I'm sure you've all heard the story of the Tortoise and the Hare, correct?

It's an age-old story whose moral nugget of truth is often summarized thusly:

"Slow and steady wins the race."

Well, I agree with that sentiment. If you want a reliable outcome, taking your time is the better strategy, as the tortoise does prove in his stable and constant pursuit of victory versus the hare's ego and over-confidence causing victory to slip narrowly through his grasp.

While I could wax poetically about how this describes the nature of the Great Awakening, my intention for bringing this up has to do with something of equal importance.

What would happen if you change out the character of the tortoise with a wolf? Or any other animal for that matter, but for the sake of this example I'll be using the wolf.

Does the story still retain its moral truth? Or does the story no longer make sense given the characters' natures?

Nature, being the Keyword in this equation.

You see, any folk story, especially those with animals, do not choose the animals by chance or whimsy. The authors carefully picked the animals for use in the story to exemplify a moral truth. Another way to view it is in the idiom "a picture says a thousand words."

There is a symbiotic relationship between the animal and the story they are represented in. A tortoise, for instance, must by its very nature be a stable and steady creature, whose stubbornness is only surpassed by their perseverance. The story describes a tortoise and the tortoise permits the story. We call this symbolic, symbiotic relationship their immutable Nature.

The tortoise's Nature is to be steady as well as slow. One informs the other.

We call this a Moral Truth. Nature points us towards these Moral Truths, which we humans, being creatures who instinctively spot patterns, record that we might use them as a code to live comfortably by.

Morality is determined by one's consistency in following these Moral Truths.

What goes up must come down, or so the saying goes. Therefore, it is immoral to toss a rock up in the air over the heads of others and not recognize harm will more than likely come to them.

Likewise, if you act in a race as the hare, and expect to win, you are performing immorally.

So, why is this necessarily important in today's culture?

Because, as I suggested earlier, changing the animal, and the nature represented, necessarily changes the moral outcome of the story.

If I put a wolf in the position of the tortoise, the story falls apart because we cannot logically arrive at the same moral truth. Not only would it not make sense for the wolf to be so slow, it would also suggest some degree of fear on behalf of the hare. The relationship between a hare and a tortoise is different than a hare and a wolf. Any child can arrive at that very simple, moral truth.

The nature of the tortoise is the tortoise's alone to hold, therefore fulfilling its symbolic form. This is true with any other thing in Nature, be it floral, animal, material, or circumstantial.

Procedurally phrased, we might say that the variable inputs alter the moral outcome.

Therefore, we might also apply this truth to men and women.

You cannot put a man into a woman's role any more than you might put a wolf into the role of a tortoise and expect the same moral outcome.

That's not to say we cannot have an isolated story called "The Wolf and the Hare", mind you, but it wouldn't be the same story. It just can't be, because a wolf is not a tortoise, though they may share some features.

A woman can certainly do things a man can do and a man can do things a woman can do, generally. There are, however, some things a woman can do that a man cannot and things a man can do that a woman cannot.

Just as a wolf can do some of what a tortoise can and a tortoise can do some of what a wolf can. That, however, does not make them morally equal. Morality, meaning "in keeping with the moral lesson of the story."

You see, that's the crux of this rant of mine.

Our culture's brand of Liberal Progressivism defines equality as the ability to provide variable inputs and arrive at an invariable (in their case, preferred) outcome.

If x+2=5, and all numbers are equal, then 2+2=5.

This is a fallacy, plain and simple. Only 3 might satisfy the equation. To think any different is to believe that the hare's relationship with a tortoise is equal to that of a wolf.

What's the moral of this story?

Well, quite simply, that these nutjobs in our current culture are so detached from Nature, that they refuse to believe that the nature of any thing is immutable. They refuse to recognize a square is square and a circle is round. You cannot change these things out and expect the same Moral Outcome.

You cannot find the corner of a circle.

You cannot put a wolf in the role of a tortoise and expect the same moral outcome.

You cannot put a man in a woman's clothes and expect the same moral outcome.

You cannot put a pedophile in the role of a teacher and expect the same moral outcome.

You cannot put a thief in the role of a leader and expect the same moral outcome.

It's simply against Nature, and the nature of these things.

Which brings me to my ultimate point -- that Liberal Progressivism has found itself absolutely despising Nature. They wish to destroy it and remake it in their own image. They refuse Nature, Morality, Truth, and seek to usurp the God and Creator who made them.

Anyone who goes against Moral Truth, who goes against the Nature of things, and believes equality is this profane thing which somehow guarantees equality of outcome regardless of what crazed and deranged variables you put into the system, are nothing more than spiteful, proud creatures who wish to be God without God.

In other words, they aren't just crazed, but Evil. Intentionally so.