Muscular liberalism in full effect
Liberalism is the illusion that all religions are allowed to operate freely under its umbrella; that it is simply a benign, bureaucratic machine. In reality, liberalism is a religion; a power structure that works to hollow every other religion and way of life to rituals and symbols alone, while dictating everything else to conform to its ideology. It is a belief where human desires are worshipped and the individual is ‘god’.
If it wasn’t clear before, we now know that the liberal faith will not allow religious groups, especially Muslims, to contradict the liberal belief system and exercise one of the most basic rights known to man: the right to teach your own children moral values based on scripture. Under the guise of “tolerance”, liberalism is looking to surgically remove what it deems intolerable. All religions must be neutralised and made redundant – for most, Islam is the only one offering any resistance.
To recap. In recent weeks, the “No Outsiders” campaign was launched by the government to teach LGBT beliefs to children as young as four years old. Horrified, Muslim parents in Birmingham objected which led to yet another intense backlash against Islam through the organs of the state. Liberals claimed it is one more example of Muslim “bigotry” (even if many Jewish and Christian groups hold the same position).
In order to promote and naturalise their beliefs, social commentators and politicians used juvenile attempts to link orthodox Islamic beliefs about morality into security concerns (keeping in line with the “War on Terror” narrative) by suggesting that ‘intolerance’ of particular actions will result in bullying or even extremist acts of violence against LGBT groups. While this fallacious and unfounded argument has been adequately addressed, one issue remains overlooked: the LGBT and liberal agenda has become nothing less than an assault on society itself.
On the Good Morning debate between Piers Morgan and Muslim journalist Dilly Hussain, Morgan stated:
“You can have two daddies or two mummies…there’s nothing wrong with being gay!”
If the societal impact of disintegrating the traditional family unit is anything to go by, there certainly is.
To be clear, Muslims reject such relationships based, foremost, on our rational ‘aqeedah. We don’t distinguish between the sin of heterosexual adultery or homosexuality in this regard. But there is, no doubt, terrible consequences of normalising all our desires; it indicates Allah’s (ﷻ) wisdom in commanding us to abstain from particular actions. A Muslim doesn’t wait for a social crisis before realising there is a serious problem.
Liberalism, on the other hand, gives precedence to what the individual wants to do, with little or no regard for the wider impact personal decisions have on society. How often do we find social catastrophes overlooked for self-gratification?
In their book, the Boy Crisis, by Dr. Warren Farrell and Dr. John Gray, we find extensive research to understand the consequences of raising children without a father or outside of a traditional marriage. While some people may object with anecdotal evidence of exceptional cases, this does not change the general trend.
What are the observable effects?
In America alone, research shows when a child grows up in a father-absent home or outside a traditional family unit, he or she is:
1. four times more likely to live in poverty (US Census Bureau);
2. more likely to show higher levels of aggressive behaviour than children born to married mothers (Journal of Marriage and Family);
3. at higher risk of infant mortality – rates are nearly two times higher for infants of unmarried mothers than for married mothers (National Center for Health Statistics);
4. more likely to go to prison (Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs);
5. more likely to commit crime. A study of juvenile offenders indicated that family structure significantly predicts delinquency (Journal of Youth and Adolescence);
6. seven times more likely to become pregnant as a teen. Teens without fathers are twice as likely to be involved in early sexual activity (Child Development Journal);
7. more likely to face abuse and neglect. Compared to children living with married biological parents, those whose single parent had a live-in partner had more than eight times the rate of maltreatment overall, over ten times the rate of abuse and more than six times the rate of neglect (Child’s Bureau);
8. more likely to abuse drugs and alcohol. Youth are more at risk of first substance use without a highly involved father (Social Science Research);
9. two times more likely to suffer obesity. Obese children are more likely to live in father-absent homes than are non-obese children (National Longitudinal Survey of Youth), and
10. two times more likely to drop-out of high school. Students living in homes without biological fathers are twice as likely to repeat a grade in school (US Department of Education).
All of a sudden, liberalism has decided a child doesn’t actually need his father and mother in his life. All that matters in same-sex parenting is the desires and needs of the adults. They determine what the family looks like. They determine the child’s identity. They determine what the child needs and doesn’t need. It’s all about the adult without a thought to the real needs of the children. Children need their mothers – their real mothers. Children need their fathers – their real fathers. In the context of familial bonds, a child develops into a healthy, independent adult who has self-knowledge rooted in the traditional family unit, not contrived social constructs.
Long-term studies of the children raised by same-sex parents continue to make waves. While some studies with small samples (fewer than 40 children) have reported ‘no differences’ in wellbeing, they have used unreliable psychometric measures of depression or anxiety, which have led to a lapse in policy attention to the potential needs of such children. Early same-sex studies have also recruited through networks of friends or through advocacy organisations, resulting in a sample of same-sex parents of higher socioeconomic status than is typical of parents in a same-sex relationship generally.
“The higher risk of emotional problems for children in same-sex parent families has little or nothing to do with the quality of parenting, care, or other relational characteristics of those families.”
The primary benefit of marriage for children may not be that it tends to present them with improved parents (more stable, financially affluent, etc., although it does do this), but that it presents them with their own parents.
In essence, you can never replace the bond of love that exists among a child and their true father and mother. Children raised without a father or a mother will grow up in longing, unable to access their true family.
The need to challenge
The job of schools is not to indoctrinate young children in the ideology of the state. To respect that is farcical. The discussion transcends the need to simply preserve Islamic values within the Muslim community as it affects everyone. Adherents of liberal beliefs continue to pursue their harmful agenda, fanatically putting secular ideals ahead of the wellbeing of society. Some liberals will argue that they don’t see any connection between the push for LGBT lifestyles and the growing crisis facing nuclear families. But for a society that has normalised same-sex couples, the pursuit of parenthood is simply a “natural” progression and therefore, must be included as part of our discourse. Along with other forms of sexualisation, it must be challenged intellectually.
Sadly, paying taxes, being civil and raising our children according to our own values is still not enough to satiate the mob. While the harms of unrestricted liberalism are understood in many quarters when it comes to free-market economics, it is less appreciated in the social sphere.
The message from the state is clear: we are a tolerant, pluralistic society. All faiths and beliefs are welcome—so long as they circumscribe themselves within liberal normative values!