Sunday, March 29, 2015

Lib Warns of Climate-Change Call-Girls

The chicanery employed by democrats to promote their hysterical earth-worshipping environmental policies reached a new low a few days ago. This past Wednesday, California Democrat Barbara Lee proposed a resolution in the House of Representatives that warned that “Women will disproportionately face harmful impacts from climate change.”

Lee’s resolution also claims that, “Food insecure women with limited socioeconomic resources may be vulnerable to situations such as sex work, transactional sex, and early marriage that put them at risk for HIV, STIs, unplanned pregnancy, and poor reproductive health.”

The resolution goes on to urge Congress to agree on the “disparate impacts of climate change on women,” and demands that Congress use “gender-sensitive frameworks in developing policies to address climate change.”

Lee also concludes that women, who are “often underrepresented in the development and formulation of policy regarding adaptation to climate change,” are without a doubt in the best position to offer policy ideas.

Aside from the general ridiculousness of Lee's resolution, I’m not sure why she is so bothered by the notion of women engaging in “sex work,” or “transactional sex.” From a liberal worldview, what's wrong with "sex work?" In other words, if prostitution is a consensual sexual act between adults, why would a liberal protest? If Ms. Lee objects to prostitution, upon what moral code is she basing her conclusion? GASP!! You mean to tell me that she believes that there's some moral standard we're supposed to abide by when it comes to sexuality?!

The only ones prostituting themselves when it comes to climate change are today’s democrats. They and their Big Green allies have literally reaped billions as the result of their wicked climate policies.

Copyright 2015, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World

Tuesday, March 17, 2015

Two Shades of Dismay: The Perverse Bondage Wrought by Liberalism and Islam

In opposing the godless and bloody French Revolution, Edmund Burke, the father of modern conservatism, concluded that, “I should therefore suspend my congratulations on the new liberty of France, until I was informed how it had been combined with government; with public force; with the discipline and obedience of armies;…with morality and religion;…with peace and order; with civil and social manners. All these (in their way) are good things too; and, without them, liberty is not a benefit whilst it lasts, and is not likely to continue long. The effect of liberty to individuals is, that they may do what they please: We ought to see what it will please them to do, before we risk congratulations.”

“The French Revolution was,” as Ann Coulter put it a few years ago, “a revolt of the mob…the godless antithesis to the founding of America.” Writing for Crisis Magazine, Joseph Pearce described the French Revolution as “an earlier incarnation of atheistic progressivism and the progenitor (forerunner) of communism.” In other words, the French Revolution was a tragic attempt at building a culture bereft of the “moral chains” described by Burke, and thus, in France, liberty was lost.

“Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their appetite,” said Burke. He added, “Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere, and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters (chains).”

As it was with the French Revolution, the communist revolution, and the Third Reich, nowhere today are the chains of Burke’s axiom more clearly demonstrated than with the bondage that exists under modern liberalism and Islam.

Today’s liberalism stands upon two duplicitous notions: 1.) the godless pagan principle of “Do What Thou Wilt,” and 2.) the presence of an “omnicompetent” Government that is all too eager to mother us. In spite of the claims of modern liberals, such a political philosophy does not bring justice, nor does it promote liberty. On the contrary, as C.S. Lewis put it, such a modern State exists “not to protect our rights but to do us good or make us good—anyway, to do something to us or to make us something.” Something indeed. Lewis depressingly concludes that under such a regime, “There is nothing left of which we can say to them, ‘Mind your own business.’ Our whole lives are their business.”

The cleverly cloaked language of liberal-speak has deceived hundreds of millions the world over into surrendering our “business” to big government. For example, in the U.S., by far the largest employer is government. Local, state, and federal government (including uniformed military personnel) employs well over 23 million Americans. This is about 10 million more than the top 50 private employers in the U.S. combined.

The largest educator in the U.S. is government. About 90% of all U.S. children attend a k-12 godless government school. Over 70% of American students who attend college do so at a state school. Education accounts for nearly half (about 11 million) of the total federal, state, and local government workforce.

The largest “charity” in the U.S. is government (which, of course, brags about it!). Americans gave a total of approximately $3.4 billion (about $2.4 billion from individuals) to private charities in 2013. In the same year, Americans received over $6 billion from means-tested (recipients required to be below a certain income level) government programs (housing, food stamps, WIC, Medicaid, and the like). When non means-tested programs (Social Security, Medicare, unemployment, and so on) are included, the total is a shocking and staggering $2 trillion dollars.

Included in the cost of Social Security is over $144 billion spent for Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI). The number of SSDI beneficiaries jumped from 4.3 million in 1990 to 10.9 million in 2012, a 153% increase. Speaking of “mothering,” that is an amazing number of Americans who are unable, or (in many cases) unwilling, to work and thus wean themselves from the withering bosoms of big government.

And of course, unless dismantled by the Supreme Court, Americans now have made health care the business of big government. Thus, instead of liberating, liberalism has simply made tens of millions of Americans comfortable in, or at least comfortably accustomed to, their government made chains.

A man cannot be free unless he has economic independence. As C.S. Lewis pointedly put it, “For economic independence allows an education not controlled by Government; and in adult life it is the man who needs, and asks, nothing of Government who can criticise its acts and snap his fingers at its ideology. Read Montaigne; that's the voice of a man with his legs under his own table, eating the mutton and turnips raised on his own land. Who will talk like that when the State is everyone's schoolmaster and employer?”

In addition, guided by the false belief that “Do What Thou Wilt” (especially in the sexual realm) frees us from the shackles of the “antiquated” ideas on morality and personal ethical behavior, liberalism has set about to discredit and abandon many of the eternal and inescapable absolute truths set down by our Creator that should be the cornerstones of all good government. Thus, almost any sexual perversion imaginable is, in the U.S. today, a “right.” And instead of being free, tens of millions of Americans are now slaves to their sexual desires.

Pornography, abortion, homosexual behavior, adultery, and the like now have the protection provided by American big government. (Of course, same-sex “marriage” is also seeking—and winning—the same.) As a consequence, in the name of being “set free” from the shackles of parenting, over 50 million of the most defenseless among us have been slaughtered in the womb. Additionally, in the name of being “set free” from the shackles of marriage and monogamy, aided and abetted by the massive welfare state created by big government, tens of millions of children who graciously survived their mothers’ wombs are by being raised in single-parent homes, usually without a father.

Children born into these broken families are not only drastically more likely to be born poor, but to remain so. Of course, this means for years on end such children will “need” the care and provision of big government. America now has multiple generations raised in the mothering nanny state that liberals are almost always looking to expand (see: “free” cell phones, school lunches, community college, pre-k, day-care, and on, and on, and on).

Absent from their fathers, these children are also much more likely to grow up undisciplined, unruly, and immoral (even by liberal standards) and need the services provided by the American penal system. Thus, with his birth covered by Medicaid or Obamacare, his early nourishment provided by WIC and food stamps, his “free” government education (pre-k through community college)—which includes school lunches and an Obama phone—American taxpayers get to mother millions from birth well into adulthood. And after our hypothetical young leech (see: Julia, or Pajama Boy) takes his entitlement lifestyle to its logical conclusion and robs a liquor store, leading to his eventual incarceration, we see that the American taxpayers are getting to mother millions of their fellow citizens from cradle to grave. How liberating!

Just as tragic and devastating to the concept of true liberty the world over is the plague of Islam. And no, I’m not simply talking about the butchers of ISIS, or Boko Haram, or the other “radical Islamists.” Though most Muslims in the world aren’t strapping explosives to themselves or cutting off the heads of apostates, a broad examination of Islam is dreadfully revealing.

The 57 members of the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation (OIC) represent about 22% of the world’s population but generate barely 9% of the world’s GDP. The U.S. alone produces 23% of the world’s GDP. A shocking 40% of the Arab world lives in poverty.

In the 57 nations of the OIC, there are a total of about 500 universities. There are over 5,700 in the U.S. alone. In just over 100 years, the Muslim world—about 23% of the world’s population (1.6 billion)—has produced 11 Nobel Laureates, while a mere 14 million Jews (0.2% of world population) have produced around 190 (counts vary slightly). The U.S. has produced 353 of the 860 (41%) Nobel winners. Those identifying as Christian have earned just over 65% of the total number of Nobel Prizes awarded. If only Alfred Nobel’s organization awarded prizes for strapping on dynamite!

Particularly disturbing for lovers of true liberty is the role of women in Islamic society. Islamic law (Shariۥa) prohibits women from looking men in the eye, forbids them from wearing shoes that make noise, and forbids them from becoming educated. As Ergun and Emir Caner note in Unveiling Islam, “women are considered possessions in any orthodox Islamic regime…The wife is considered the husband’s sex object.” Also, one of the most alarming admonitions in the Koran allows the husband to punish his wife physically.

According to Pew polling, 99% of Afghan Muslims favor making Shariۥa the law of the land—as do 91% of Iraqi Muslims, 86% of Malaysian Muslims, 84% of Pakistani Muslims, 83% of Moroccan Muslims, 74% of Egyptian Muslims, and so on.

As I’ve previously noted, religious freedom in Islamic states such as Saudi Arabia is virtually non-existent. Like many other Muslim countries, Saudi law states that Islamic apostasy—denying the faith or converting to another religion—is a crime punishable by death. In 2006, Afghan citizen Abdul Rahman was arrested (after it was discovered that he possessed a Bible) and faced the death penalty for converting to Christianity. Intervention by then Afghan president Hamid Karzai resulted in the charges against Rahman being dismissed.

Leading Afghan clerics were highly critical of Karzai, noting that “The Qur'an is very clear and the words of our prophet are very clear. There can only be one outcome: death.” This attitude is prevalent across the Arab world. In 2007, Mohammed Hegazy became the first Egyptian Muslim officially to seek to convert to Christianity. An Egyptian judge (sounding much like American liberals today on the issue of homosexuality and marriage) ruled that, “He can believe whatever he wants in his heart, but on paper he can't convert.” Muslim clerics issued fatwas calling for his death. In 2008, in an interview with a local Egyptian newspaper, Hegazy's father said, “I am going to try to talk to my son and convince him to return to Islam. If he refuses, I am going to kill him with my own hands.” Hegazy’s wife’s family also swore to kill her because she married a non-Muslim.

Again, according to Pew, of those Muslims who favor Shariۥa as the law of the land, 86% of Egyptians favor the death penalty for those who convert to another religion—as do 82% of Jordanians, 79% of Afghans, 76% of Pakistanis, and so on.

Millions of Christians and other such “apostates” (tens of millions by some estimates) have died at the hands of Islamists. According to Africa: The Holocausts of Rwanda and Sudan, “Well over two million southern black Christians, Muslims, and animists in the Sudan have died, the great majority civilians, in a genocide that few in the world have heard about. Since 1983, ethnic cleansing and a religious holy jihad (since 1992) have created a holocaust that rival the two great genocides in Europe (the Holocaust and Stalin’s Gulag)…In the Nuba Mountains the Arab Muslim fundamentalists practiced an age-old custom of taking blacks into slavery, forcing conversion of many to Islam, and then decided to wipe out the fifty tribes by genocide, similar to the situation in Darfur in the west.”

In spite of initially being labeled as a “democratic” movement, the “Arab Spring” that spread throughout parts of the Middle East and Africa did nothing to further the cause of liberty. On the contrary, the Arab Spring further spread jihad and Shariۥa, again, especially in Africa.

Quite telling when it comes to Islam and liberty is an examination of the freedom indices produced by various organizations that measure democracy (or freedom) the world over. Freedom House has produced Freedom in the World, “the oldest, most authoritative report of democracy and human rights,” since 1972.

Freedom House uses a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 being “most free” and 7 the “least free,” in two categories: political rights and civil liberties. If nations rate a 1 or 2 in both categories, they are considered “free.” For example, the U.S., UK, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the like, rate 1 in both categories. If a nation rates 6 or 7 in both categories they are considered “not free.” For example, North Korea, China, Cuba, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Somalia, and the like are “not free.” Other rating combinations usually result in a “partly free” result. 


Non-Free/Authoritarian Regimes:


NationDominant ReligionDemocracy Index (2012)Member of OIC
AfghanistanIslam2.48 (#152)Yes
AlgeriaIslam3.83 (#118)Yes
AngolaMix3.35 (#133)
AzerbaijanIslam3.15 (#139)Yes
BahrainIslam2.53 (#150)Yes
BelarusMix3.04 (#141)
BruneiIslamNAYes
Burkina FasoIslam3.52 (#127)Yes
Burma (Myanmar) Buddhism2.35 (#155)
BurundiChristian3.60 (#125)
CambodiaBuddhism4.96 (#100)
CameroonChristianity3.44 (#131)Yes
Central African RepublicChristianity and Islam1.99 (#157)
ChadIslam1.62 (#165)Yes
ChinaMix3.00 (#142)
ComorosIslam3.52 (#127)Yes
CongoChristianity1.92 (#159)
Côte d'IvoireMix3.25 (#136)Yes
CubaMix3.52 (#127)
DjiboutiIslam2.74 (#147)Yes
EgyptIslam4.56 (#109)Yes
Equatorial GuineaChristianity1.83 (#160)
EritreaMix2.40 (#153)
EthiopiaMix3.72 (#123)
FijiMix3.67 (#124)
GabonChristianity3.56 (#126)Yes
Gambia Islam3.31 (#134)Yes
Guinea-Bissau Islam1.43 (#166)Yes
IranIslam1.98 (#158)Yes
JordanIslam3.76 (#121)Yes
KazakhstanIslam2.95 (#143)Yes
KuwaitIslam3.78 (#119)Yes
LaosBuddhism2.32 (#156)
MadagascarMix3.93 (#117)
MauritaniaIslam4.17 (#110)Yes
NigeriaMix3.77 (#120)Yes
North KoreaIrreligious1.08 (#167)
Oman Islam3.26 (#135)Yes
QatarIslam3.18 (#138)Yes
RussiaMix3.74 (#122)
RwandaChristianity3.36 (#132)
Saudi ArabiaIslam1.71 (#163)Yes
SomaliaIslamNAYes
South SudanChristianityNA
SudanIslam2.38 (#154)Yes
SwazilandChristianity3.20 (#137)
SyriaIslam1.63 (#164)Yes
TajikistanIslam2.51 (#151)Yes
TogoMix3.45 (#130)Yes
TurkmenistanIslam1.72 (#161)Yes
UgandaChristianity5.16 (#94)Yes
United Arab Emirates Islam2.58 (#149)Yes
Uzbekistan Islam1.72 (#161)Yes
VietnamBuddhism2.89 (#144)
YemenIslam3.12 (#140)Yes


In Freedom in the World 2014, of the “Worst of the Worst”—the 10 countries with the lowest possible ratings for both political rights and civil liberties—six are Islamic, with two others having significant Islamic influence. 

The Economist Intelligence Unit publishes its Index of Democracy that “provides a snapshot of the state of democracy worldwide.” As the Economist Intelligence Unit puts it, “The Democracy index is based on five categories: electoral process and pluralism; civil liberties; the functioning of government; political participation; and political culture. Countries are placed within one of four types of regimes: full democracies; flawed democracies; hybrid regimes; and authoritarian regimes.” The index is a weighted average based on answers to 60 questions. Nations are rated on a scale of 0 to 10. Full democracies rate 8.00-9.99; flawed democracies: 6.00-7.99; hybrid regimes: 4.00-5.99; and authoritarian regimes 1.00-3.99. 

In the Index of Democracy for 2012, of the 10 most authoritarian regimes, seven of them are Islamic. In addition, not one member of the OIC, or any other nation that would be considered “Islamic,” is a “full democracy.” Of the 55 nations rated “not free” or “authoritarian regimes,” more than half (28 out of 55) are Islamic. (Note: I organized the tables here according to both Freedom in the World 2014 and the Index of Democracy from 2012. Since a “free” rating according to Freedom House sometimes included nations considered “flawed democracies” by the Index of Democracy, I included all “flawed democracies” in the “free” table. Likewise, all “authoritarian regimes,” though a few were rated as “partly free,” were included in the “not free” table.)


Free Nations/Full or Flawed Democracies:


NationDominant ReligionDemocracy Index
Andorra Christian, CatholicNA
Antigua and Barbuda ChristianNA
Argentina Christian, Catholic6.84 (#52)
Australia Christian9.22 (#6)
Austria Christian, Catholic8.62 (#12)
Bahamas ChristianNA
Barbados Christian, CatholicNA
Belgium Christian, Catholic8.05 (#24)
Belize ChristianNA
Benin Christian, Catholic6.00 (#79)
BotswanaChristian7.85 (#30)
Brazil Christian, Catholic7.12 (#44)
Bulgaria Christian6.72 (#54)
Canada Christian9.08 (#8)
Cape Verde Christian, Catholic7.92 (#26)
Chile Christian, Catholic7.54 (#36)
ColumbiaChristian, Catholic6.63 (#57)
Costa Rica Christian, Catholic8.10 (#22)
CroatiaChristian, Catholic6.93 (#50)
CyprusChristian7.29 (41)
Czech Republic Irreligious8.19 (#17)
Denmark Christian9.52 (#4)
Dominica Christian, CatholicNA
Dominican Republic Christian, Catholic6.49 (#60)
East TimorChristian, Catholic7.16 (#43)
El Salvador Christian6.47 (#61)
Estonia Irreligious7.61 (#34)
Finland Christian9.06 (#9)
France Christian, Irreligious7.88 (#28)
Germany Christian8.34 (#14)
Ghana Christian6.02 (#78)
Greece Christian7.65 (#33)
Grenada Christian, CatholicNA
Guyana Christian6.05 (#76)
HungaryChristian, Irreligious6.96 (#49)
IcelandChristian9.65 (#3)
India Hindu7.53 (#38)
IndonesiaIslam6.76 (#53)
Ireland Christian, Catholic8.56 (#13)
Israel Jewish7.53 (#37)
Italy Christian, Catholic7.74 (#32)
JamaicaChristian7.39 (#39)
Japan Mix, Shinto8.08 (#23)
Kiribati ChristianNA
Latvia Christian7.05 (#47)
LesothoChristian6.66 (#55)
LiechtensteinChristian, CatholicNA
Lithuania Christian7.24 (#42)
Luxembourg Christian, Catholic8.88 (#11)
MacedoniaChristian6.16 (#73)
MalawiChristian6.08 (#75)
MalaysiaIslam6.41 (#64)
MaltaChristian, Catholic8.28 (#15)
Marshall IslandsChristianNA
Mauritius Mix8.17 (#18)
MexicoChristian, Catholic6.90 (#51)
MicronesiaChristianNA
MoldovaChristian6.32 (#67)
Monaco Christian, CatholicNA
Mongolia Buddhism6.35 (#65)
MontenegroChristian6.05 (#76)
NamibiaChristian6.24 (#72)
Nauru ChristianNA
Netherlands Christian, Irreligious8.99 (#10)
New Zealand Christian, Irreligious9.26 (#5)
NorwayChristian9.93 (#1)
Palau Christian, CatholicNA
PanamaChristian, Catholic7.08 (#46)
Papua New GuineaChristian6.32 (#67)
ParaguayChristian, Catholic6.26 (#70)
Peru Christian, Catholic6.47 (#61)
PhilippinesChristian, Catholic6.30 (#69)
Poland Christian, Catholic7.12 (#44)
PortugalChristian, Catholic7.92 (#26)
Romania Christian6.54 (#59)
Saint Kitts and Nevis ChristianNA
Saint LuciaChristian, CatholicNA
SamoaChristianNA
San MarinoChristian, CatholicNA
São Tomé and PríncipeChristianNA
SenegalIslam6.09 (#74)
Serbia Christian6.33 (#66)
SlovakiaChristian, Catholic7.35 (#40)
Slovenia Christian, Catholic7.88 (#28)
South AfricaChristian7.79 (#31)
South KoreaMix8.13 (#20)
SpainChristian, Catholic8.02 (#25)
SurinameMix, Christian plurality6.65 (#56)
SwedenChristian9.73 (#2)
SwitzerlandChristian9.09 (#7)
Thailand Buddhism6.55 (#58)
TaiwanMix: Buddhism, Taoism7.57 (#35)
TongaChristianNA
Trinidad and TobagoChristian6.99 (#48)
TuvaluChristianNA
United KingdomChristian8.21 (#16)
United StatesChristian8.11 (#21)
Uruguay Christian8.17 (#18)
VanuatuChristianNA
Zambia Christian6.26 (#70)



Also, take note of the 100 nations rated as “free” or as a “full/flawed democracy.” By any type of religious measure, 86 of these 100 nations would be considered “Christian.” (In some cases, if such nations are now considered secular or “irreligious,” they most recently—just a couple of decades ago in most of these cases—were considered Christian.) Other nations, such as Japan and Israel, were at their founding in the 20th century, greatly influenced by Christian democracies. What’s more, of the 100 free nations, only three would be considered Islamic.

Of course, a “Christian nation” does not simply imply that most of the citizens are passionate followers of Christ. Sadly, thanks in great part to the prevalence of liberalism in the Western world, this is far from the case—even in the U.S. (See above.) In spite of this, no nation in the history of the world is more responsible for the spread of liberty throughout the earth than is the United States of America. And nothing is more responsible for the yearning for liberty and independence that led to the founding of America than is Christianity

It was in the pulpits of American churches that the seeds of Revolution were sewn. The British certainly thought so, as they blamed what they derisively described as the “Black Robed Regiment” for the thirst in the Colonies for American Independence. Modern historians have noted, “There is not a right asserted in the Declaration of Independence which had not been discussed by the New England clergy before 1763.”

Samuel Langdon was one of those New England clergy. Langdon was a distinguished theologian and scholar. He graduated from Harvard in 1740, went on to become a prominent Congregational minister, and was president of Harvard University from 1774 to 1780. He was also a delegate to the New Hampshire convention that ratified (by the slim margin of 57 to 46) the U.S. Constitution in 1788. New Hampshire was the last of the necessary nine states needed to ratify the Constitution. In order to persuade his fellow delegates to vote in favor of the U.S. Constitution, Langdon delivered an “election sermon” entitled, The Republic of the Israelites an Example to the American States

After beginning by quoting Deuteronomy 4:5-8, in his sermon, Langdon noted, “[T]he Israelites may be considered as a pattern to the world in all ages; and from them we may learn what will exalt our character, and what will depress and bring us to ruin. Let us therefore look over their constitution and laws, enquire into their practice, and observe how their prosperity and fame depended on their strict observance of the divine commands both as to their government and religion.”

Langdon then gave an account of how Moses, upon the wise counsel of his father-in-law Jethro (“the priest of Midian”), set up a republican form of government, with representatives (“leaders,” “rulers,” “judges,” depending on the biblical translation) from groups of thousands, hundreds, fifties, and tens. In addition, 70 elders, or wise-men—a type of national Senate as described by biblical and Jewish scholars—were selected by Moses and approved by the consent of the people. 

Langdon added, “A government thus settled on republican principles, required laws; without which it must have degenerated immediately into aristocracy, or absolute monarchy. But God did not leave a people, wholly unskilled in legislation, to make laws for themselves: he took this important matter wholly into His own hands, and beside the moral laws of the two tables, which directed their conduct as individuals, gave them by Moses a complete code of judicial laws.”

Langdon goes on to describe how this republican form of government helped the nation of Israel grow from a “mere mob” (if only the 18th century French had taken notice) to a “well regulated nation, under a government and laws far superior to what any other nation could boast!” After detailing Israel’s later struggles—they would eventually “[neglect] their government, [corrupt] their religion, and [grow] dissolute in their morals”—Langston exhorted his fellow citizens to learn from the nation of Israel. 

“That as God in the course of his kind providence hath given you an excellent constitution of government,” said Langston, “founded on the most rational, equitable, and liberal principles, by which all that liberty is secured which a people can reasonably claim, and you are empowered to make righteous laws for promoting public order and good morals; and as he has moreover given you by his son Jesus Christ, who is far superior to Moses, a complete revelation of his will, and a perfect system of true religion, plainly delivered in the sacred writings; it will be your wisdom in the eyes of the nations, and your true interest and happiness, to conform your practice in the strictest manner to the excellent principles of your government, adhere faithfully to the doctrines and commands of the gospel, and practice every public and private virtue. By this you will increase in numbers, wealth, and power, and obtain reputation and dignity among the nations: whereas, the contrary conduct will make you poor, distressed, and contemptible.”

Samuel Langdon was far from alone in these assertions. John Adams noted that, “The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were…the general principles of Christianity.” America’s “Schoolmaster” Noah Webster in his 1832 History of the United States wrote that “our citizens should early understand that the genuine source of correct republican principles is the Bible, particularly the New Testament or the Christian religion.” Webster added, “The religion which has introduced civil liberty is the religion of Christ and His apostles…to this we owe our free Constitutions of Government.” 

Not only are the American founding documents and republican form of government the oldest actively in force in the world today, but for well over two centuries they have been profoundly influential across the globe. In writing their own constitutions, and forming their own government, literally hundreds of nations have looked to the U.S. model. However, the fire of liberty lit in America most effectively spread throughout the world where Christianity was already entrenched, influential, or—thanks to the great efforts of American and European missionaries—inevitable. Of course, as we can see, that is still the case. 

In her early forties, childless, married 17 years to a husband who didn’t want children—and had a vasectomy to prove it—Robin Rinaldi wanted to change things. Bored with monogamy, and fearing that she was going to end up alone, Rinaldi defiantly declared, “I refuse to go to my grave with no children and only four lovers. If I can’t have one, I must have the other.” 

Rinaldi, a former San Francisco magazine editor steeped in liberal Bay area values, negotiates with her agreeing husband to take a “year off” from their marriage so that she can “explore [her] sexuality.” Over the year, Rinaldi becomes sexually involved with about a dozen men, one woman, and along the way, joins a sex commune. (She also wrote a book about the tragedy.) 

“Sleeping with a lot of guys is going to make me feel better on my deathbed,” Rinaldi foolishly concluded to a friend. She added, “I’m going to feel like I lived, like I didn’t spend my life in a box.” Pondering those women trapped in a “box,” Rinaldi laments the poor Islamic women who don’t have the freedom she does. “[T]hose Afghan women hidden under their burqas,” Rinaldi notes, could be “beaten or even killed right now for doing what I was so casually doing.” Of course, she’s right, but little does she realize, the bondage she so easily sees in the life of the Afghan woman, has ensnared her as well. 

Copyright 2015, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World




Saturday, March 14, 2015

For Children, "Two Parents" Is Not Enough

Yesterday in the Washington Post, George Will again reminded us of  Daniel Patrick Moynihan's 50 year-old study, "The Negro Family: The Case for National Action." In his piece, Will uses Moynihan's conclusions to again remind us of the importance of the "two-parent" family model. "The assumption that the condition of the poor must improve as macroeconomic conditions improve was to be refuted by a deepened understanding of the crucial role of the family as the primary transmitter of the social capital essential for self-reliance and betterment," said Will.

Do we really need studies and data to show us what common sense and sound morality has always revealed? A culture that continues to ignore Scripture and depart from biblical truths does. Although, like the biblical account of the rich man and Lazarus, even if the ghost of Moynihan himself appeared with his study--and a thousand others like it--in hand, it seems that most liberals today would continue to deny the truth.

In focusing mainly on economic outcomes, Will conveniently left out an extremely important fact for children when it comes to the presence of two parents in the home. Given the tragic and perverse turn we've taken with marriage in our culture, this truth cannot be ignored. It's not simply two parents, with the implied dual incomes, that are necessary for the proper upbringing of children. Ridiculous as it is to have to say (again, and again, and again), children need a mother and a father. Of course, preferably their biological mother and father in a healthy marital relationship.

There are factors far more important than those in the economic realm when it comes to the family. And just as the work of Moynihan and many others has revealed the sad economic outcomes for children raised outside of the biblical family model, there is a mountain of research that reveals the same sad outcomes for these children in everything from education, to mental health, physical health, sexuality, criminal behavior, and so on.

Though liberals can somehow deduce a link between (supposed) rising global temperatures, and the rise of the likes of ISIS, the plain eternal truths on marriage, family, and children seems to escape them. When discussing the family, conservatives like Mr. Will would do well to remember this.

Copyright 2015, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Sunday, March 8, 2015

Boycott ABC's "Famliy" Network (As It Promotes Child Homosexuality)

We almost never watch the ABC "Family" network (Direct TV channel 311). Now we never will. It has officially been blocked on our TV. In case you've haven't heard, an episode of ABC's The Fosters, which airs during prime time on the "Family" network, recently featured "The Youngest Same-Sex TV Kiss Ever." The kiss occurs between two 13-year-old boys, Jude (who's, of course, raised by two lesbians) and Connor. The homosexual apologists are celebrating.

According to Dr. Michael Brown's piece on this tragic matter, "GLAAD, formally known as the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, stated that, 'ABC Family's The Fosters breaks new ground with Jude and Connor's kiss.' (For those who are not familiar with the show, Jude is raised by two lesbians, his adoptive parents.)

"Gabe Bergado, writing for the Daily Beast, claimed that the kiss set 'a fantastic standard,' one that 'reassures all the real-life Judes and Connors out there that their feelings of self-discovery during those middle school and junior high years are valid.'"

Satan knows well that, if you want to destroy a culture--in this case the most influential Christian culture the world has ever known--you destroy the institution that is at the foundation of every culture: the family. If you want to destroy the family, you strike at the heart of it: marriage. That marriage is the union of one man and one woman is one of the oldest truths in the history of humanity.

This truth was revealed the moment that God created Adam and Eve. Jesus clearly reaffirmed this in the New Testament. When asked about divorce (Matthew 19), Jesus quoted directly from Genesis chapters one and two. Speaking of marriage as a union of one man and one woman, Scripture records, "'Haven’t you read,' he (Jesus) replied, 'that at the beginning the Creator "made them male and female," and said, "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh?" So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.'"

If a culture rejects such a basic truth, it is on the road to ruin. Of course, with adultery, divorce, fornication, promiscuity, pornography, and the like, Satan has waged war on marriage and the family for millennia. In order to make themselves feel good about their sexual sin, the homosexual agenda has been a tool of Satan in the battle against marriage and godly sexuality for decades now.

After all, if marriage as God gave it to us isn't the truth, then what is truth? And if Satan can cause us to question the truth of marriage, then he can deceive us in almost anything. (How many millions have been deceived into believing that a child in the womb was a "choice?") Make no mistake about it, same-sex "marriage" isn't the first perversion of the truth to strike at the family and it certainly will not be the last.

Also, that the liberal dominated media would be a tool of Satan in this battle is of little surprise. One of the main goals of the liberal media is to portray any and all perversions of the truth on marriage and family as normal and healthy. Let us use the media as a tool for truth! Join us in the "Marriage Commitment Challenge."

Copyright 2015, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Sunday, March 1, 2015

"I'm Going to Love You Any Way"

Before you read anything else, listen to Sam Martin's song to his unborn son:


Until I came across this a few days ago, I had never heard of Sam Martin. Martin is a singer, song-writer who has worked with the likes of One Direction and Nick Jonas (which, though impressive to some, means almost nothing to me). I have no idea if Martin is a believer, but his song speaks a powerful pro-life truth: life in the womb is just that, and is precious and worthy of our love. And remember, love isn't merely something we feel.

As I've noted before, "As C.S. Lewis put it, '[Love] is a state not of the feelings but of the will; that state of the will which we naturally have about ourselves, and must learn to have about other people.' In other words, do not bother so much about how you feel towards someone; act like you love them. In other words, do and say the things that true love requires. Feelings and emotions come and go, but our will can be forever unwavering. 

"Consider 1 Corinthians chapter 13, where the Apostle Paul reveals to us what true love is. 'Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails.'

"Patience, kindness, a lack of envy or boasting; humility, politeness, and controlling your temper; keeping no record of wrongs, and so on—these all are matters of the will. As soon as you do these things, Lewis notes, 'we find one of the great secrets. When you are behaving as if you loved someone, you will presently come to love him.'"


Of course, "behaving as if" you love the most vulnerable human beings among us--those in the womb--means that you give them everything necessary for their safety and well being. Whether a child in the womb, a difficult toddler, an awkward or rebellious teenager, a self-centered foolish adult, or an aged senior citizen burdened with dementia, we choose to say to them "I'm going to love you any way you are." And then we do all that true love requires.

(An interesting note: Martin was moved to write this song after he saw his son's heart beating on the first ultrasound his wife had. Martin said, "The lyric came right then — 'I’m going to love you anyway.'" He described the moment as "a spiritual experience." Isn't it amazing the truths that modern science reveals--undeniable even to unbelievers--and what it can move us to do?! This is exactly the reason why many want to require those seeking to kill their children in the womb to view an ultrasound of the unborn child. How many would have made a different decision on life if they had the experience of an ultrasound?)

Copyright 2015, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Thursday, February 26, 2015

GA Democrat David Scott is a Food Stamp Fool

U.S. Democrat Congressman David Scott, who represents Georgia's 13th congressional district, recently revealed himself to be little more than a fool when it comes to food stamps and the family.

U.S. Congressman David Scott


Yesterday the House Energy and Commerce Committee met to review the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP--or in other less politically correct terms, "food stamps"). During the hearing, Scott began, "First of all, the situation regarding employment and jobs, poverty, all of that. All of that has been structured into our economic, social policy over the last quarter-century."

Proving himself a good member of the "He-Man Hate-America Club" that Rudy Giuliani helped expose, Scott said that the U.S. had a "policy of sending so many of our young eligible fathers to prison." This was nothing more than a lame attempt at justifying the recent massive growth in the food stamp program. Scott added, "Our prison population went from 300,000 in 1975 to over two million today. These are providers who are not there. This is why we have so many single female head of households. I mean, so when you look at everything we have done, we've got to correct some of these things first."

Scott is correct to link the breakdown of the family with poverty in the U.S., and we certainly need to "correct some of these things first." As Scott himself points out, "Sometimes, it’s not getting the right answer that matters if we don’t set up the right problem to get to that right answer."

However, as is typical with virtually every Democrat politician, his search for the "right answer" behind the breakdown of the family is completely misguided. As is the case with most every Democrat in the U.S. Congress today, Scott has a terrible pro-family voting record. And, of course, like all good liberals, his solutions to the problems that result from the breakdown of the family are expensive government programs.

Additionally, Congressman Scott is so blinded by his liberal ideology that he doesn't see any fraud in the food stamp program. Scott asked, "Where are examples of the fraud? Where are the examples of the abuse?…I can’t find any answers on that. I want somebody to tell me, where is the waste? Where is the abuse? And where is the fraud…" While they were trying to stifle their laughter, I sure hope someone on that committee had the good sense to answer Mr. Scott's questions. If nothing else, they could ask Congressman Scott why he doesn't even bother to read government reports that reveal the massive fraud and abuse that exists with food stamps.

Copyright 2015, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Saturday, February 21, 2015

Neal Boortz is (Still) an Idiot on the Moral Issues

I often eat my lunch (11:45-12:15) at school in my classroom. When I do, I usually turn my little clock radio next to my desk on to WSB (Atlanta). This means I catch the very end of the Herman Cain show, the noon news, and the very beginning of Rush’s show.

This past Friday, Neal Boortz must’ve substituted (as he sometimes does) for Herman Cain. I heard a brief political discussion between Boortz, WSB’s morning host Scott Slade, and WSB’s chief political correspondent (often heard on Sean Hannity’s radio show), Jamie Dupree. As soon as I turned on the radio, I heard Boortz ranting—as he often does—about the attention republicans are giving to the “social issues.” He specifically mentioned same-sex (I think he said “gay”) marriage.

I can’t yet find any audio of the exchange from Friday, but Boortz sounded very much like he does here:



In this exchange with Jamie Dupree in late 2012 on “gay marriage” Boortz declares, “No one has ever been able to show me how this whole thing about gay marriage is going to affect me, my life, the future of my family, my daughter, her husband, my grandbaby, it’s going to have no effect on [us].”

He then asks Jamie Dupree, “Do some other elements out there, Jamie, just revel in getting these issues in front of the people so that they just ignore the stuff that’s really important to them?” Dupree replies, “I don’t know [it’s] so they ignore the stuff. I do think that this is an important issue for some people on the right.” An indignant Boortz then asks, “On what basis?!”

Unable to well articulate the Christian conservative position on this grave issue, Dupree, sounding frustrated, weakly replies, “Look, that’s how they feel. Whether it’s right or wrong in your own mind isn’t the point, is it? It is an important issue for them.”

Boortz then gives the predictably moronic reply so often thrown out by liberals who rabidly support all things homosexual, and libertarians who seemingly just don’t want to exert the mental effort necessary to understand why redefining marriage (and other similar moral issues) is so important: “If they’re so opposed to it, then don’t marry somebody of their sex. Wow, problem solved.”

(Of course, this sounds a lot like the bumper sticker you see often in support of the “right” to kill children in the womb (a moral issue that Boortz is also infamously bad on): “Don’t like abortion? Then don’t have one.” Whenever someone tries this nonsense on you, reply with: “So according to your logic, ‘Don’t like slavery? Then don’t own one.’ is a valid argument to be made?”)

Dupree continues to display his ignorant simpleton thinking on the matter and replies, “Some things are a big deal for certain sections, certain groups of people, and not a big deal for others.” Boortz then presents a mocking hypothetical where the country is nearing economic collapse, and in his best hick voice concludes, “That may be so, but at least them gays can’t get married.”

This type of lame libertarian thinking on the moral issues is one of the biggest reasons why so many young people are deceived on marriage, abortion, and the like. Given all of his years on the radio and in print, I find it quite unbelievable that Boortz has never had a call, email, or a face-to-face that has given him the correct Christian conservative position on marriage, et al. Sad as it is, it seems that Boortz and his ilk regularly and intelligently need to be shown why redefining marriage is a disaster for the country—including and beyond the biblical reasons.

For example, libertarians like Boortz (rightly) despise the welfare state. Why despise it? After all, isn’t it simply a matter of “fairness” to take from those who have plenty (or just more) and give it to those who are poor (or to those who have less)? Don’t libertarians like Neal Boortz want to help those in need? Why is it “wrong” to empower the government in such a way?

Boortz has gone so far as to call (most of) the poor in America “perpetrators.” He adds that, “Barack Obama has placed more people on food stamps than any president in history. The goal here is not so much to take care of people who can’t afford their food, as it is to create a dependency society of loyal Democrat voters. These are people who have discovered that they can earn a living at the ballot box.” To illustrate this, Boortz provides a “factoid:” “In the great social welfare state being constructed by Democrats, a person can do as well working one week a month at minimum wage as they can working [a] $60,000-a-year, full-time, high-stress job.” (Emphasis his.)

Boortz (again, rightly) fears for the country. To have tens-of-millions of Americans so dependent on government is an unsustainable financial disaster that will reap tragic benefits for most all of us, and may destroy the country as we know it. As Ben Franklin put it, “When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.”

Boortz (again, rightly—libertarians do get much right) is implying that the welfare state gives millions upon millions of Americans, who are otherwise quite capable, an incentive to be lazy, and thus shields them from suffering the “right and just” (“If a man does not work, he shall not eat.”) consequences of their immoral actions—consequences that might well help them see the error of their ways and turn from their wickedness. In other words, Boortz is making a moral argument against the welfare state. (He also seems to understand well my proverb, “It is no act of charity to be generous with someone else’s money.”)

And just when did the U.S. embark on this disaster? As the Heritage Foundation noted earlier this month, “Fifty-one years ago, President Lyndon B. Johnson launched the War on Poverty. Since then, taxpayers have spent more than $22 trillion fighting Johnson’s war, three times the cost of all military wars in U.S. history. Last year, taxpayers spent more than $920 billion on 80 different anti-poverty programs.”

What other national disaster began around the same time as, and has greatly contributed to the growth of, the welfare state? The sexual revolution, which of course, led to the collapse of the biblical family model in America. As the Heritage piece also notes, “A major reason for the nation’s lack of success for the last half century has been the collapse of marriage. Marriage is a powerful force in reducing poverty; a single mother with children is four times more likely to be poor than a similar mother who is married. More than two-thirds of all poor families with children in the U.S. are headed by single parents.”

Boortz seemingly understands the link to out-of-wedlock births and poverty when he gives his three steps for avoiding poverty: 1.) Stay in school 2.) Don’t get pregnant (Presumably he means outside of marriage. Gasp!—Again, sounds rather like a bit of “moralizing” on the part of Mr. Boortz!) 3.) When you get out of school, get a job. Any job. And keep that job until you can find one that pays better.

Of course, children need their biological parents to be, and to remain, married for reasons that extend far beyond those that are financial. How often must that which common sense (or at least it used to be common) and sound morality have always revealed be repeated to libertarian dolts like Boortz: children are meant to be raised by their mother and father! It is in the best interest of good government to encourage this, or to at least not undermine it. It has been pointed out ad nauseam the tragic consequences that often result when children grow up in a home without their mom and dad. What a disaster we are forcing on millions of unsuspecting and powerless children when our culture won’t recognize one of the longest standing truths in the history of humanity!

Are you understanding “the basis” for standing up for marriage now, Neal? (And please, don't try the "We shouldn't legislate morality" nonsense.)

What’s more, if the courts force same-sex marriage upon all of America, the terrible consequences will infect all of the U.S., as homosexuality and same-sex “marriage” will have the full force of the U.S. law behind it. This means that the lawsuits against small (or large) businesses (that are already bankrupting some) who refuse to participate in this perversion will be on the increase. In addition, churches, individuals, and organizations who speak out against this perversion will face “civil rights” penalties.

Perhaps worst of all, school children at every level all across the country will be taught that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality and the perverse redefinition of marriage. Thus hundreds-of-millions of American children will grow up with an even more distorted view of what marriage and parenting are really all about.

Additionally, once the legal precedent for redefining marriage is set, the door is open for polyamorous marriage, incestuous marriage, and the like. If we are morally blind to homosexual "marriage," then we must be to the other perversions as well. Do you see now, Mr. Boortz, how this affects not only the future of your family, but the future of us all?

Copyright 2015, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Wednesday, February 18, 2015

Debating the "Undebatable"

Well, as Gomer Pyle (a fitting symbol for today's liberalism) would put it, "Surprise, surprise!" Scott Walker has (again) disappointed a member of the liberal media. Rest assured, it won't be the last time, especially if he runs for the GOP nomination for U.S. President. The trouble for liberals with Walker however, is that he has already taken many of their best punches. Democrats desperately dug deep on him in their vain attempts to unseat him as governor of Wisconsin.

Thus, we now have to hear about how important it is that the President of the United States needs to be a college graduate. It seems this is especially so the U.S. President can be well versed in Darwinian evolution.

In spite of Walker's lack of a college pedigree, the Washington Post's Richard Cohen thinks, hypothetically, he could have supported Walker for president, until last week that is. "If I were a Republican," Cohen declared yesterday, "I think I might have supported Scott Walker for president." Cohen goes on to compliment Walker's smile, tenacity, and his "adherence to principle." 

What did a Walker do last week that made Cohen's "faux conservative heart" sink? Mr. Walker balked when asked about evolution. According to Cohen, this makes the Wisconsin governor "either an ignoramus or a coward." (And only an "ignoramus or a coward" could defeat liberals 3 times in 4 years in the deep purple state of Wisconsin, right Mr. Cohen?) Because, of course, being.asked if one believes in evolution, "is precisely no different than asking whether one believes in the theory of gravity or general relativity."

Because, you see, "It is simply not possible to contest evolution, since it is the basis of all the biological sciences. The issue is closed, not-debatable...," adds Cohen. Ah yes, you know you've struck a nerve with liberals when you've tread upon that which is "not debatable." So we've gone beyond "the science is settled" to, "No matter what you or anyone else has to say, we're just not going to talk about that anymore."

Be it the "right" of a women to kill her unborn child, the new-found "right" to "marry" whomever one desires, the "right" to live as whatever gender one desires (no matter the plumbing God gave you), the notion that the earth is on a "slow boil" (Cohen's words--he must not live in the eastern U.S.), or Darwinian evolution, there seems to be an ever-increasing number of things liberals don't want to discuss, much less debate.

Yes, in liberal-land, the (supposed) billions of years of biology that describes the "how" (and I suppose the "why") of all living things is settled, but the biology of human anatomy and physiology, that we can see with our own eyes, is a mystery that we are still figuring out. In other words, though an individual might be born fully male, with all of the proper attachments, and lived as such for decades--even competing in the Olympics as such--if he suddenly decides he is a woman, and wants to mutilate his God-given body (and even have the taxpayers foot the bill!), this is not disease or madness, but bravery, and worthy of legal protection and every accommodation imaginable.

And as I must constantly remind those who think Darwinian evolution is "the basis (or "foundation") of all the biological sciences," just how is it that Louis Pasteur, a strong opponent of Darwin and his theory, operating from a strict biblical worldview, was able to become "the father of microbiology?" As I noted last year, "Pasteur, a microbiologist and chemist, who, along with giving us the process of pasteurization, disproved the theory of spontaneous generation (which put him at odds with Darwin and his work) and was a pioneer in the battle against infectious diseases (leading us to the process of vaccination).

"At times it seems that the (ridiculous) implication is that nothing in science can get done unless it is done from an evolutionary worldview. This is certainly the case in fields related to biology, but many Darwinian evolutionists would have us believe that everything from anesthesiology to zoology rests upon Darwinian evolution. Given that Darwin proposed his theory just over 150 years ago, it's a wonder anything at all was accomplished in science prior to 1850.

"Of course, much was. Generally considered the greatest scientist who ever lived, Isaac Newton--inventor of calculus, and famous for his laws of motion and universal gravitation--was a devout Chrostian and performed his work from a biblical worldview. On gravitation he noted, that 'Gravity explains the motion of the planets, it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done.'"

Additionally, Newton calculated the earth to be only a few thousand years old, and declared that, "For an educated man...any suggestion that the human past extended back further than 6,000 years was a vain and foolish speculation." But of course, this is much better than being an "ignoramus or a coward."

Copyright 2015, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com


Sunday, February 15, 2015

Answering the Evolution Question

I tried to warn them. In addition, back in 2012, after Marco Rubio was asked about the age of the earth, I provided conservative politicians (and others interested) a primer for answering some of the “gotcha” questions that most every conservative running for political office in the U.S. will inevitably face. It seems that Scott Walker or his staff need to spend more time on my website, or on American Thinker (one of the top conservative websites in America).

Byron York hopes Walker learned a valuable lesson. Silvio Canto at American Thinker doesn’t care what Scott Walker (or Hillary Clinton) thinks about evolution and wants to “pound on the guy asking these stupid questions.” Jonah Goldberg, like I did, correctly points out that, “the evolution question really isn’t about evolution at all,” and concludes that this incessant question “deserves to be cessant.”

As Goldberg puts it, on the surface, questions about evolution are really questions about the culture war (or, as I have alluded, the moral wars), and, beneath the surface, such questions are ultimately about the nature of man. And for liberalism to prosper, any notion of God or absolute truth to which man is ultimately accountable must at least be compromised, if not completely rejected.

This is why evolution—or, better put, Darwinian evolution (D.E.)—is deeply embedded in the foundation of liberalism. D.E. teaches that all life—plant, animal, human—billions of years ago sprang from the same single-celled source, strictly as a product of nature and natural processes (billions of years of death and struggle). Thus, as a liberal at Salon recently put it, “Darwin…explained the evolution of life in a way that doesn’t require the hand of God.” (His piece is gleefully entitled “God is on the Ropes,” and writes about the “brilliant new science”—isn’t it always—that expands on Darwin’s work and will finally liberate us from any idea that God was involved in creating life.)

Many, including those who call themselves Christians and/or conservatives, would like to ignore this tenet of D.E. Thus we now have the nonsense that is “theistic evolution.” This is nothing more than the sad attempt to reconcile God’s Word with what is perceived as the “settled science”—isn’t it always—on the beginning of life (that has misled the likes of even the Pope).

Even the rabid atheist and Darwinist Richard Dawkins understands the fallacy here. When asked recently what was the particular point at which he was able to conclude that God doesn’t exist, Dawkins replied that “by far” the most significant event for him was “understanding evolution.” He went on to say that he thought the evangelical Christians have it “sort-of” right when they see (Darwinian) evolution as “the enemy,” adding that there “really is a deep incompatibility between evolution and Christianity.” The “sophisticated theologians” who are “quite happy to live with evolution” are, as Dawkins puts it, “deluded.” How sad that it takes an atheist to point out the truth in this debate!

Nevertheless, well-meaning Christians, especially those aspiring to win elections, will continue to seek compromise here. Scott Walker himself demonstrated this when, after his perceived attempt at “weaseling on evolution,” he later benignly tweeted, “I believe faith & science are compatible, & go hand in hand.”

Politically speaking, I have no problem with Scott Walker “punting” on the question. (Right now, he’s my favorite potential GOP presidential candidate.) It’s no different than then presidential candidate Barack Obama’s “above my pay grade” response when he was asked about the beginning of human life. However, such a response by a conservative candidate is only likely to draw further such questions (whether on evolution, abortion, marriage, global warming, and the like). As I noted in 2012, it would have been better to turn the tables in such a way that would give left-wing reporters significant pause before again venturing down this path of questioning.

What’s more, again, as I noted in 2012, and as others have similarly pointed out in the last few days, Walker, or any other candidate, can use the approach taken by Jesus Christ Himself. Often, when doubters were attempting to trap Jesus with their “gotcha” questions, to reveal their ignorance and hypocrisy, Christ responded with a wise question of His own.

For example, first of all, when asked about evolution (i.e., as Walker was asked, “Do you believe in evolution?”), I would ask the reporter to clarify what she means by evolution (it’s highly unlikely that she will be able to do this articulately). If the reporter stumbles around and is unable to explain what she means by evolution, the candidate can reply: “If by evolution you mean the idea that all living things, such as humans, monkeys, elephants, antelopes, lions, lizards, apples, apricots, roses, and rhododendrons all have a common ancestor and are nothing more than the result of natural processes, and leave no role for a Creator, then no.”

Additionally, one could respond with (as James Taranto alluded to), “Why must one ‘believe in’ evolution?” I suppose it’s for the same reason that one must “believe in” man-made global warming: the science doesn’t really reveal what liberals want it to reveal.

If the reporter gives some silly response that, by evolution, he means that “things change over long periods of time” (i.e. “natural selection”), then the proper reply would be: “Of course I ‘believe in’ natural selection. But if by natural selection you mean the idea that all living things, such as humans, monkeys, elephants, antelopes, lions, lizards, apples, apricots, roses, and rhododendrons all have a common ancestor and are nothing more than the result of natural processes, and leave no role for a Creator, then no.” (What’s more, the VAST majority of Americans allow God at least some special role in creation.) In other words, natural selection is not synonymous with Darwinian evolution.

One could also do as Marco Rubio hinted at in 2012 and ask, “What does D.E. have to do with the gross domestic product or economic growth of the United States?” If a candidate really wanted to get cute, he could ask, “Why is it possible to reject completely D.E. and millions/billions of years (as did Newton and Kepler, who both actually took the time to calculate the age of the earth and found it to be only a few thousand years old), and still operate perfectly well in any scientific field including medicine (i.e. Pasteur)?”

Conservative candidates are never going to get the slack that liberals do when it comes to anything related to the moral issues. The liberals in the media are too personally invested in having those that share their (mostly) godless worldview win elections. Thus, any serious conservative candidate for higher office better spend some time thinking about how to answer such questions.

Copyright 2015, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Thursday, February 12, 2015

"Everywhere I Go I See You"

As the brutality of those who hate Christians and Christianity continues to make news, my recent prayer life has increasingly focused on those who are truly suffering for Christ. (Such suffering is almost completely unknown in the U.S.) When Michelle and I say bedtime prayers with our four children, we often pray for those who live in places "where it's dangerous to follow Jesus."

Praying in this way has made me think more about what my walk with Christ would be like if my life and limbs were in danger. More than once lately I've tried to place myself in the shoes of those who are losing their homes, properties, churches, and lives simply because they follow Jesus. Where is one's joy when you've lost, or face losing, everything you posses in this world?

I recently linked to this on my website, reporting on the death of  26-year-old American aid worker Kayla Mueller at the hands of ISIS. She had been held hostage by ISIS since August of 2013. Most of us are aware of the kinds of evil wrought by the Islamic radicals of ISIS. Their barbarism seems to know no bounds. Yet, in the face of this, her parents recently talked of how Kayla's "deep Christian faith gave her comfort during her captivity."

In a letter her parents received in the spring of 2014, Kayla wrote: "I remember mom always telling me that all in all in the end the only one you really have is God. I have come to a place in experience where, in every sense of the word, I have surrendered myself to our creator b/c literally there was no else ... + by God + by your prayers I have felt tenderly cradled in freefall."

"The only one you really have is God." In other words, God is the only One who is forever faithful. No matter where we may find ourselves, if we look and listen, He is there.

That brings to mind one of my favorite songs. Enjoy:



Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com