John Stonestreet – Page 7

Guest Column: From ‘Liberalism’ to ‘Progressivism’

May 27, 2026John StonestreetCurrent EventsCultural Commentaries, Culture, Current Events, Liberalism, Progressivism

In March, with an 8-1 majority vote, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that “counseling conversations are speech and that states cannot silence viewpoints in the counseling room.” The majority included all but Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who claimed in dissent that states should be able to use “police powers to establish and enforce the standards of care that bind medical professionals,” including what she called “professional medical speech.” Apparently, for Justice Jackson, that power also includes the ability to determine what should count as “scientific consensus,” given the collapse of consensus on the issue of “gender-affirming care.”

In a concurring opinion, liberal Justices Kagan and Sotomayor noted that the Colorado law in question, which banned conversion therapy for minors, was not “viewpoint-neutral.” Had it been, they said, it would raise a different and more difficult question.” In another instance last summer, Justice Sotomayor did not agree with a Trump administration policy but also believed it was not the place of the Court to decide. Justice Jackson, on the other hand, described her appointment to the Supreme Court as an opportunity “to tell people in my opinions how I feel about the issues.”

This is an example of an ongoing fissure between liberals and progressives on the political and ideological Left in America. As Colson Center Senior Fellow Dr. Glenn Sunshine has previously described, part of this difference is that standpoint epistemology, the liberal idea that each has our own truth from our own perspective, has devolved into expressive individualism, the idea that “our truth” should be imposed on everyone else as a matter of human dignity.

The implications of this shift from “liberalism” to “progressivism” are significant, especially for rights of speech and conscience. On April 22, Lois McLatchie Miller posted a clip of a British police officer informing a street preacher that he could not share the Gospel in places or ways that “may” cause offense or dissuade people from seeking abortions.

Back in March, Päivi Räsänen, a lawmaker in Finland, was found guilty of “inciting hatred” for calling homosexuality a “disorder” in 2004. No riots or hatred were actually incited in the over twenty years since. She was guilty of believing and expressing the wrong things. Also in March, the Chicago Bulls waived guard Jaden Ivey “due to conduct detrimental to the team.” Given the conduct regularly tolerated by sports franchises, it is notable that Mr. Ivey’s “offense” was posting a video of himself critiquing the NBA’s promotion of “Pride Month.”

Many progressives left Twitter when it was purchased by Elon Musk, not because their ideas would be suppressed but because contrary ideas would not be. But the move to alternate social media platform Bluesky has turned out to be a mess. The progressive drive for ideological purity has stunted any real conversation. As biologist Colin Wright noted: 

I’m blocked by thousands of accounts on Bluesky I’ve never even interacted with, since I almost never post. People over there block on first contact with any ideological friction. That results in a bunch of small isolated communities. Not ideal for a social media app. 

This kind of intolerance is a feature of progressivism, not a bug. Though people often use “liberal” and “progressive” interchangeably, they are not the same thing. Like the new “dissident Right,” which devolved out of classic conservatism and rejected core tenets of it, progressivism and liberalism are not the same either. 

Liberalism calls for tolerance. Progressivism silences dissent and calls it tolerance. Progressivism claims to be about moving forward, but “forward” is just a rejection of anything old, traditional, and settled. To modern progressives, progress is transgression. They sense the world is not as it should be but are threatened by the idea that there is a way it should be.

Divorced from reality and reason, compliance with this vision cannot be argued. Rather, it must be enforced. Thus, the shift from “encouraging all viewpoints” to punishing all dissent.

Guest Column: Dying with Dignity vs. “Death with Dignity”

May 19, 2026John StonestreetLifeAssisted Suicide, Euthanasia, Life, Pro-life, Sanctity of Human Life

In a recent episode of “60 Minutes,” interviewer Scott Pelley said to his guest, “You don’t have much time. Why are you spending time doing this?” His guest, former U.S. Senator Ben Sasse, who received a fatal diagnosis of pancreatic cancer in December, replied with a laugh, “You invited me, so I assume you needed to fill some time.”

Short of a miracle, Sasse won’t see his 14-year-old son grow up. He won’t walk his daughters down the aisle. And yet, he is teaching the nation a stunning lesson on dying with dignity. Sasse warns against the allure and the limits of political power and proclaims what matters more. Committed to free markets, he warns against the illusion that “more consumption can make you happier.” He’s at the same time optimistic about what technologies can provide and concerned about what has happened to our sense of self and happiness, especially young people.

Sasse is not being stoic, as though death is not a big deal. He mourns what the loss means to his family and regrets what he missed traveling for work instead of being at home. He regrets the pain that cancer has brought to him. But how he is dying is making a rare statement to the world, and it is being heard. As Dr. James Wood described in a recent World article:

In a culture that kills to avoid hardship and hides death to avoid reckoning, a man dying well on high-profile platforms is a subtly radical act. He is, without quite saying so, making an argument for life—for its dignity, its giftedness, its meaning even at the last.

His voice is especially powerful in a world that continues to accept various forms of euthanasia and doctor-assisted death. Across Europe, Canada, and a number of American states, advocates of what is often called “medical assistance in dying” or MAiD, market the promise of “death with dignity.” Unspoken in that terminology is the assumption that we need “death with dignity” because there is no such thing as “dying with dignity.” There is no value to be found in facing suffering or enduring pain to honor life until its God-given end. So many speak as if giving up on life takes courage and compassion.

Within the godless and hopeless framework of a naturalistic worldview, life is, as Shakespeare put into the mouth of Macbeth, “a tale told by an idiot full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” Why suffer to preserve such a meaningless existence when no higher purpose or value is available to be found? To die is to escape from such a life. Once pleasure or plenty is no longer available to us, there is no dignity to be found in how we die.

The Christian view is centered on Christ’s death, which restored the dignity with which God created us. Because death is transformed, as Dietrich Bonhoeffer wrote, there is dying with dignity. There is meaning and significance in the courage to face life’s end and the pain that so often accompanies it. In the Christian worldview, death in all its pain and suffering, is redeemable in the life of Christ, who defeated death.

That sort of courage is undeniable when witnessed in real life. As President Clinton, after being soundly critiqued by Mother Theresa on the issue of abortion, put it, “It’s difficult to argue with a life so well lived.” In the same way, what we are hearing and witnessing in these final days of Ben Sasse, is that it is difficult to argue with one dying so well.

Indeed, as a wise pastor once observed, our children will remember all sorts of things about us, but the way in which we die is what they will most remember about our faith. “Death with dignity” is a farce, a damnable idea that dehumanizes us individually and collectively. But dying with dignity, even as we pray for grace and peace for him and his family, is a profound gift that God is giving all of us right now through Ben Sasse.

Guest Column: “There Is No Mama”

May 12, 2026John StonestreetLGBTCommercial Surrogacy, LGBT, Same-Sex Marriage, Surrogacy

A recent video exposed the injustice at the heart of same-sex marriage and commercial surrogacy. In it, a man bouncing a baby on his lap asks, “Who do you want? Dada or Pop?” The baby answered, “Mama!” To which, both the man and his unseen partner behind the camera laughed and said, “There is no Mama.” They continue to badger the child, who then begins to cry.

The most obvious evil portrayed in the video is the relentless teasing of a baby. The deeper evil, however, is not that the men were mean. In fact, being mean was only the insult added to the injury of forcing their farcical arrangement on a baby and calling it a family.

Because, and everyone knows this including these two men suppressing the truth by their wickedness, there is a mama. She is not included in the video, nor is she in the life of the baby she carried and who needs her, but she exists. She’s been cut out of her child’s life, presumably by her own choice. The baby, however, did not make a choice. And now two men who have appropriated the title of “parents” are badgering the baby into affirming their lifestyle choice.

Perhaps, the infant is only doing what infants often do, babbling out those syllables that are often among the first learned by young ones across times and places and culture. But of course, these syllables always refer to the same person. They are, in the end, a primal cry of children for a particular someone who should always be there for them.

Anyone who has spent time around babies understands what is playing out in this scene. For little ones, mama is the world. In fact, according to childhood policy expert Dr. Dan Wuori, kids often say “Dada” before “Mama” not because the mom doesn’t matter as much but because she matters so much more. In their tiny, growing minds, they recognize “Dad” as a distinct person before they realize that “Mom” isn’t part of themselves. This innate and beautiful bond is intentionally broken when we pretend that a man can replace a mom, or whenever a child is acquired through surrogacy.

Just as tragic is the embrace of same-sex “marriage” or such reproductive technologies by individuals, governments, medical authorities, and Christians, while failing to even take a cursory glance to consider what is best for the child. Any ethical concerns around in vitro fertilization and surrogacy have been deferred in order to protect the feelings and desires of adults. In fact, both in policy and in public discourse, we’ve lost the ability to even discern the difference between couples who suffer with infertility and same-sex couples who have chosen inherently sterile relationships but then demand children. As a result, what children need is tossed aside in the name of adult desires. Children become commodities in the marketplace of consumer-driven reproductive technologies.

As Katy Faust, founder of the children’s rights group Them Before Us and the Greater Than campaign, said to the Colson Center:

We’ve been sounding the alarm about surrogacy for years. The mother loss, the commodification, the fact that children often go home with unrelated adults, increasing risk of abuse and neglect. But videos like this do something that arguments and studies never can. They spark righteous rage that leads people to come out of the closet as defenders of the natural family. It is more and more clear that gay marriage didn’t just have to do with what takes place “in the privacy of the bedroom.” It impacts children. And when we see those children cry on camera, it motivates us to action.

It should, at least. The word “natural” is accurate. Having chosen unnatural relationships, to quote Paul, these two dads now demand that even a baby must affirm what is unnatural. Even if they had not made that demand in such a cruel way in a video shared for social media clicks, great harm has been done to this child. And a culture that affirms their choice is complicit in that harm.

Babies need their mamas. There are few things more obvious than that. Denying that reality is a tragedy. Harming children should be a crime.