Phil Vischer, the creator of the children’s cartoon series VeggieTales—who is now better known for peddling bad doctrine under the guise of Christian-themed entertainment—has taken a nosedive into the depths of woke madness. Vischer has solidified his place among the rising tide of the Evangelical Beast of Revelation, also known as the “Woke Church.”

Now, keep in mind that this is the same guy who once seriously questioned whether Latino Republicans are just “white people in disguise” and who advocates for the church to roll out the red carpet for transgenderism. He’s become a loud and proud cheerleader for Christians to toss their moral compass out the window, embracing leftist, pro-abortion, pro-LGBTQ politics—all under the shiny banner of wokeness.

For years now, Vischer has been an unabashed promoter of progressive Democrats, identity politics, and Critical Race Theory. He’s even gone as far as to label white parents who put their kids in good schools as wicked and racist. But even that wasn’t enough for him—no, Vischer has also set his sights on dismantling the historic, biblical doctrine of sexual morality.

Remember, when you plop your kids in front of the TV to watch Veggie Tales, this is the worldview you’re feeding them.

So, Vischer seems to have mastered the art of moral equivalence—or at least he thinks he has. In a world where clarity should reign, he revels in blurring the lines, hoping that his followers will lap up his half-baked, pseudo-intellectual nonsense without a second thought. Let’s take a moment to dissect the absurdity he’s trying to sell.

His latest trope—selling third-way-ism under the guise that conservatism is just as morally bankrupt as leftism. Here’s a snippet:

Vischer wants you to believe that owning a gun is just as evil as killing an unborn child. But he’s playing a mind game. He’s attempting to convince us that the constitutional right to defend oneself with a firearm—a right that has been guaranteed and protected as part of American liberty since the founding of this nation—is morally indistinguishable from the cold-blooded murder of the most innocent among us.

How exactly did we get here? How did we arrive at a place where the killing of an unborn child is downplayed, yet the ownership of a firearm is cast as a harbinger of societal collapse?

Let’s start with the language. Oh yeah, “assault rifles.” The term alone is a rhetorical cudgel designed to elicit a visceral (or Vischeral) response—never mind that it’s a vague, catch-all term that anyone with a basic understanding of firearms knows is practically meaningless.

But that’s the point, isn’t it? By using loaded language, Vischer seeks to conflate the moral weight of abortion with gun ownership, as if the two are remotely comparable.

Vischer knows that abortion is the willful termination of innocent human life, yet, like any good leftist sleazeball, he lumps it in the same category as the right to bear arms—a right intended as a hedge against tyranny and evil. This isn’t just intellectually lazy—it’s morally reprehensible.

What could be more clear about abortion? Everyone, even leftists, knows that it is the pre-meditated and deliberate taking of an innocent life. There’s no wiggle room here, no shades of gray. It’s evil—full stop.

Guns, on the other hand, are tools. Yes, they can be used for harm, but they can also be used to protect and defend. To conflate the two is not just misleading—it’s dishonest.

Using Phil’s logic, if he wants to argue that guns are evil, it would be more consistent to compare them to forceps and surgical needles, and label those as inherently evil as well, despite the fact that these tools are also used to remove brain tumors from cancer patients. But that would be absurd, and he knows it.

A better argument would be that yes, abortion is inherently evil, and so are mass shootings, home invasions, and any other event where a murder of an innocent life might take place. But Phil isn’t stupid, and he knows that all conservatives are already against such evil.

But logic and sound reason doesn’t stop him from playing his little game, trying to paint conservatives as equally culpable for the ills of society simply because they support the right to self-defense. The goal here is clear—to make those who stand for life and liberty feel as though they are morally equivalent to those who advocate for the destruction of life in the womb.

And then there’s the “third way” crowd—the so-called “Christian” leftists who want you to believe that they’ve found some magical middle ground between conservatism and progressivism. Spoiler alert, they haven’t. What they’re actually offering is progressivism-lite—a watered-down version of leftist ideology dressed up in Christian lingo.

They claim to stand for “nuance” and “dialogue,” but what they really stand for is a sub-biblical worldview that prioritizes the consensus of man over the revelation of God. They think like leftists, they act like leftists—it’s just that, at least for now, they’re a little less militant about it.

But let’s not kid ourselves—there’s nothing new or revolutionary about this “third way.” It’s the same old progressivism, just with a Christian veneer slapped on top for good measure. And make no mistake, these “new Christian leftists” reason and operate exactly like their secular counterparts. Their worldview is not rooted in the gospel but in a humanistic, man-centered epistemology that elevates the collective wisdom of a fallen world above the unchanging truth of Scripture.

So, where does this leave us?

With a choice.

Do we buy into the nonsense that Phil Vischer is peddling—the false equivalence, the moral confusion, the tired rhetoric—or do we stand firm in the truth? Because make no mistake, Vischer’s goal is not to foster understanding or dialogue. His goal is to cause chaos and confusion, to sow discord among the brethren, to create doubt where there should be none, and to convince his followers that conservatives—those who stand for life, liberty, and the protection of the innocent—are just as evil as the leftists who champion the killing of the unborn.

In the end, it’s not just about guns or abortion. It’s about the truth—unapologetically, unequivocally, unflinchingly. And the truth is this, abortion is evil. Gun ownership is not. The right to bear arms is a safeguard against tyranny and wickedness, while abortion is the manifestation of such things. Any attempt to equate the two is not just wrong—it’s a deliberate lie, a manipulation of the highest order, and we must treat it as such.

So, Phil, spare us the moral gymnastics. We see through your game, and we’re not buying it as the issues are too clear for your sophomoric attempts at equivalence to go unchallenged. Abortion is murder, and the right to bear arms is a right designed to protect against evil—not perpetuate it. And no amount of rhetorical escamotage can change that fundamental truth.