine-tuning
3. Objective moral values
– non-theistic ethical theories cannot account for the ontological foundations of objective moral values and duties
– atheistic theories of moral realism simply assume objective moral values out of thin air
– it is especially hard to find any basis for objective moral duties in the absence of God
Dr. Came’s second rebuttal
5. Religious experience
– Dr. Craig should not bring up religious experience in a debate where arguments and evidence are central
– people who have dreams, hallucinations and psychotic delusions could appeal to religious experience
– religious experience is by no means universal, and it is possible to doubt it
3. Objective moral values
– there are lots of atheists who hold to objective moral values
– Dr. Craig has to explain how God grounds objective moral values and duties
– Dr. Craig has to explain why atheist moral realist theories don’t work to ground objective moral values and duties
1. The beginning of the universe
– Dr. Craig claims that something can’t come from nothing, that’s not an argument
– there are numerous models that don’t require an absolute beginning of the universe
– Dr. Craig cites the BGV theorem, but Guth (one of the authors) says that only the inflation has a beginning, not the whole universe
Dr. Craig’s conclusion
1. The beginning of the universe
– on theism, there is an efficient cause, but no material cause, for the origin of the universe
– on atheism, there is neither an efficient cause nor a material cause, for the origin of the universe: that’s worse!
– if he thinks that there are models of the universe that don’t require a beginning, then let him name a viable eternal model of the universe
– he never refuted the mathematical argues against an infinite past
2. Fine-tuning of cosmic quantities and constants
– nothing to refute
3. Objective moral values
– God is a better ground for morality than humans, because he is ultimate, and not contingent and arbitrary
– God is a being who is worthy of worship, and therefore command his creatures with moral duties
4. Minimal facts case for the resurrection of Jesus
– nothing to refute
5. Religious experience
– only justified because there are no defeaters to it
1. The hiddenness of God
– atheist has to show that if God’s existence were more obvious, that it would result in more people being drawn to him
2. The inductive problem of evil
– Dr. Came’s argument was logically fallacious, and makes errors in probability theory
Dr. Came’s conclusion
Sometimes, people can’t prove something, but lack of evidence is a justification for doubting it, e.g. – werewolves.
If none of Craig’s arguments work, then it follows that it is not rational to believe that God exists, and it is rational to believe that God does not exist.
Atheists shouldn’t have a burden of proof for what they know, only theists have a burden of proof for what they know.
My thoughts
One quick point. If life were common everywhere then atheists would infer that God wasn’t involved in it. Period. “Life is everywhere, so it’s common, why do we need a designer?” they’d say. I agree with Dr. Came about denouncing religious experience in a formal debate. I don’t like when Dr. Craig brings this up, but I see why he does it – he’s an evangelist, and that’s a good thing, too. I just worry about how it looks to atheists, although it’s good for sincere seekers. I’m not the one on the stage, though, Dr. Craig is.
I think the point about more overt revealing by God would annoy people and make them turn away. Think of how gay people respond to the suggestion that there is anything wrong with them, with rage, vandalism, threats, coercion, attempts to get you to lose your job and business, and using government as a weapon to fine and imprison you. It’s really obvious to me that more God does not mean more love of God. For those who don’t want God, the hiddenness is respect for their choice to put pleasure above the search for truth. (I mean the gay activists – I have great sympathy for people who struggle with same-sex unwanted attractions because they were impacted by a failed bond with their parent of the same sex as they are).
Whenever I meet people like Dr. Came, I always urge them to keep investigating and pursuing truth, because they will find it if they are sincerely seeking after God. Some atheists do sincerely seek God, but I don’t know any who haven’t found him. I’m not sure if that’s because those atheists who claim to be non-resistant and rational are in fact resistant and non-rational, or what the real reason is. If you believe the Bible, all unbelief is non-rational and resistant (see Romans 1). Regarding the werewolves, we don’t have any good arguments for werewolves, we do have good arguments for God. Dr. Came didn’t refute the arguments that Craig raised, nor did his own arguments for atheism work. And there are many, many more arguments (origin of life, Cambrian explosion, habitability-discoverability, molecular machines) that Craig did not raise, too.
WINTERY KNIGHT 