Tuesday, April 21, 2015

Andy Stanley Still Sending Mixed Messages on Marriage/Sexuality

Last year, when the Kansas House of Representatives passed their version of a religious liberty bill, Pastor Andy Stanley was quoted as saying that he found it “offensive that Christians would leverage faith to support the Kansas law.” He added, “Serving people we don't see eye to eye with is the essence of Christianity. Jesus died for a world with which he didn't see eye to eye. If a bakery doesn't want to sell its products to a gay couple, it's their business. Literally. But leave Jesus out of it.”

In response to him and others at the time, I penned "There's Nothing Wrong in Kansas (but is there something wrong with Andy Stanley?)." It seems that Pastor Stanley is still struggling with the idea of how the church should deal with all things homosexual. As the Christian Post notes, speaking at a church leadership conference in California this past Friday, Pastor Stanley declared that local congregations should be the "safest place on the planet for students to talk about anything, including same-sex attraction."

He added, "We just need to decide from now on in our churches when a Middle School kid comes out to his small group leader or a high school young lady comes out to her parents...regardless of what you think about this topic — no more students are going to feel like they have to leave the local church because they're same-sex attracted or because they're gay. That ends with us."

Of course, he's absolutely correct. Churches should be the "safest place on the planet for gay youth." I wonder though: does pastor Stanley have the same inclinations towards prostitutes or those who struggle with pedophilia (whose numbers are very similar to those with same-sex attractions). Shouldn't the church be a welcoming environment for those as well? (As the old saying goes, the church is a not a sanctuary for saints, but a hospital for sinners.) Of course, the answer to that depends somewhat upon the attitude of the attendee. Are they seeking the church in order to get help with their sin (or "struggles," or however it is they identify the pain they're in), or are they demanding that the church redefine sin?

"The church is mean to homosexuals" is a common straw-man tossed about by the secular left and other homosexual apologists. However, the pastor of one of the largest evangelical churches in the U.S. should know better than to borrow talking points from today's liberals. How long is the church at large going to be smeared by the words and actions of a few (i.e. the Westboro Baptist crowd)?

The vast majority of evangelicals take the same "hate the sin, love the sinner" approach to homosexuality that we are to take with all sin. However, this is not enough for today's left and their homosexual agenda. They are determined to eliminate homosexuality from the list of sins. 

If you doubt me on this, take note. Barely two weeks ago, no-less than an Op-Ed columnist, Frank Bruni, at The New York Times declared that Christians who see homosexual acts as sinful are making "a choice" to engage in "bigotry." Bruni boldly concluded that "homosexuality and Christianity don't have to be in conflict in any church anywhere." Right, they don't have to be in conflict, as long as we accept the liberal definitions of sin and Christianity. 

I don't think that Andy Stanley is of this mind on Christianity and sin (at least I sure hope not!); however, he must surely be aware that this mindset is prevalent within modern liberalism, and therefore he should more carefully weigh his words when speaking on these grave matters. 

Pastor Stanley also wants churches to "take a break" for a year from the culture wars. (I prefer "moral wars.") In NO WAY should this be the case! Does anyone think those pushing the homosexual agenda are going to take a year off?! Yes, within the church (and Christianity in general) there seems to be an inordinate amount of attention given to issues like abortion, marriage, and homosexuality. However, this isn't the result of the church suddenly deciding that these issues are a special class of sin. It is due to the fact that abortion, homosexuality, and the like have a massive political/cultural machine behind them that seeks legitimacy along with total and complete acceptance--whether by force, deception, or other nefarious means--for these behaviors. (See above.)

Along with dominating the mainstream media, the liberals behind this machine own a political party (Democrats). With these massive cultural hammers, liberals have sought to pound traditional Christianity, along with other like-minded people, into submission when it comes to most anything in the sexual realm. In other words, it is liberals who have sought this fight, not Christian conservatives. Thus, without apology, abortion, marriage, homosexuality, and the like, deserve the attention well-meaning Christians give them.

I'll say it again: Marriage is the oldest institution in the history of humanity--older than God's covenant with the nation of Israel, older than The Law, older than the church. Marriage is one of the earliest truths revealed by God. If ANYTHING is true, marriage as the union of one man and one woman is true. On this, there can NEVER be compromise.

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

Sunday, April 19, 2015

Surprise!--(hear sarcasm)--LGBT "Anti-Bullying" Conference Presents Perverse Content to Teens

************************WARNING: GRAPHIC!!!***********************

Chalk this one under "What in the world did you expect?!" Or, perhaps more simply, "How could you be so stupid?!" As has been recently reported, about 1,000 Iowa teenagers, almost all students from Iowa high schools, attending the Iowa Governor’s Conference on LGBTQ Youth, were widely exposed to content that one parent described as "pornographic."

In addition to a profanity-laced presentation by a male transvestite, there were discussions on a variety of methods of oral sex (including anal), and descriptions of how to properly vandalize the property of those opposed to the homosexual agenda. There was plenty of talk of orgies and condoms, but very little on bullying. As one observer noted, "It’s a conference teaching kids how to: how to be confidently homosexual, how to pleasure their gay partners – one session even taught transsexual girls how to sew fake testicles into their underwear in order to pass themselves off as boys.”

The biggest surprise was the shock of some of those attending. The father of a Des Moines high school senior reported that his daughter was "absolutely distraught," and like many other students and teachers, "left the conference early in shock." He also noted that the conference "was crude" and that it was "basically a sexual education class for same-sex couples...One presenter told students who asked whether anal sex hurt that, as a lesbian, it really depended on how big the device is that their partner straps on."

What did these fools expect?! The homosexual agenda is consumed with sex. Sex is their religion. As I've often noted, the homosexual movement is not really that concerned with bullying, or marriage, or anything other than forcing the full acceptance of homosexuality upon every facet of our culture.

The sponsors of this perverseness:
  • Principal Financial Group
  • Nationwide
  • Office Depot
  • The TJX Companies, Inc. (T.J.Maxx, Marshalls, HomeGoods, Sierra Trading Post)
  • The Iowa State Education Association
  • The University of Iowa
  • Iowa Association of School Boards
  • School Administrators of Iowa
  • Episcopal Diocese of Iowa
The EPISCOPAL CHURCH?!!! I wish I could say that I'm surprised.

There's been a lot of talk of bullying in schools these days--especially public schools. While certainly bullying is nothing to ignore, I've seen nothing to convince me that it's any worse today than it was at other time in our past. These anti-bullying campaigns seem suspiciously like another left-wing attempt at pushing the liberal agenda--especially the homosexual agenda. If your child is in a public school, be very wary of any "anti-bullying" campaigns. 

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

Friday, April 17, 2015

Marco Rubio is Sounding Weak on Marriage

Scott Walker had to do it on evolution. Rand Paul had to do it over his treatment of female reporters. And now Marco Rubio has had to do it on marriage. Others will get their turn. The liberal media will make sure of that. In fact, every serious GOP presidential candidate will have to answer liberal "gotcha" questions multiple times over. One would think they would have learned how by now. If you're a conservative, you don't win elections by answering such questions in a manner that you think will please liberals.

When asked by a liberal reporter from Fusion this week whether or not he would attend the same-sex "wedding" of a homosexual friend, family-member, or co-worker, Rubio replied, "If it’s somebody in my life that I love or care for, of course I would."

Rubio went on to say, "I’m not going to hurt them simply because I disagree with a choice they’ve made or because I disagree with a decision they’ve made, or whatever it may be. Ultimately, if someone that you care for and is part of your family has decided to move in one direction or another or feels that way because of who they love, you respect that because you love them."

Rubio's comments sent many a liberal into their "hypocrisy" dance, and at the same time, satisfied many conservatives. Guy Benson of Townhall.com said that Rubio "gamely" addressed the gotcha-style question with a "serious, compassionate answer." I don't doubt that Senator Rubio has "compassion" in his heart on this matter. However, his compassion is misguided. Given the amount of time a U.S. presidential candidate that is a conservative and a Christian should have spent on this matter, I expected better.

I would never attend an event--family, friend, or otherwise--that celebrated homosexual acts. The reason that the law should not recognize homosexual "marriage" is that such unions are immoral and have tragic consequences on many levels. If you fail to recognize that in your personal life, why should you be trusted to legislate on such grave matters?

Additionally, according to Breitbart, Rubio and Rand Paul did not sign the Congressional friend-of-the-court brief requesting that the Supreme Court not force a redefinition of marriage upon the whole nation. Why did Rubio and Paul not take such an opportunity on this grave matter? Again, according to Breitbart, "The Paul camp has not been willing to go on the record and the Rubio campaign claims his views are well known and offered a handful of his public statements. However, the Rubio campaign did not answer why he did not sign the brief and take his views directly to the Supreme Court."

I like both Rubio and Paul as strong conservative presidential candidates. However, as ridiculous as it is, the legal definition of marriage is a terribly important issue in our time. Marriage is the oldest institution in the history of humanity. Marriage as the union of one man and one woman is one of the oldest truths revealed by God. If ANYTHING is true, marriage as God gave it is true. Any candidate worthy of my vote better acknowledge this and live it.

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

Monday, April 6, 2015

On Marriage: Never Give In. Never, Never, Never…

The battle raging over religious liberty on several fronts across the U.S. has been quite revealing. Most telling are the lengths to which liberals continue to go to ensure that the homosexual agenda roars on undeterred. As Ross Douthat has alluded, the political and cultural melee we’ve endured the last several days is because the perversion on marriage wrought by liberals has prospered to the point that an ever growing number of Americans have found themselves in the crosshairs of today’s gaystapo.

Interestingly, and sadly, religious liberty laws like what passed in Indiana, the one that failed in my state of Georgia, the one sent back to the legislature by the governor of Arkansas, and that exist across the rest of the country, have served as little to no protection for business owners, who, because of their religious convictions, want nothing to do with SSM. This is especially the case in states where SSM is legally recognized.

As Tobin Grant noted on the Washington Post recently, “In the 20 years since RFRA became federal law, there has not been a single case in which a person successfully used RFRA to get around civil rights laws.” And if SSM is legal in a state (as the liberal courts ensured in Indiana), it is a “civil right.” In spite of this, liberals insist that such legislation is nothing more than a license to “discriminate.”

Of course, the timing of these attempts at mimicking the federal RFRA is what has liberals up in arms. In part, they are correct. These attempts at religious liberty legislation are, at least in part, a conservative political response to what is rightly seen as a rogue judiciary forcing marriage perversion upon states whose electorate OVERWHELMINGLY rejected such perversion. Thus, this battle over religious liberty has turned into yet another debate over SSM.

Of course, this has brought liberals back to using their worn-out cry of “discrimination.” Whether used as a tool in an attempt to paint the police as oppressors, to justify their ridiculous environmental agenda, to defend the “right” to kill children in the womb, to promote virtually any kind of sexual act that deviates from the standards God gave us, and as fast and freely as they can spend other people’s money, liberals resort to bawling “discrimination!”

And they do it because it works. Rampant accusations of “discrimination” got GOP governors and many legislators in the states mentioned above to kowtow to the modern militant homosexual agenda. “No one should be harassed or mistreated because of who they are, who they love or what they believe,” said Indiana’s Governor Mike Pence as he sought to “clarify” his state’s foray into RFRA. Liberals took gleeful notice.

After Arkansas’s legislature passed their version of RFRA, Republican Governor Asa Hutchinson declined to sign it and sent the bill back to the GOP-controlled legislature to be “rewritten.” Hutchinson said, “We want to be known as a state that does not discriminate, but understands tolerance.” Notice that? Liberals got a GOP governor, in the midst of a religious liberty fight, no less, to tickle their ears with two of their favorites. It’s as if Slick Willie himself trapped Hutchinson in the Clinton Library and wouldn’t let him out until he yelled “discrimination!” and “tolerance!”

What’s more, many so-called conservative pundits in the media are very quick to express their support for the various and new-found “rights” (including marriage) of homosexuals. Fox’s Megyn Kelly and Bill O’Reilly have both been sympathetic to SSM and the “rights” of homosexuals for some time now. David Brooks captured well the current “progressive” thinking that has infected some conservatives in this matter when he recently wrote, “If denying gays and lesbians their full civil rights and dignity is not wrong, then nothing is wrong. Gays and lesbians should not only be permitted to marry and live as they want, but should be honored for doing so.” (Imagine that. We should “honor” a lifestyle notorious for disease, depression, and promiscuity.)

When overturning the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the U.S. Supreme Court’s swing vote Anthony Kennedy, wrote that DOMA created a “stigma upon all who enter into” same-sex “marriages.” He added that the law’s effect was to “demean” those in same-sex “marriages.” Kennedy also wrote that the “avowed purpose and practical effect” of DOMA was to “impose a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma” on those in same-sex “marriages.” In other words, the federal government was “intolerant” and thus “discriminating” against those in same-sex “marriages.”

I wonder if Justice Kennedy and his fellow homosexual apologists will have the same sympathies towards the polygamous, incestuous, or those same-sex couples who want to “marry” for reasons that have nothing to do with sex. Will he be as concerned about their “separate status” or the “stigma” they must surely suffer as their relationships are currently deemed less than others? In other words, are not these alternative (or perverse) relationships also suffering “discrimination?”

Of course they are. Though liberals are loathe to admit such, every position in the marriage debate requires a measure of “discrimination.” As an experiment, try to get a supporter of SSM to declare how the U.S. should legally define marriage. (My favorite line of questioning is, “How would you ‘discriminate’ and define marriage?”) In spite of all their blustering in this matter, it is next to impossible to get an answer.

Perhaps republican politicians should resort to such an approach. Sadly, they are far too eager to capitulate. It takes a strong will, a firm conscience, and a sure sense of what is right to stand against the homosexual agenda. Unfortunately, few politicians today can muster such character. This is especially the case if they fear it means a hit to their bottom line.

With the avalanche of court decisions in favor of SSM, sensing a swing in public opinion, and looking only to their bottom line, significant numbers of corporations are lining up against the truth in the marriage debate. A few weeks ago, more than 300 corporations issued a friend-of-the-court brief in the upcoming Supreme Court case that will decide if same-sex “marriage” will be forced on all of the U.S.

Many of these same corporations are now also pressuring states currently considering RFRA laws. Of course, many of these offended industries have been doing business for years with states that already had RFRA laws on their books, and many of them seem to have no problem doing business with communists or Islamists.

The sports industry has also fully embraced the “discrimination” meme, or is being heavily pressured to do so, when it comes to marriage and the homosexual agenda. A letter sent by Chad Griffin, president of the homosexual propagandists known as the Human Rights Campaign, to Roger Goodell, commissioner of the National Football League, said of Georgia’s religious liberty bill:

…Atlanta is a top contender for the Super Bowl in 2019, but this law directly contradicts the NFL’s nondiscrimination policy and values of acceptance and inclusivity. Should this bill become law, Georgia will not be a welcoming place for LGBT people or many other minorities.

NASCAR is disappointed by the recent legislation passed in Indiana,” said chief communications officer Brett Jewkes. NCAA president Mark Emmert was “especially concerned” about the Indiana legislation. Duke’s Coach K didn’t seem to be as concerned, and the living legend was called out for his silence on CNN. Former NFL punter and CNN contributor Kris Kluwe, who’s a rabid proponent of SSM, said “[I]f you are a superstar athlete or a superstar head coach, it is your obligation to be aware of these issues because you will be asked about them and you do have a platform to talk about these things and you should be knowledgeable about it because that is the world you live in. That is your society.”

Kluwe’s correct, though I’m sure when he means “talk about these things” he means “speak favorably about all things homosexual.” Like so many small business owners recently, any celebrity, even homosexual celebrities, caught deviating from liberal orthodoxy on homosexuality, are threatened, castigated, disparaged, mocked, boycotted, and so on. And when a pizza parlor in Indiana, and a florist in Georgia decided to “talk about these things” (mainly because they were asked about them)…well, you know the results.

Al Mohler was also right when last year he concluded, “We are in the midst of a massive revolution in morality.” And of course, “sexual morality is at the center of this revolution.” We are indeed at the “crossroads” Mohler referenced, and unavoidable showdowns are looming. More and more Americans, whether they like it or not, are being forced to make difficult moral decisions. In spite of the willingness of many mainline republicans to do so (because so many would love for all of this to just go away), the left is not silent on the social (moral) issues.

In other words, many Americans, who would prefer to remain on the sidelines as we continue to debate the moral issues in America, are being forced to declare with whom they stand. This fight is not for the weak, but like the battle for life in the womb, it is certainly worth having. And like with abortion, if the courts ignore the truth on marriage, our efforts must continue. We certainly can’t expect those who’ve aligned themselves with the enemy of truth to behave honorably.

Nevertheless, as Pastor Rick Warren instructs us, we cannot be afraid to be unpopular (which is very hard for most politicians and celebrities), and we must remember that the only way to be relevant is to make sure that our words and actions align with eternal truths. Don’t worry if you’re on “the right side of history;” you just need to be on the “right side.”

(See this column on American Thinker.)

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

Friday, April 3, 2015

David Brooks Wants Us to Honor Homosexuality

With supposed allies like The New York Times token “conservative” David Brooks, it is little wonder republicans find themselves constantly playing defense in the moral wars. Writing of the recent battle over religious freedom legislation that is raging across the U.S., Brooks, attempting to argue in favor of said legislation, makes several inane and ignorant statements. Of course, this is what results when one is corrupted by liberalism.

Using the oft-parroted notion of “love” (after all, who is against “love,” right?) when it comes to homosexual relationships, Brooks stupidly declares, “We are to be judged by how we love, not by whom we love.” Of course, this “love” argument is a worn-out straw man employed by liberals in order to paint conservatives with religious convictions against homosexuality as unloving. See it in action here.

The video on the above link shows CNN reporter Gary Tuchman of Anderson Cooper 360 questioning two female employees of a Christian florist in rural Georgia this past Wednesday. Displaying a typical liberal’s knowledge of Scripture, Tuchman asks, “The Bible talks an awful lot about love and loving your fellow man....You're not loving them if you don't want to serve them – right?” And we all get the implication, right? Christians who refuse to acquiesce to the homosexual agenda are “hateful.”

Taking exception to the pizzeria in a small town in Indiana who wants no part of same-sex “marriage,” yesterday, columnist Eugene Robinson penned, “Pizza With a Side of Hate.” In his piece Robinson ignorantly proclaims “a truth about same-sex marriage that should be blindingly obvious: Whether two men or two women decide to marry has not the slightest impact on anyone else.”

Such foolish libertarian thinking has duped many who are otherwise quite conservative in many facets of their politics. As I noted with libertarian dolt Neal 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!

Though David Brooks is an extreme outlier in the GOP, he is far from alone when it comes to capitulating to the homosexual agenda. Many pundits, politicians, and even pastors who typically align politically with republicans, and some who are deeply imbedded in the GOP, have decided that the party needs to surrender on homosexuality.

Brooks not only wants to surrender, he wants a celebration. He writes, “If denying gays and lesbians their full civil rights and dignity is not wrong, then nothing is wrong. Gays and lesbians should not only be permitted to marry and live as they want, but be honored for doing so.” No Mr. Brooks. If perverting and attempting to redefine the oldest institution in the history of humanity (even older than the church) isn't wrong, then nothing is wrong.

And there’s nothing to celebrate when we contradict one of the oldest truths revealed by God. And there is nothing hateful about living and speaking the truth when it comes to marriage. One of the greatest acts of love we can perform is telling people truths that we know they don’t want to hear. Whatever the politicians, pundits, courts, corporations, celebrities, and high church officials say, the truth on marriage remains and will for all time.

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

Wednesday, April 1, 2015

The Left’s Cries of “Discrimination” on Marriage Ring Hollow

As I have often done before, and as I will do until I die, let me once again defend the biblical view of marriage and sexuality. (Yes, that’s 21 links. I dare you to read them all.)

When overturning the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the U.S. Supreme Court’s swing vote Anthony Kennedy, wrote that DOMA created a “stigma upon all who enter into” same-sex “marriages.” He added that the law’s effect was to “demean” those in same-sex “marriages.” Kennedy also wrote that the “avowed purpose and practical effect” of DOMA was to “impose a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma” on those in same-sex “marriages.” In other words, the federal government was “discriminating” against those in same-sex “marriages.”

I wonder if Justice Kennedy, and the other homosexual apologists, will have the same sympathies towards the polygamous, incestuous, "throuples," or those same-sex couples who want to “marry” for reasons that have nothing to do with sex. Will he be as concerned about their “separate status” or the “stigma” they must surely suffer as their relationships are currently deemed less than others? In other words, are not these alternative (or perverse) relationships also suffering “discrimination?”

Of course, one of the most frequent and favorite cries of the left is the dreaded “d-word:” discrimination. Never-mind that virtually every position in the marriage debate requires a measure of “discrimination.” In fact, American law is replete with acts that “discriminate.” For example, there’s age discrimination when it comes to voting, drinking alcohol, and piloting certain types of airplanes. Several states have mandatory retirement ages for judges.

In fact, we all “discriminate” regularly throughout virtually every facet of our lives. As an employer, we might discriminate when it comes to experience, ability, or education. My wife and I certainly discriminate when it comes to who we allow to care for our four children. And we are teaching our children (as does Scripture) that, as Christians, they better discriminate when they marry and not be “unequally yoked” (marry outside of our faith).

So the real dilemma for the left here lies not in their efforts to gain acceptance of same-sex marriage, but rather, how they would (eventually) discriminate and define marriage? Also problematic for liberals: upon what moral code would this definition rest?

As a Christians conservative, I understand well how marriage should be defined and the moral reasons why my discriminatory definition is justified. First of all, as a Christian I accept that God gave us the institution of marriage, and that the union of one man and one woman is THE foundation of every social institution the world over. Strong and healthy marriages lead to strong and healthy families. Strong and healthy families lead to strong and healthy communities. Strong and healthy communities lead to strong and healthy churches, schools, businesses, governments, and so on.

Also, science supports what common sense (for most) has long revealed: children, and society, function best when men and women are united in strong and healthy marriages. In “Marriage and the Law: A Statement of Principles” published by the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, the authors note that, “Children raised outside of intact marriages have higher rates of poverty, mental illness, teen suicide, conduct disorders, infant mortality, physical illness, juvenile delinquency, and adult criminality. They are more likely to drop out of school, be held back a grade, and launch into early and promiscuous sexual activity, leading to higher rates of sexually transmitted diseases and early unwed parenthood.” Thus, it is simply a matter of good government to promote—or at least do no harm to—an institution that is so beneficial to society.

However, the real effort of liberals (whether some realize it or not) in the marriage debate is NOT simply “marriage equality.” Many in this debate have been deceived; for you see, ultimately, this battle is not, nor has it ever been, about marriage or discrimination. The pro-same-sex marriage movement is an attempt to use the power of U.S. law to force the complete acceptance of homosexual behavior on a (mostly) unwilling culture.

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

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)
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
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)
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
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)
Trinidad and TobagoChristian6.99 (#48)
United KingdomChristian8.21 (#16)
United StatesChristian8.11 (#21)
Uruguay Christian8.17 (#18)
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.
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World

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.
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World