New Book

A Unique and Revealing Look at America!
The Miracle and Magnificence of America.
If you enjoy this site, please consider purchasing my recent book (as low as $9.99).
Click here to get it at Amazon. See here for more information.

Book Banner

Book Facebook

If you "Like" this page, please visit our Facebook page for
The Miracle and Magnificence of America and "Like" it. Thank you!!!

Latest News/Commentary

Latest News/Commentary:

News/Commentary Archives:

News/Commentary/AND NOW: Trevor's Columns Archived:

Thursday, June 14, 2018

The Ignorant, Godless Left Can’t Help Themselves

It seems the Republican National Committee’s (RNC) cash advantage over the Democratic National Committee (DNC) is even more pronounced than the numbers—$43.8 million to $3.4 million—indicate. As long as democrats like Nancy Pelosi vainly continue to attempt to ignore, downplay, or even bad-mouth good to excellent to record breaking (in more ways than one) economic numbers—and in the process be-clown themselves—the RNC will have to spend next to nothing when it comes to creating ads for the midterm elections.

Pelosi, in particular, is the gift that keeps on giving to the GOP. Cementing herself as one of our nation’s most morally and economically ignorant citizens, just prior to the GOP passing—and President Trump signing—sweeping tax reform legislation in December of last year, Mrs. Pelosi went on a historically foolish rant.

Awash in hyperbole and hypocrisy—remember, she leads the party that stands for, among other immoral outrageousness, the “right” to kill the most helpless and innocent among us, the “right” for boys to take trophies from girls, and the legal redefinition of the oldest institution in the history of humanity—she accused republicans of embracing “moral obscenity and unrepentant greed.”

Blind to her extreme “plutocracy hypocrisy,” the 78-year-old grandmother, who’s been in Congress for over 31 years and has a reported net worth of over $100 million, claimed that a vote for the GOP tax bill was “a vote to install a permanent plutocracy in our nation.” Forgetting that she represents those who hate our Founders and our military and those who think children are a “punishment,” Mrs. Pelosi also claimed that the GOP tax bill “does violence to the vision of our Founders” and “disrespects the sacrifice of our men and women in uniform. And it betrays the future and betrays the aspirations of our children.”

After the GOP tax bill went into effect and businesses and corporations started shelling out large bonuses and raises, Mrs. Pelosi then had the difficult duty of pretending that these were not really good things. Her “crumbs” comments have already come back to haunt her, and they should continue to do so.

Of course Nancy Pelosi is far from alone in her efforts to try to keep the American electorate from believing what they are seeing when it comes to the U.S. economy. Chuck Schumer echoed her “crumbs” comment; Debbie Wasserman Schultz joined in the “Liberals Against a Magnificent Economy” (otherwise known as LAME—I hear they’ll be opening for Madonna soon) chorus; and naturally, the establishment media aided and abetted these absurd attempts at deceit.

Along with trying to put increased wages in a bad light, Pelosi and her ilk also had the unenviable task of trying to convince Americans that more jobs is a bad thing. While trying to distract from record employment numbers, Pelosi attempted to disown the healthcare debacle that continues to plague millions of Americans. In other words, along with trying to convince American voters than increased wage and jobs numbers are somehow “fake news,” democrats are also hoping to dupe us into forgetting that it is they who wrecked our healthcare system.

The awesome May jobs report gave the left-wing media another opportunity to remind us how smart they are and how stupid President Trump is. They did about as well as they usually do. CNN’s Don Lemon said, “There’s no question today’s job report is good news, including the news that we’re as close as we’ve ever been to full employment in the black community. But what’s full employment without full respect.”

As Andrew Klavan aptly put it, “Don apparently thinks Americans don’t respect all black people. Who’s going to break the news that it’s just him we don’t respect?” Instead of the great news on jobs, NBC wanted to focus on—and pretend that they weren’t the only ones focused on—Trump’s “premarket tweet.” CNN’s chief national correspondent John King dared everyone to find a President of the United States prior to Trump “talking about, Tweeting about, communicating about the unemployment report before it came out.” Of course, someone took his dare and proved him laughably wrong.

Things have gotten so good economically—or bad, depending on your election hopes—and so deep is the left’s hatred for Trump and his administration that liberals have stooped to “A pox on you and your economy!” On a recent episode of his Real Time show, Bill Maher declared,
Can I ask about the economy because this economy is going pretty well? I feel like the bottom has to fall out at some point. And by the way, I'm hoping for it. Because I think one way you get rid of Trump is a crashing economy. So, please, bring on the recession. Sorry if that hurts people, but it's either root for a recession or you lose your democracy.
Actually it’s a republic—if we can keep it. And as is sometimes attributed to Ben Franklin himself, when the people find they can vote themselves money—as often happens when there is a ballot cast for a democrat—that will herald the end of the republic. In other words, Maher and his minions face a political Catch-22: to elect more democrats, liberals need a “crashing economy,” but the quickest way to a “crashing economy” is to elect more democrats. Good luck with that, Bill.

Maher’s selfish drivel was only upstaged by that of Robert De Nero—I mean “Niro.” Sorry, I sometimes confuse vulgar, debauched Romans. With his epic “F-Trump” rant, De Niro and his enthusiastically approving audience at the Tony Awards again reminded us—as if we needed reminding—of where hedonistic Hollywood stands on the political and moral spectrum.

Whether De Niro or Samantha Bee, Joy Behar, Susan Sarandon, Chelsea Handler, Lena Dunham, J.K. Rowling, Jennifer Lawrence, Jimmy Kimmel, George Clooney, Matt Damon, Danny Glover, Michael Moore, Seth Meyers, Stephen Colbert—the more they open their foul, godless mouths, the more they also remind us why Trump was elected and why liberals and liberalism have been so widely rejected.

(See this column at American Thinker.)

Copyright 2018, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor is the author of the The Miracle and Magnificence of America
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Monday, June 11, 2018

A Near-100% Guarantee on Preventing STDs

Despite being sexually active for over two decades,—I know, “TMI,” but you can hardly discuss sex and not have a little “TMI”—my wife and I have never spent even five seconds worrying about, or one dime preventing or treating an STD. This is chiefly due to the fact that our sexual activity exactly corresponds to our marriage years. We’re teaching our four children—ages 9, 12, 14, and 16—that if they conduct themselves similarly, they too will never have to ponder preventing or treating an STD.

For us, “conducting themselves similarly” means adhering to what God has said about sexual behavior. Namely, that the only rightful place for sex is within marriage. And marriage (How tragic that this even has to be said!) is ONLY the lifetime union of one man and one woman. That either of these statements is shocking or controversial—or even revealing—only goes to show how corrupt our culture has become when it comes to sexual morality.

Among other tragic outcomes, this corruption has led to an STD epidemic in the U.S. As I noted recently (more than once), according to The New York Times, a shocking 110 million Americans—more than one-third of our population—has an STD. A recent Drudge headline declared “STDs run rampant in USA.” The headline linked to a piece that reported on the “incredibly alarming numbers” of STDs in California.

Those were not the words of a reporter, but of Heidi Bauer, chief of the STD control branch of the California Department of Public Health. She added that the STD numbers in California amounted to “an epidemic.” Of course, Bauer’s solutions to their STD problem are the typical liberal California claptrap—i.e. condoms and cash.

According to Dr. Bauer—as is virtually always the case in these sad situations with those corrupted by liberalism—the solution to what ails us involves more money and bigger government. Along with blaming a lack of funding for public health programs for California’s rise in STDs, Dr. Bauer also blamed “the funneling of patients away from public health services toward primary care physicians.”

Of course, teaching kids the proper use of a condom is standard operating procedure for liberals when it involves anything dangerous in the sexual realm. According to The Daily Californian,
The STD Control Branch is approaching intervention through three different avenues: mandating sexual education in public schools, working with medical providers to ensure comprehensive STI testing and encouraging local health departments to ensure treatment for patients who test positive, according to Bauer.
The type of sex education The People’s Republic of Kalifornia would like to “mandate”—among other perverse things—provides a “sexual health toolkit” that is funded in part by the George Soros-connected Tides Center. According to Life Site News, this “toolkit”—among many other perverse things—“offers kids tips on using sex toys and anal lubricant. It defines ‘anal intercourse, ‘phone sex,’ and more as ‘common sexual behaviors’” and even has a section entitled “Wetter Makes It Better.”

In line with those who believe we have the right to rule our own world, the toolkit—or more aptly, “foolkit”—also tell kids that they may “[Have] Sex on Your Own Terms.” To clarify what this means, youngsters are provided with a “Relationship Bill of Rights.” This tells kids—kids!—that they have the “right” to:
  • Trust my feelings. 
  • Be with who I want, when I want, and how I want. 
  • Have sex when my partner AND I both want to. 
Is there any doubt that California’s—as well as the rest of America’s—STD epidemic is the result of such immoral information? Dr. Bauer also ignorantly concluded that California’s STD epidemic is “not confined to any particular group,” and she emphasized that the increases are across the board.

I can almost guarantee you that this is not true. As is the case across the rest of the world, there’s one group of Californians that are virtually STD free: monogamous, married (again: one man and one woman), early-committed Christians. In other words, those who decided—almost certainly because this was taught to them and modeled for them by their loving parents (a mother and a father)—prior to, or early in their teenage years, to follow Jesus and adhere to His teachings on sex.

This means celibacy unless married, and once married, complete sexual faithfulness to one’s spouse. If you live your life in such a way, it is nearly impossible to get an STD. This is not an easy path—especially in our sex-saturated culture—but as you’ve often heard, few things worthwhile are easy.

An STD-free life is just another peaceful and healthy benefit of the Christian lifestyle. And yes, Christians are generally healthier. This is a guiding principle behind the increasingly popular and growing number of Christian-based health insurance alternatives. These “health-care sharing groups” (my wife’s sister and her husband recently joined one) are marketed to “committed Christians” who must commit to, among other wise things, refraining from homosexual activity and extramarital sex.

As the left continues to force its immorality on the rest of us, don’t be surprised to see these types of healthcare alternatives grow even more popular. Thus, as almost always is the case in these situations, don’t be a bit surprised to see the left target these organizations. After all, remember, part of the goal of the left is complete acceptance of their perverse sexual agenda and vengeance upon all of those who resist.

Of course, one can be celibate, faithfully monogamous, STD-free, and otherwise healthy without being a Christian. However, outside of a faithful walk with our Creator, the immoral and dangerous sexual lifestyle of those corrupted by liberalism looms as a nearly irresistible temptation. In addition, no moral code has proved better than Christianity at producing a healthy, productive, responsible, and moral individual and society.

(See this column at American Thinker.)

Copyright 2018, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor is the author of the The Miracle and Magnificence of America
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Tuesday, June 5, 2018

Barr and Bee: What Do They Really Represent?

So we’re supposed to believe that a Chick-fil-A hating, socialist loving, foul-mouthed former Hillary and Bill Clinton supporter, and 9/11 Truther who once sang the worst rendition of our National Anthem in the history of our nation—afterwards grabbing her crotch and spitting (even Keith Olbermann was critical)—is someone who accurately represents Trump voters. Of course The New York Times, CNN, and MSNBC would have us believe that this is the case.

If only the real Roseanne were more like the TV version. But alas, we are left with the real thing. (I wonder: Who do liberals hate more right now?) As even the most elementary efforts to examine her personal and political past reveal, Roseanne Barr is certainly no conservative. Neither is she widely representative of a typical Trump voter.

She does, however, represent a great problem—for democrats. If someone with the liberal leanings of Roseanne Barr can be persuaded to vote for Trump—and if this can be replicated and repeated—democrats will remain the minority party for the foreseeable future. Just after Trump’s victory over Hillary, it was revealed—by a variety of sources—that Trump was able to peel off more than three times the percentage of Obama voters (13% to 4%) as Hillary was able to lure Romney voters.

If Roseanne embodies anything, she stands for those whose worldview is decidedly liberal, but nevertheless, voted for Trump. If similar numbers of today’s left are able to set aside their (literal) lust for sexual perversion and longing for a government sugar daddy, the democrats are in real electoral trouble. I suspect that more than anything else, this is why liberals were so quick to attack Barr and her show.

Samantha Bee, on the other hand, is anything but a contradiction. Like so many liberal “entertainers,” her foul and vulgar persona exemplify her politics. In other words, she could be the poster child for the always angry, endlessly anti-Trump “nasty” woman so common on the left today.

For all the left’s hyperbolic posturing about so-called “privilege” on the right, as David French recently alluded to, few today are more privileged than those who occupy the left-wing media. Whether news or entertainment, as long as the right—especially the Christian right—is the target, leftist mediacrats are nearly untouchable. Along with Bee, there are a myriad of examples.

After Roseanne’s gross insult of Valarie Jarrett, MSNBC invited Jarrett on their network to discuss the incident. On her left sat MSNBC host Al Sharpton. As Miss Jarrett herself might put it, and as Jeffrey Lord did put it, the event was a “teachable moment.” As Lord notes, whether blacks, whites, Jews, Chinese, Korean, Greeks, and so on, Sharpton has a loooong—often obscene and unapologetic—history of racial insults.

All of this was known when MSNBC hired him seven years ago. It was also known when Sharpton became an advisor to then President Obama; he was even described as Obama’s “go-to man on race.” Having Al Sharpton as your “go-to man on race” is like having Harvey Weinstein as your “go-to man on sexual harassment” or Keith Olbermann as your “go-to man on responsible social commentary.”

Olbermann is the perfect conservative-hating metrosexual male counterpart to the raging vagina hat-wearing feminazis exemplified by Ms. Bee. In spite of his lengthy history of using whatever media platform that will allow him to revoltingly weaponize the English language, ABC/Disney—who fired Roseanne quicker than you can say “Worst Person in the World”—continues to provide him with the opportunity to spew his hate.

Whether Joy Behar, Susan Sarandon, Chelsea Handler, Lena Dunham, J.K. Rowling, Jennifer Lawrence, Jimmy Kimmel, Robert De Niro, George Clooney, Matt Damon, Danny Glover, Michael Moore, Seth Meyers, Stephen Colbert, and on, and on, and on, the left is littered with these hate-filled fools. Samantha Bee’s comments just happened to fall closest to Roseanne’s in their seemingly never-ending cycle of attacking anything or anyone that might put Donald Trump in a positive light.

And remember, these people hate Trump because of where they have placed their hope. Because they have foolishly placed most of their hope in the forces of this world—in other words, because they have made a god of government, and because Donald Trump currently represents the greatest threat to this false god—the Hollywood left is, and almost certainly will remain, unhinged in their efforts to stop him.

As long as President Trump acts on conservative—especially Christian conservative—principles, he is undermining the left’s attempts at remaking America into a nation our Founders would not recognize and reminds them that, at least to some extent, they are losing their grip on the American culture. Thus, he—and his allies—must be politically, or even personally, destroyed.

Samantha Bee is simply another agent in this attempted destruction and another voice preaching the perverse worldview that dominates modern liberalism. As long as she remains reliably faithful to the mission of promoting what is sacred to the modern left—unlike Roseanne Barr—she will be allowed to keep her job and continue her propaganda.

(See this column at American Thinker and The Black Sphere.)

Copyright 2018, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor is the author of the The Miracle and Magnificence of America
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Monday, May 28, 2018

Again: They Kneel for a LIE!


I remember when taking a knee in football was one of the most satisfying things in this life. It used to mean one of two things: a well-deserved respite from the grueling grind of sweltering practices during the hot and humid late summer weather of the pre-season or the final magnificent moments before a looming victory in America’s most popular sport.

I was privileged to play organized football only from 7th grade through 12th grade. (I’ve always said that I had NFL hands, but my place-kicker size, and tackle—or maybe tight-end—speed kept me out of “The League.”) My middle school coach was “Rolling Thunder” Roger Thurmond. He was dubbed such because he was a Vietnam veteran who lost both of his legs and thus (usually) coached from his wheel chair, and because he was perfectly fiery and fierce as he coached us to near-perfection—at least in my 8th grade year when we went 4-1.

Interesting anecdote: I’ve had a broken bone only twice in my life. It was the same bone both times: my right collar bone. The second time it happened was during tackling drills when I was in 10th grade. The first time it happened was when I was wrestling on the playground in first grade. The best part of the story: the same guy broke it both times! Even his name—Bart Black—rings of villainy! And the perfect conclusion to this anecdote: when we slinked off the playground in first grade to let our teachers know something was amiss, we were immediately sent indoors. In addition to robbing us of our playground privileges—and unaware of my broken bone (she thought I was trying to get out of trouble)—our teacher paddled both of us! How I miss those days!

There are more than a few men in the NFL these days who could use a good paddling and more than a few leftist talking-heads who could use a good lesson in the limits of “free speech.” As we must continue to endure the ongoing debate about NFL players taking a knee during the National Anthem, the commentary from sports pundits—who notoriously lean left, especially sports writers—is the most telling.

Of all people observing and commenting on this debate, sports journalists should understand better than most what are the boundaries of their First Amendment rights. This is especially true of sports talk-show commentators on TV and radio. Their ownership won’t allow them to say anything they want on any topic—especially when it comes to things deemed politically sensitive. Otherwise, viewers and listeners may tune out and there might be harm to the “infamous” bottom line. More than one such host has been let go from his or her job, suspended, demoted, or otherwise punished because he or she crossed a line on speech that ownership did not support.

In other words, anyone working for a private company has limits placed on his or her “free speech rights.” Yet as the debate over NFL players kneeling just won’t end, many pundits, NFL players themselves, and even ignorant and hypocritical (the NBA already has a ban on Anthem protests) NBA coaches have made this an issue about free speech. Just another sad consequence of the government’s virtual monopoly on education, I suppose.

No, this isn’t really about “free speech.” If a group of NFL players used the field to protest against same-sex “marriage,” abortion, or some other wicked perversion held dear by the left, I’m almost certain that many of those now yammering about “free speech” would quickly revert to “shut up and play.” Also, where are these First Amendment champions when it comes to real speech infringement—such as what we are witnessing all across America’s college campuses?

What this is really about is why a group of attention-seeking, privileged multi-millionaires have decided to use company time to disrespect their fans and their country. In other words, why do they kneel? If these kneelers decided to heed sound advice and use their own time to make their political and “social” points, would it make their cause any more honest? In short, no. It would make their league more profitable, but their cause would still be foolish and misguided.

Again—as shockingly few are willing to point out—they kneel for a lie! As I’ve noted before, the lie is this:
There’s widespread and institutionalized racism inside America’s law enforcement agencies, and black Americans are especially targeted. This racism has led to the deaths of a disproportionate number of innocent black Americans. In order to stop this heinous activity, we need more gun control legislation, more wealth redistribution, more job and education programs, [and the like] and thus Americans need to elect more Democrats.
The unpopular fact is that black Americans are much safer in the presence of law enforcement than they are in black communities, especially when such communities—because of things like the “Ferguson Effect”—have little or no police presence. The statistics makes this clear.
  • According to the CDC, the leading cause of death among black males ages 15-34 is homicide. 
  • According to the FBI, the vast majority (over 90%) of black homicide victims were killed by other blacks. 
  • For decades, black Americans have been more likely to be victims of violent crime (almost always at the hands of other black Americans) than are white Americans. 
  • Time and again it is revealed: when police stop policing, crime increases, and black citizens suffer disproportionately. 
  • The most dangerous neighborhoods in America—all with large (usually majority) black populations—are dominated by Democrats and liberal politics. 
What’s more, according to Heather MacDonald, a police officer is 18.5 times more likely to be killed by a black perpetrator than an unarmed black person is to be killed by a cop. In other words, it’s much more dangerous to be a police officer staring down a black perpetrator than it is to be an unarmed black suspect encountering a cop. And perhaps the most shocking statistic of all: Black men in the U.S. are half as likely to die if they are in prison than if they are not. As Yahoo News noted,
Less than one percent of men (more than half of whom were black) in total died while in prison, and there was no difference between black and white inmates in that regard.
As Yahoo also points out,
If prisoners are better off in prison, then what does that say about the conditions plaguing low-income communities and the services being offered to people of color?
What it says—and what many have long been saying, including some wise members of the NFL— is that, when it comes to violence and crime in our communities we don’t have a skin problem—as in the case with our schools—we have a sin problem.

Specifically, we have a breakdown of the family problem. The fatherlessness that plagues our urban areas—especially black families—has led to a myriad of problems, not the least of which is criminal activity. This is the real problem we should all be on our knees about, and to which high-profile athletes should devote their attention.

(See this column at The Black Sphere.)

Copyright 2018, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor is the author of the The Miracle and Magnificence of America
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Thursday, May 24, 2018

Another School Shooting: Why and What Should We Do?

Two days before the recent mass murder of students at a Santa Fe high school in Texas, very near my home, a 13-year-old girl was killed when the car her father was driving hydroplaned and collided with a school bus. The girl’s father—who was also seriously injured—may face vehicular homicide charges because his tires were too slick.

Two weeks ago we endured the third anniversary of the death of my beloved pastor and father-in-law, David Fitzpatrick. David was killed by an impaired (alcohol and drugs), hit-and-run motorist. David’s killer pleaded guilty to first degree vehicular homicide, among other charges, and is now spending (hopefully) many years in prison.

Last month, just minutes from our home, a man with a history of domestic violence murdered his ex-wife and her sister, shot and wounded a 16-year old, and then killed himself. Thirteen-year-old and two-year-old children also in the home were spared serious injury.

On average, there are about 50 homicides a day in the U.S. Whether through criminal neglect or murderous intent, upon the sudden and tragic death of a loved one—among a myriad of other questions—each day in the U.S., thousands of Americans are left to ask “Why?”

I recall vividly the gut-wrenching moments on May 4, 2015 when we knew there was a bicyclist down in the area where my father-in-law used to ride. The calls to David’s cell phone that would never be answered; the rushed and lonely drive from my job to the crash site, still not knowing for sure whether David was alive; the moment I encountered the Georgia State Patrol officer who confirmed our worst fears; pulling into my mother-in-law’s driveway and watching her, my wife, and my wife’s sister awash in grief; attempting to comfort our four children; making the phone calls to David’s and Margie’s siblings, my parents, et al, telling them of the terrible news—like so many others who deal with such a loss, all of this sent me to an awful place I had never before been and never want to return.

What’s more, the investigation into David’s death led us to discover that his killer had a decades-long criminal past (including multiple drug-related crimes) that was ignored—due to a lack of proper inquiry—by our local law enforcement when he was on trial for other charges in 2010. If the judge then had been aware of these past convictions, David’s killer almost certainly would have then faced serious jail time instead of mere probation. We will always wonder if David might still be alive if the district attorney’s office had done its job in 2010 and presented the evidence needed to put his killer behind bars. As is often the case in these tragedies, we sometimes wonder: would this have changed things? And: how do we prevent this from happening again?

Thus, after once again witnessing students slaughtered at the hands of a lone gunman bent on evil, I understand—though I typically strongly disagree with—those who want “action” from their government on “gun control.” I also understand those asking, “Why did this happen to us?”

As unpopular as this is likely to be, I’m going to say it anyway. The answer to “why” these dreadful things happen is nearly as old as creation itself: sin. As my late father-in-law would sometimes point out in his sermons, if you are hurting, if you are suffering, it is almost always due to one of two things: your sin or the sin of another. Just prior to the first murder in the history of humanity, God warned Cain,
If you do well, will not your countenance be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it.
The very next verse describes Cain murdering his brother Abel. Cain—like the rest of us—should have learned from the failure of his father and mother: walk with God and live in peace, or go your own way, do your own thing—i.e., rule your own world—and live in fear and suffering. Whether we like to admit it or not, operating out of our own selfish desires, each of us is capable of terrible things.

Most of us do not think ourselves capable of murder, but Jesus warned us that anger in our hearts makes us “subject to judgment.” On countless moral matters we have ignored the Word of God and gone our own way. This is the ultimate problem facing the world, and there’s only one solution.

This has always been the case. From very near the beginning of time, human beings have been killing one another, stealing from one another, enslaving one another, sexually abusing one another, and so on. God gave a perfect Law—upon which all other human laws should be based—to reveal to us what is right and what is wrong. Knowing that none of us is capable of perfectly keeping His Law, and thus were (and are) “guilty” of breaking all of it, God made a Way that we all might be “saved.”

Another unpopular sentiment: in the eyes of God, your sin and my sin make us just as guilty as a mass murderer. What’s more, because of our desire to elevate human “wisdom” and determine truth for ourselves while at the same time ignoring God’s wisdom and His eternal truths, we have become blind to what is sin, or “evil.”

For example, large swaths of our culture think that hunting for sport is morally unacceptable but killing an unborn child is okay. Additionally, many Americans—especially so-called “millennials”—believe the “right” to do whatever one wishes in the sexual realm is more important than freedom of speech or freedom of religion.

In other words, and as most in their right-minds well know, many in our culture have stooped to calling what is good evil and what is evil good. To say that marriage is only the union of one man and one woman—in other words, agreeing with God on the matter—will quickly get one labeled a “bigot.” To oppose the radically perverse gender agenda of the modern left—e.g., simply pointing out the biological differences between a male and a female—can draw protests and threats of physical or financial harm.

Since Columbine (1999), using a very liberal definition of a “school shooting,” there have been 287 deaths as the result of someone wielding a gun at or near a school. In that same period, millions of children have been slaughtered in the womb. Countless children and adults alike have suffered—many to the point of death—as the result of divorce, “shacking up,” sexual promiscuity, and the like.

To stem the tide of evil, we must encourage a culture—in our personal lives, as well as our homes, businesses, schools, and government—that embraces the eternal truths of our Almighty God. We will never completely eliminate, or solve the problems of, evil in this world. We will not make any real progress—something that can be achieved—towards defeating evil in this world unless we recognize truly what is evil and what is to be done about it.

(See this column at American Thinker.)

Copyright 2018, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor is the author of The Miracle and Magnificence of America
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com