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 Archives:

Thursday, January 18, 2018

If You're Warming Up Your Car, You Might be Breaking the Law

As we again break records for cold in the southern U.S., while sitting indoors trying to keep warm (and schooling my wife and kids in Trivial Pursuit), I stumbled across this on the

Warm up your car this morning? That could be illegal where you live.

According to the article, 31 states have laws against "idling." Some of these laws are rooted in some measure of common sense--to deter theft and the like--but many are the sad result of governments buying into the myth of man-made global warming. As the author of the AJC piece puts it,
Of course, there's logic behind putting such laws on the books. With scientists around the world regularly warning humanity about the dire and ballooning effects of climate change, cutting down on vehicle emissions is an important, albeit seemingly small, step to address the issue.
Heh: "logic." Actually the earth-worshipping warmists would prefer that you not drive at all. The AJC author continues:
Just last months (sic), a new scientific study revealed that the worst-case predictions regarding climate change are likely the most accurate. The results followed the November publication of an open letter to humanity from more than 15,000 international scientists urging society to address major environmental concerns before it's "too late."
Just "last months"--December 4, 2017 to be precise--an AJC headline read "Snow flurries possible this weekend after cool down." The piece included the following graphic:

December 4, 2017 was a Monday. The winter weather moved in Friday, December 8, during the afternoon. This was the final result:

So what just days earlier was predicted to be from "flurries" with "no accumulation" up to only a couple of inches of snow, turned into one of the largest snowfalls ever seen in Georgia. Several areas got more than 10 inches, including areas very near Atlanta. As it was a wet, heavy snow, hundreds of thousands lost power. It was perhaps the largest ever fall snowfall in Georgia's recorded history--certainly the case in my lifetime (48+ years). And only days earlier the forecast for this "weather event" was woefully inaccurate. 

The inaccuracy in the weather forecast is not what's troubling here. It happens all of the time. In other words, it is a difficult science to predict the weather only days in advance, yet we're supposed to believe climate forecasts that are a century out. As the study from the "15,000 international scientists" puts it, 
Our study indicates that if emissions follow a commonly used business-as-usual scenario, there is a 93 per cent chance that global warming will exceed 4°C by the end of this century.
Sadly, this type of forecast is typical as well. How many times has the man-made global movement predicted such? It's as if every six months or so they feel that the world must be reminded of how bad it's going to get unless we put them in charge. And remember when President Trump tweeted concerning the brutal cold along the eastern U.S. just after Christmas?

Of course, the warmists were totally triggered. Many of them took to reminding us of the difference between climate and weather, specifically how much more complicated is climate than "mere" weather. Given such, these earth-worshippers should be reminded: if a "simple" 5-day weather forecast is often wrong, then a 100-year climate forecast is almost certainly wrong.

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

Saturday, January 13, 2018

The Speech Oprah Should’ve Given

Since Oprah Winfrey’s recent speech at the 2018 Golden Globes, giddy liberals have bombarded her with calls of “Run, Oprah, Run!” It seems that all democrats have to do is hear a decent speech from a like-minded liberal and they’re lining up their Superdelegates and their billionaire donors. Remember, Barack Obama’s path to the presidency began with his 2004 speech to the Democratic National Convention.

In spite of how well her Globes speech was received, as others have noted, Oprah didn’t quite paint the proper picture when it comes to Hollywood, women, and the truth. I’m here to help. This is the speech Oprah should’ve given:

It is an honor to be here tonight as the recipient of the Cecil B. DeMille Award. As surely almost everyone here well knows, DeMille’s last—and his most successful—film was The Ten Commandments. This 1956 epic is a motion picture classic and one of the most popular films of all time. In the “opening card,” the words of DeMille himself read, 
“Our modern world defined God as a 'religious complex' and laughed at the Ten Commandments as OLD FASHIONED. Then, through the laughter, came the shattering thunder of the World War. And now a blood drenched, bitter world – no longer laughing – cries for a way out. There is but one way out. It existed before it was engraven upon Tablets of Stone. It will exist when stone has crumbled. The Ten Commandments are not rules to obey as a personal favor to God. They are fundamental principles without which mankind cannot live together.” 
Though they have never been more needed, tragically, such opinions—and certainly the values that such a statement reflects—have all but disappeared in today’s Hollywood. As with the “blood drenched,” war-ravaged world of which Mr. DeMille spoke, there is but one way out of the craven, perverse, sex-obsessed, bitter world that now exists in Hollywood. The Ten Commandments help point us to that way. 
In these dark and complicated times, the truth is the most powerful weapon we have. Sadly, we can no longer rely on the media—neither the entertainment media that we represent, nor the news media—to present us with the truth. Like the lies that so permeate the stories that we tell, in order to further a worldview bereft of the notion of absolute truth, the news media rarely hesitates to mislead the public at large. 
Thus, it should come as little surprise that, in a world so steeped in deception, many women in the entertainment and news media have become targets of powerful and brutal men. Abandoning the God of the Commandments, and instead making a god of personal pleasure, has led to decades of sexual abuse and assault against countless women in the entertainment industry. Also, with perhaps the most guarded tenet of our worldview being the idea that people should be able to do whatever they wish in the sexual realm, few should be surprised that there are so many Harvey Weinsteins among us. 
What modern action, dramatic, or comedic film or television series is devoid of depicting—as C.S. Lewis bemoaned—“four bare legs in a bed?” These days, bare legs alarm almost no one. Many supposed “mainstream” Hollywood productions are now filled with graphic nudity and sex—what used to be called “pornography.” Adultery, fornication, pornography, prostitution, homosexuality, and virtually every other sexual immorality imaginable has long been promoted and celebrated by our industry. This must stop. 
Taking their cues from Hollywood—revealing the awesome power and responsibility of those who make a career of entertainment—almost every institution in the United States has been infected with those who see other human beings—especially women—as objects to satisfy their lust. Thus, women across America, whether in homes or on farms, in factories, restaurants, academia, engineering, medicine, science, politics, business, and so on, have suffered and continue to suffer. 
What’s more, it makes me very sad to say, many women like myself have been part of the problem. Instead of standing up to the sex-crazed entertainment industry, we have enabled it to continue, and even thrive. Using our bodies to titillate the minds of generations of boys and men, we have debased ourselves and been willing participants in contradicting what God has revealed on sex and marriage. 
In both my personal and professional life I have failed to promote the proper view on sex, gender, marriage, and the family. Foolishly ignoring the heart of the message of our Creator, repeating what is perhaps the most frequent lie in the history of humanity, I have told others to “Live life on your own terms.” After all, “Everybody Wants to Rule Their World.” 
For far too long, those telling the truth on sex, gender, marriage, and the family have not been heard. For far too long, the powerful in media have lied or suppressed the truth on these grave matters. I wish I could say a new day is on the horizon, but all indications are that Hollywood has yet to see the light. 
When that day finally dawns—and I want everyone watching to know, that day is inevitable—it will be because the truth has finally won. Then, referencing the work of the first black man to win this award, I will quote from Sidney Poitier’s performance in "Lilies of the Field," ''Amen, amen. Amen, amen."

Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor is the author of the The Miracle and Magnificence of America

Saturday, January 6, 2018

How do Liberals Flunk Science? Let Us Count the Ways.

With most of the U.S. currently in the grip of significant cold, and given the proper goading from President Trump, liberals again felt led to lecture us on the difference between weather and climate. Of course, it’s lost on most leftists how they so often fail to apply the same standards to themselves. Whether blizzards, hurricanes, wild fires, tornadoes, record heat, record cold, and so on, with religious-like devotion, liberals almost never fail to link dramatic weather events to their apocalyptic climate narrative.

One of the easiest jobs in the world has to be that of climate doomsayer. No matter the weather, the climate kooks can scream “man-made global warming!” and the faithful will follow with a hearty, “AMEN!” In spite of the folly and the pseudo science behind the man-made global warming movement, time and again the modern left insists that it is conservatives—especially Christian conservatives—who have abandoned science and reason.

Last year, The New York Times went as far as to blame evangelicals for our “post-truth society.” The New York Times lamenting a “post-truth society” is like Satan complaining about sin. In other words, few organizations or individuals in the history of humanity have waged a more enthusiastic war on the truth than has “the newspaper of record.”

Because all sound science—yes, there are plenty of scientific charlatans—always points one to the truth, it is little surprise that those so often opposed to the truth frequently find themselves at odds with what sound science reveals. For those unsure of where they stand on the spectrum of understanding what real science and scientists have revealed, let me take a moment to chronicle some actual “settled science.”

First of all—back when Adam took his first homeschool anatomy course—science long ago revealed there are only two sexes—male and female. There is no such thing as a “gender spectrum.” Any sentient adult telling you that such nonsense exists should have his or her grown-up card revoked and be required to repeat kindergarten at an approved location. What’s more, contrary to LGBT propaganda, basic biology is not “transphobic.

Unlike the modern left’s practice of using a fake problem—man-made climate change—to explain real weather-related catastrophes, tolerating the very real transgender madness of the modern left has led to all sorts of very real human-related catastrophes. Men using women’s restrooms and locker rooms, men competing against (and taking trophies from) women, women occupying the front lines of our military, and so on, are all the direct result of the fake science preached and produced by liberalism.

Just as settled as is the science of who is a male and who is a female is the science of life in the womb. Life in the womb for a child is as well documented as anything in science. With ultrasound and Doppler machines, as well as other technology, one can monitor the life of a baby in the womb from very near the beginning until birth.

Moments after conception (hardly a serious biologist in the world would argue that life does not begin at conception), the resulting single cell contains all 46 chromosomes necessary to grow into an adult human being. Within 48 hours of conception, the mother’s body starts producing a hormone to let her know that she is pregnant. In the beginning of the third week, the baby’s heart begins to beat with a blood type that is often different from its mother’s.

During week five, eyes, legs, and hands have begun to develop. By week six, brain waves are detectable. Week eight has every organ in place, bones begin to replace cartilage, and the baby can begin to hear. By week 12, the baby is nearing the end of the first trimester. She has all the necessary parts to experience pain, including her nerves, spinal cord, and thalamus. She can grasp objects placed in her hand and has fingerprints, a skeletal structure, and circulation.

By week 15, she has an adult’s taste buds. Week 20, the earliest stage at which liberals used to conduct partial-birth abortions, the child can recognize her mother’s voice. She is within one or two weeks of the stage where babies can routinely be saved outside the womb. In spite of all of this, to justify the slaughter of tens of millions of unborn children, abortion apologists have regularly ignored the indisputable science of life in the womb.

Recently, liberals have gone so far as to launch a massive billboard campaign that refers to abortion as “sacred,” “a blessing,” and even “life-saving.” Abortion is so far from the concept of “life-saving” that it’s not too difficult—especially among the government educated—to find individuals who advocate infanticide. We shouldn’t be surprised by this when the last U.S. President—elected twice—basically advocated the same.

And why the devotion to killing the most innocent and defenseless among us? The will to do whatever one wants sexually without the consequences is a powerful force, and those corrupted by liberalism will go to almost any length—including fake science—in order to keep abortion popular and legal.

Speaking of a liberal’s libido, real science does no favors for the homosexual agenda either. As Obama's Senior Advisor Valerie Jarrett learned in 2010, even well-established liberals can draw the ire of the homosexual community by simply implying that homosexuality is not innate (meaning genetic), but is rather a “lifestyle choice.” (Of course, Jarrett quickly back-tracked and apologized.) We’ve been told for decades now that homosexuality is a genetic and unchangeable behavior—that people are “born gay.”

In 1993, when the journal Science published a study by Dean Hamer (et al) which strongly suggested there was a gene for homosexuality, an eager and complicit media celebrated. National Public Radio trumpeted the findings. Newsweek’s cover asked, “Gay Gene?” The Wall Street Journal announced, “Research Points Toward a Gay Gene…” The New York Times noted, “Report Suggests Homosexuality Is Linked to Genes.”

However, noted psychiatrist, physicist, and author (Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth) Jeffrey Satinover concluded that “the Hamer study is seriously flawed.” Many genetic researchers also quickly took issue with Hamer’s study. However, the myth grew. Today, it is commonplace for liberals in the media, Hollywood, and like-minded politicians again to ignore the real science and continue to perpetuate the falsehood that homosexuality is strictly genetic.

Dr. Satinover notes that, “The notion that ‘homosexuals’ are in effect a ‘different species’ (different genes) is ludicrous beyond belief. There is not the slightest evidence for that as anyone who actually reads the studies (not reports on the studies) knows.” What science does reveal is that homosexuality is a rather unhealthy and dangerous lifestyle.

And much to the dismay of many on the modern left, homosexual sex doesn’t produce babies—because, you know, science. Thus, we now have fools declaring same-sex couples “infertile” and demanding that health insurance companies foot the bill to remedy this. So along with paying for abortions and “gender reassignment” surgery, liberals want us to foot the bill so that two men can have a baby.

As they foolishly declare their “belief in science,” liberals such as Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren remind us that what liberals are devoted to is not science but scientism. And because of this, their policies will always, ultimately, fail.

(See this column at American Thinker.)

Copyright 2017, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor is the author of The Miracle and Magnificence of America

Monday, December 25, 2017

“The Rightful King Has Landed”

We must never forget that at this time of year, we celebrate much more than a birthday. As the great Christian apologist C.S. Lewis put it, Christmas is the story of how “the rightful King has landed.” When Jesus stood before the Roman governor Pilate, just prior to going to His execution, Pilate asked Him, “Are you the king of the Jews?” After some discussion Pilate concluded to Jesus, “You are a king, then!” Jesus answered him, saying, “You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world…”

Of course, Jesus was not just any king; He was a king with a holy mission. He was a king who was born to die. “Amazing love, how can it be, that you my king would die for me.” Jesus was, and is, our Savior King. As author Charles Sell put it,
If our greatest need had been information, God would have sent us an educator. If our greatest need had been technology, God would have sent us a scientist. If our greatest need had been money, God would have sent us an economist. If our greatest need had been pleasure, God would have sent us an entertainer. But our greatest need was forgiveness, so God sent us a Savior.
The “good news of great joy” that no less than the angel of the Lord reported to the shepherds was that, “today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you…” The late-great Charles Schultz was right. The heart and soul of the Christmas story is, as Linus perfectly recited, “[B]ehold, I bring you tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, which is Christ the Lord.”

Of course, as did the CBS executives during Schultz’s time, those fearful of the true meaning of Christmas go to great lengths to hide the truth. Today children (and adults) are bombarded with deceptive (but alluring) messages about “Christmas Spirit” and how Christmas is about “spreading joy throughout the world” and “a time for warmth and brotherly love” (as a recent TV cartoon declared). Even Dickens’ iconic A Christmas Carol is bereft of the complete message of Christmas.

One author I encountered a few years ago foolishly described the “hidden meaning” of Christmas as a:
festival of the human heart. It is a time of year when all the universe conspires to raise the vibratory level of consciousness on earth to one of peace and love toward ourselves and one another. This season resonates to the sweet, childlike innocence that resides in all of us; A time when the heavenly forces inspire us to shift our focus away from fear and toward one of joy, and healing.
Of course, peace, brotherly love, and spreading joy are not bad things, but they are far from the “heart and soul” of Christmas. “Hark! The herald angels sing; glory to the newborn King!” So Christmas is a celebration of the birth of our Savior King. This is the reason for the conflict and contention that we sometimes encounter at Christmas time. This is why so many fear a Nativity scene, a Christmas tree, or even a meek “Merry Christmas.”

Who wants to be confronted with the idea that maybe they are ignoring the most significant event in human history? Who wants to be reminded that perhaps Jesus Christ really was (and is) our Savior King? Of course, God sending His Son as a Savior implies that we need “saving.” The most quoted verse in the Bible, John 3:16 says, “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.” Less well known, but just as important, is the very next verse. John 3:17 says, “For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.” This begs the question, “From what or whom do we need to be saved?”

In John chapter 8, Jesus says, “I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be, you will indeed die in your sins.” What does it mean to “die in your sins?” Romans chapter 6 says, “For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” In other words, we need to be “saved” from the eternal consequences of our sin. There is eternal life with Jesus, and apart from Him, death and eternal separation from God.

This is why so many Christians are so celebratory at Christmas time. Yes, there are presents and parties and time off from work, but for Christians who truly understand what was done for them on that first Christmas day, nothing compares to the gift of eternal life through Jesus. Christmas is a celebration of God’s greatest gift meeting humanity’s most desperate need. Those who reject the need for salvation, or reject the miracle of Jesus, or reject their sin for what it really is, are “offended” by Christmas.

Such people don’t want to hear that Jesus came to die for their sins. They don’t want to hear of the many miracles that surround the birth of the Savior. They don’t want to hear that their greed, lust, or pride is sin. They want to go their own way; thus, they display perverse “Festivus Poles.” And again, we’ve all been there. May God empower those of us who see Christmas for what it truly is, who see Jesus for who He really is, to spread His message of hope, love, peace, and salvation to all we encounter, all year-round. Merry Christmas!

(See this column at American Thinker.)

Copyright 2017, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor is the author of the The Miracle and Magnificence of America

Sunday, December 17, 2017

Why the God-Haters Hate Israel

One of the greatest evidences that there is a God—to whom we owe our very lives, and whose Word we are to follow—is the mere existence of a nation called Israel. Thus the rampant hatred for the children of Abraham. Nevertheless, science again makes clear what Scripture long ago revealed.

A 60 Minutes episode from the year 2000 —of which I have a transcript—reported on a genetics study that revealed a “priestly Y-chromosome” among the general Jewish population. In other words, all those who claimed to be Jewish priests (only males) shared a common male ancestor. As Lesley Stahl then reported, “The results proved that Jewish priests from all around the world are, in fact, descended from one single man, a common paternal ancestor somewhere back in time.”

To tease her listening audience, Stahl asked, “How long ago did this great, great, great-grandfather live?” The scientist she was interviewing provided the answer: 3,000 years ago. In other words, right in line with the time-line presented by the Bible for when Moses’ brother Aaron—the patriarch of the Jewish priesthood—lived.

Likewise, in the year 2000, a study widely reported on revealed that the Jews and the Arabs shared a common genetic heritage. The study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, looked at the Y-chromosome—which is passed directly and unaltered from father to son—of male Jews and Arabs and found that they shared “a common set of genetic signatures.”

This should come as no surprise to anyone who knows—and believes—Scripture. The first two sons of Abraham were Ishmael—the son of Hagar and the patriarch of the Arabs—and Isaac, the son of Sarah and the patriarch of the Jews. Thus the “common genetic signature” is the result of both Jews and Arabs being descendants of Abraham.

Most everyone with at least a spotty Sunday school background knows something of the biblical account of “Father Abraham.” If nothing else, we can probably recall the ancient trilogy of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Jacob—later named Israel—fathered twelve sons who would become the “twelve tribes of Israel” and would inherit the Promised Land. The Bible first mentions Abraham—initially named “Abram,” a decedent of Noah’s son, Shem—in the chronology given in Genesis chapter 11. Genesis chapter 12 begins with the telling “Call of Abram.” It reads,

The Lord had said to Abram, ‘Go from your country, your people and your father’s household to the land I will show you. I will make you into a great nation, and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you.’

Note that the nation born of Abraham will be “a blessing” to the whole world. Scripture is replete with this theme. Genesis alone has several references. In addition to the above, there are Genesis 18:18, 22:18, 26:4, and 28:14. Without using the word “blessing,” Scripture makes it clear that Israel is the vehicle through which God—in multiple ways—will bless the earth.

Scripture also makes it clear that Israel was not chosen because it was the largest and most powerful nation (Deut. 7:7), or because of her righteousness (Deut. 9:5). In other words, Israel was not chosen for the glory of (or to glorify) Israel, but to glorify the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. In other words, God chose the weak—Israel was in slavery when it became a nation—so that the world would know that the God of Israel was the one true God. (Egypt was the first to get a dramatic lesson.)

The idea that Israel was “set apart” as a “witness to the nations” is also a common thought throughout Judaism and Christianity—especially evangelical Christianity. Exodus 19:6 declares, “[Y]ou will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.” Isaiah 43:12 reads, “‘You are my witnesses,’ declares the Lord, ‘that I am God.’” One of the ways Israel was (and is) a blessing to the earth is the testimony of the Jews to the very existence of God. In the late nineteenth century, England’s Queen Victoria reportedly asked her Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli, “Mr. Prime Minister, what evidence can you give me of the existence of God?” After thinking for a moment, Disraeli replied, “The Jew, your majesty.”

A significant manner in which the Jews were a blessing to all of humanity, and another means through which they were a witness to all the earth, was through the written word of God. The Jews were God’s scribes, recording His words and deeds so that people might hear (or read) and believe. As the Apostle Paul, at the beginning of Romans chapter 3 notes, “What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew…Much in every way! First of all, they have been entrusted with the very words of God.” The oral, and eventually, the written Word of God is an amazing testimony of God’s existence, His presence, and His power.

And last, Christianity teaches that the redemption of all mankind came through the Jews. Jesus Christ, the Messiah, was a descendant of Abraham, born out of the tribe of Judah. As Paul also reveals in Romans, “the Jews and the Gentiles alike are all under sin” and in need of salvation. Of course, the message of Paul was the message of Jesus: whether Jew or Gentile, salvation is through Christ alone. Writing to the church in Rome, Paul concludes, “A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly…No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code.” (Rom. 2:28-29a)

As I noted in The Miracle and Magnificence of America, long before the Pilgrims departed Europe for a new home, the spiritual heritage of America has been linked with Jerusalem and Israel. Because of events such as the Great Plague, during the fifteenth century there was widespread belief that the end of time was near. Many Christians of this time also believed that before Christ would return, Jerusalem had to be in the hands of Christians. As the result of his study of Scripture, along with his study of the works of first century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus and noted theologian and philosopher Saint Augustine, Christopher Columbus believed the same. Thus Columbus literally saw himself as an agent of the apocalypse.

As life in Europe became increasingly difficult for the Pilgrims, in spite of what they were hearing concerning the death and destruction at Jamestown, more and more, God’s plan seemed to point to America as their home. The pastor of young William Bradford’s congregation at the time was John Robinson. During this time, Pastor Robinson revealed that he believed God was calling them to a New Jerusalem—in America. Robinson wrote,

Now as the people of God in old time were called out of Babylon civil, the place of their bodily bondage, and were to come to Jerusalem, and there to build the Lord’s temple…so are the people of God now to go out of Babylon spiritual to Jerusalem…and build themselves as lively stones into a spiritual house, or temple, for the Lord to dwell in…for we are the sons and daughters of Abraham by faith.

The God who spoke to Abraham and Moses is the same God who inspired the Pilgrims and the Puritans—the people who are most responsible for the founding of the United States. Though Christianity teaches that we are all under a new covenant with our Creator, the nation of Israel still stands as a testimony to the Truth. Thus any move that further legitimizes Israel—such as official recognition by the United States of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, and placing our embassy there—will be strongly opposed by those who hate the Truth.

(See this column at American Thinker.)

Copyright 2017, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor is the author of the The Miracle and Magnificence of America

Friday, December 15, 2017

Liberals Wrote the Book on Sexual Immorality

Perhaps the most guarded tenet of all of modern liberalism is the idea that people should be able to do whatever they wish in the sexual realm. Whether killing children in the womb, redefining the oldest institution in the history of humanity, fighting for the “right” of men to use women’s restrooms—and for women to cheat at sports, and for men to take trophies from womencelebrating the sexualization of children, everything else in the perverse LGBT agenda, and so on, much of what modern liberals hold dear hinges on sexual hedonism.

Thus, as others have already well noted, the sex scandals that have rocked Hollywood and Washington D.C. are some of the least shocking things to come across the news wire since learning that Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa, et al, bloated their baseball stats with the aid of performance enhancing drugs. (You don’t go from this to this without a little something extra in your milk.)

In other words, seeing media reports that reveal that many Hollywood and D.C. liberals are sexual deviants is like a 60 Minutes story that reveals that fat men like fried chicken. But hey, at least in large part, the liberal perverts in politics and entertainment are not hypocrites. They’re only practicing what they preach. And preach they do.

In spite of notions to the contrary, liberalism is obsessed with sex. Of course, most liberals would have us believe that this is the case with conservatives, especially Christian conservatives. Yet it is the politics and policies of liberalism that have forced Americans to debate what was once widely rejected as immoral and even unimaginable.

Led almost exclusively by those corrupted by a liberal worldview, for decades the entertainment industry—whether big screen, small screen, print, or internet media—has saturated American culture with sexual immorality. Acts of “mere” sexual harassment have long ranked extremely low on the scale of what is sexually outrageous in the entertainment industry.

On American screens, tales of men chasing women for nothing more than sex has garnered hundreds of millions of laughs and has been used to titillate generations of young and old men alike. Additionally, what modern action or drama film or television series is devoid of depicting—as C.S. Lewis bemoaned—“four bare legs in a bed?” These days, bare legs alarm almost no one. Many supposed “mainstream” Hollywood productions are now filled with graphic nudity and sex—what used to be called “pornography.”

Adultery, fornication, pornography, prostitution, homosexuality, and virtually every other sexual immorality imaginable has long been promoted and celebrated by the modern left. Along with the entertainment, news, and political arenas, schools, corporations, and even churches are filled with, and being led by, those who are dangerously, and often tragically, sexually deceived. Thus, if not directly debasing themselves by being personally involved in these wicked sexual activities, blind to the notion that some things don’t even deserve a debate, millions of Americans have at least been misled into thinking that such behavior must be “tolerated.”

Tragically, today’s liberals are so desperate to rid the world of anyone and anything that contradicts liberal dogma on sex, they will tolerate almost anything, except even a hint of Christian teaching on sexual morality. Demonstrating the fallacy that is today’s “tolerance,” liberals want their opponents to just shut up when it comes to sex. (No doubt this was much of the motivation behind the attacks on Roy Moore.)

Refusing to remain silent themselves—and because they’ve made a god of government—liberals are looking to make political hay out of the #MeToo meme. Far from wanting to reform what their worldview has wrought, liberals are hoping to further purge politics and the culture of those who stand opposed to progressive perversions.

As they look to lead as much of the country as possible to embrace the “values” of Sodom and Gomorrah, in addition to silencing their moral enemies, many liberals also want revenge. Hence, the war on Christians—and those like-minded—and the war on morality. Along with the threat of fines and even jail time, Christians brave enough to oppose the hedonistic agenda of the modern left face the loss of their jobs or their businesses.

With little thought to the illogic and hypocrisy behind their helter-skelter approach to sexual morality, the liberal media has been predictably sloppy. Before the #MeToo anti-sexual harassment meme caught on, liberals were lecturing us on the so-called “rape culture” allegedly so prevalent in America. Of course, today’s liberals are almost as qualified to instruct us on a rape culture as they are on sexual harassment.

When magazines devoted to promoting pornography, prostitution, and the “hook-up” culture decided to “shine the light” on the supposed college campus rape culture, no one should have been surprised at the disastrous outcome. And don’t be surprised to see similar results as liberals in the media rush to smear conservatives—particularly politicians—for “sexual misconduct.”

Real glee sets in among the liberal media when they get to report on conservatives—especially Christian conservatives—who’ve been caught with their pants down. Of course, liberals in the news media vigorously hunt down these stories (because such stories are often very hard to find), while often ignoring the immoral—and often illegal—dalliances of their like-minded friends and cohorts in politics, entertainment, and the information media.

Democrat politics and Hollywood “values”—aided and abetted by like-minded news media propagandists—is a marriage made in hell. As long as their wicked sexual agenda thrives, Americans—and America—will suffer. Something that more and more of us should ponder: maybe God was right about sex.

(Read this column at American Thinker.)

Copyright 2017, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor is the author of the The Miracle and Magnificence of America

Monday, November 27, 2017

The Truth behind the Deaths of “Transgenders”

In case you missed it—which, sadly, no less than the U.S. Secretary of State made difficult—November 20 was “International Transgender Day of Remembrance.” The day focuses on memorializing the world’s gender-deluded who were victims of violence. By my estimate—I didn’t count them all—the list contains about 300 people.

Likewise, many liberal outlets in the American mainstream media—redundant, I know—took the opportunity to paint violence against the gender-deluded as some sort of epidemic. The headline in the largest newspaper in my state declared, “Violence against transgender people at all-time high in Georgia, nationally.”

Evidently an annual “all-time high” when it comes to the murder of individuals in the U.S. who choose to live a gender lie is 25. After the 11th death, which occurred in May of this year, one news outlet quoted a “transgender” activist declaring, “We are facing a national epidemic of violence [against ‘transgenders’].” More American Christians were recently killed in a single day as they peacefully gathered to worship their Creator. Following this horrific event, virtually no one in the mainstream American media wanted to talk about how Christians in the U.S. are suffering an “epidemic” of violence or even that we are merely increasingly under attack.

To further the perverse LGBT agenda, the liberal American media would rather promote a lie than reveal the plight of Americans who seek the Truth. Of course, an agenda built on lies must be furthered with lies. Murder is always tragic, and leave it to liberals to use the death of murdered Americans deceptively in order to advance their preferred—and again false—narrative. What’s more, worldwide, tens of thousands of Christians are martyred every year and the liberal-led media typically—and predictably—yawns.

Throughout the stories highlighting “International Transgender Day of Remembrance” was the implication that “transgenders” are being killed as the result of hate toward those who foolishly choose to live as the opposite sex. This was certainly the case with the American media and the 25 “transgenders” killed in the United States.

Of course, an additional implication is that this hate is the result of “ignorant” and “irrational” bias against the gender-deluded from conservatives and Christians. As is often the case with liberal narratives, few things could be further from the truth.

I examined online reports of each of the 25 American individuals on the Human Rights Campaign’s “Violence Against the Transgender Community” list for 2017. I looked specifically for mainstream media accounts—such as the Chicago Tribune, The Times Picayune (more than once), The Baltimore Sun, the Miami Herald, and so on. In other words, I looked for news publications that had almost every reason in the world to stick to the LGBT agenda on “transgender” deaths. Though the articles often hopefully hinted that a possible “hate criminal” was behind the murders, there was not one single person the media could definitively claim was the victim of a “hate crime.”

Quite the contrary, more than one “transgender” person died as the result of violently attacking the police. Others were involved in dangerous activities such as prostitution, gang activity, or drug use, and still others had shown themselves to be prone to violence. In other words, much—if not most—of the “violence against transgenders” is due to the poor lifestyle choices of those who reject simple science and morality.

If the mainstream media really wanted to tell the truth when it comes to death and the gender-deluded, it would do well to note the dangers of denying basic biology and the tragic results that often accompany attempting the impossible—“transitioning” from one sex to another. Instead, the media again embraces a lie and is guilty of malpractice.

Along with the dangerous and sometimes deadly consequences of mutilating an otherwise healthy body with unnecessary drugs and surgeries, those who suffer from gender delusions face a whole host of health issues that a media that truly cared should be eager to report. For example, the risk of cancer significantly increases when one’s body is subjected to gender “reorientation” drugs.

The suicide rate among the gender-deluded is far above that of the general population. A staggering number of youth who struggle with their gender engage in self harm. Worse still, many parents who’ve bought the liberal lie on gender are guilty of child abuse. Because their parents, their schools, their churches, and their media refused to tell them the truth about their gender, many older teens and young adults have found themselves scarred for life.

Death, disease, and despair do stalk the gender-deluded community, but not for the reasons most corrupted by liberalism would have us believe. Again, those struggling with their gender identity need serious physical, mental, and spiritual help. They do not need accommodation in living a lie.

(See this column at American Thinker and LifeSiteNews.)

Copyright 2017, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor is the author of the The Miracle and Magnificence of America

Thursday, November 23, 2017

A History of Thanksgiving (Taken from The Miracle and Magnificence of America)

Sir Walter Raleigh’s first attempts at settling the New World were disastrous. The English, who were now trying to gain a foothold in the New World, were succumbing to the same greed that had earlier blinded the Spaniards. Starvation, disease, hostile Indians, and other hardships, including a whole colony lost (the Lost Colony of Roanoke), led to dampened enthusiasm for New World expeditions.

It would be nearly 20 years after Raleigh’s initial ventures before enough English interest could again be sparked for more New World adventure. Despite recruiting “sermons” that contained messages of evangelical outreach, and the preamble of the Company’s charter, written by King James I, which contained the words, “…propagating of Christian religion to such people as yet live in darkness and miserable ignorance of the true knowledge and worship of God, and may in time bring the infidels and savages, living in these parts, to human civility and to a settled and quiet government,” the lust for gold was, again, what drove European men across the Atlantic.

On May 14, 1607, headed by a seven-man council, which included John Smith, 144 men settled Jamestown. Because of their misguided efforts it was a disaster from the beginning. These men battled the elements, disease, Indians, starvation, and one another. The lone minister on the adventure, Robert Hunt, did his best to keep the others focused on God. His sermons went mostly unheeded; however, he persevered. By February of 1608 only 38 of the 144 remained alive.

The death rate did not abate with time. As Peter Marshall and David Manuel note,
For example, of the 1,200 people who went out to Virginia in 1619, only 200 were left alive by 1620. Why this horrible continuing death rate? There is no logical explanation, except one: year after year they steadfastly refused to trust God—or indeed to include Him in any of their deliberations.
The next settlers to cross the Atlantic would not make the same mistakes. They were not seeking wealth and prosperity, but a new home. They believed that America was their spiritual destiny. The Pilgrims (dubbed “Separatists” by the Church of England), and the Puritans who followed them, knew better than to undertake anything without God.

Aboard the Mayflower were 102 passengers, less than half of whom were of Pastor John Robinson’s Separatist flock. After a grueling two-month voyage, on November 11, 1620, they dropped anchor in Cape Cod, and heeding the advice and wisdom of their pastor, the Pilgrims drafted a compact that would embody the same principles of government upon which American democracy would rest. It read,
In the name of God, amen. We whose names are under-written…Having undertaken, for the glory of God and advancement of the Christian Faith and honor of our King and country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia, do by these presents solemnly and mutually in the presence of God and one of another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politic…constitute and frame such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions and offices from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the colony…the 11th of November…Anno Domini 1620.
John Carver, who had chartered the Mayflower, was chosen as the first governor of the colony. His was the first signature on the Mayflower Compact, which is considered by many to be the world’s first written constitution. William Bradford would soon replace Carver as governor and would serve in that capacity for 31 years. On December 21, 1620, the Pilgrims settled at what would become known as Plymouth.

A replica model of the Mayflower. Created by Norbert Schnitzler.

Though their efforts were “for the glory of God,” the Pilgrims were not immune to the many hardships of an untamed America. Before long, many started dying. William Bradford’s wife Dorothy was among the casualties as she fell overboard and drowned. (Initially, while dwellings were being built, the Pilgrims lived mostly aboard the Mayflower.) Due in part to a brutal winter, dozens would die in those first few months, including 13 of 18 wives. In spite of hardships, the Pilgrims were undeterred and drew ever closer to God.

The months turned into years and saw the Pilgrims develop good relations with the local natives including Massasoit, a wise and welcoming chief of the local tribes, Samoset, and especially Tisquantum, or Squanto.

In the middle of March 1621, just as the Pilgrims were coming out of the devastatingly harsh winter, a guard alerted his comrades with the cry of “Indian coming!” Wearing only a loincloth as he walked into the Pilgrims’ camp, Samoset astonished the English onlookers with a hearty “Welcome!” Then speaking surprisingly clear English, he followed his friendly greeting with a request, “Have you got any beer?”

The Pilgrims informed their friendly guest that they were out of beer, and offered him brandy instead. After a hearty snack of brandy, biscuit, butter, cheese, pudding, and roast duck, Samoset was ready to answer questions. In spite of their difficult and deadly plight, Samoset’s words gave the Pilgrims great cause to thank God.

On March 22, 1621, Samoset returned to the Pilgrims with Squanto, who spoke even better English. Squanto’s life is an amazing tale of God’s provision that very closely resembles the account of Joseph from Genesis, chapter 37. Soon after Samoset introduced Squanto to the Pilgrims, a meeting with Massasoit, chief of the Wampanoag people, was arranged. Massasoit, Samoset, Squanto, and dozens of Wampanoag warriors traveled to Plymouth to meet the Pilgrims. With Samoset serving as the interpreter for Massasoit, the meeting was extremely fruitful. A peace treaty and a treaty of mutual aid were struck with Massasoit that would last for decades.

Massasoit and his party returned home, but Squanto remained with the Pilgrims. Being a man without a tribe, personally witnessing the desperation of the Pilgrims, and already having adopted their faith, Squanto took pity upon his new-found English friends and wanted to help them succeed in their New World. He taught them how to fish for eels and alewives, plant corn and pumpkins, refine maple syrup, trap beavers, hunt deer, and other skills essential to their survival.

Squanto was instrumental in the survival of the Pilgrims—so much so that, according to William Bradford, the Pilgrims considered Squanto “a special instrument sent of God for their good, beyond their expectation.” Massasoit also was an amazing example of God’s providential care for the Pilgrims. Like Powhatan had been at Jamestown, Massasoit was probably the only other native chief on the northeast coast of America who would have welcomed the white man as a friend.

In early April of 1621, with supplies running dangerously low, the Captain of the Mayflower, Christopher Jones, decided he could remain in America no longer. On April 5, 1621, the Mayflower returned to England. As the ship disappeared over the horizon, almost certainly a nervous uneasiness came upon more than a few Pilgrims who remained in the New World. Their last ties to their former home were gone. They, perhaps, felt more alone than at any point of their amazing journey.

The summer of 1621 was beautiful and, thanks in no small measure to the help of Squanto, bountiful. Governor Bradford declared a day of public Thanksgiving to be held in October. Massasoit was invited. Surprising the Pilgrims, he showed up a day early with 90 of his tribe. To feed such a crowd, the Pilgrims would have to go deep into their food supply. However, Massasoit did not show up empty handed. He had instructed his braves to hunt for the occasion, and they came with several dressed dear and fat turkeys. The Thanksgiving turned into a three-day celebration filled with feasting and games.

The First Thanksgiving, by Jean-Léon Gérôme.

A few weeks after the first Thanksgiving and about a year after the Pilgrims arrived in the New World, the Fortune sailed into Plymouth on its way to Virginia. The main cargo was an additional 35 colonists and a charter granted from the New England Company. There was tremendous celebration over the new charter; however, unlike the Indians, the new colonists arrived virtually empty handed. They had no extra clothing, food, or tools. The Pilgrims would have to adjust their winter food rationing plan severely.

The winter of 1621-1622 was as difficult as feared. The Pilgrims entered what has been described as their “starving time.” Some reports reveal that at times, food rations for each person were a mere five kernels of corn per day. Miraculously, that winter not one Pilgrim died of starvation.

There was no Thanksgiving celebration in 1622. When the spring planting season of 1623 rolled around, the Pilgrims realized that to fend off further hunger and rationing, a corn harvest at least twice as large as last season was necessary. However, a lackluster work ethic prevailed among them. This was mainly because the contract entered into with their merchant sponsors in London required everything the Pilgrims produced was to go into a common store and be shared. As Rush Limbaugh has often pointed out on his radio broadcast that celebrates Thanksgiving Day, the Pilgrims were languishing under socialism.

The leaders of the colony then decreed that for the additional planting, individual plots of land would be split, and the yield could be used at the planters’ discretion. Thus, as the concept of private property was introduced, the Pilgrims seemed infused and invigorated with new hope and purpose. As Marshall and Manuel point out, “The yield that year was so abundant that the Pilgrims ended up with a surplus of corn, which they were able to use in trading that winter with northern Indians, who had not had a good growing season.”

On November 29, 1623, two years after the first Thanksgiving, Governor William Bradford made an official proclamation for a second day of Thanksgiving. In it Governor Bradford thanked God for their abundant harvest, bountiful game, protection from “the ravages of savages…and disease,” and for the “freedom to worship God according to the dictates of our own conscience.” Well over a hundred Natives attended, bringing plenty of turkey and venison along with them.

The Pilgrims, and the Puritans who followed them, had the proper perspective. As Bradford would so discernibly note, “As one small candle may light a thousand, so the light kindled here has shown unto many, yea in some sort to our whole nation…We have noted these things so that you might see their worth and not negligently lose what your fathers have obtained with so much hardship.”

May the light of those first Thanksgivings never be extinguished.

Copyright 2017, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor is the author of The Miracle and Magnificence of America

Sunday, November 19, 2017

Colin Kaepernick Needs the Truth

On the same day that GQ—sometimes known as Genuflecting Quarterbacks—named Colin Kaepernick as its “Citizen of the Year,” several mainstream media outlets—including Christian websites—reported that some Christian players in the NFL who support Kaepernick’s protest of “systemic oppression and…police brutality toward black people” are frustrated at the criticism directed at Mr. Kaepernick. They are especially frustrated that the out-of-work quarterback isn’t getting more support from the Christian community within the NFL.

As ABC News reported,
Eric Reid and other Christian players who support Colin Kaepernick's social justice movement want believers on the opposite side of the controversial anthem protest to ask themselves a simple but powerful question: What would Jesus do?
Reid—then a teammate of Kaepernick—was quick to join the back-up quarterback last year in taking a knee during the National Anthem. Reid would later tell the AP that his faith was instrumental in his decision to kneel. Referencing Proverbs, Reid declared that he wanted to be a “voice for the voiceless.” He added,
We all have a love for people. The Bible tells us love your brother as yourself so that's why we're doing it. We have to speak up for those who can’t do it for themselves. My faith is ultimately what led me to start protesting and it's what continues to drive me. Faith without works is dead. I feel like the past year before we started protesting, the Lord has prepped me for this moment.
Reid—one of three NFL players who took a knee during the NFL’s Veteran’s Day celebration—expressed particular frustration with his Christian colleagues,
I do see some hypocrisy with the people that call themselves Christians. If you know Jesus, he went into the house of God and turned over the tables and was angry and said they made the house of God into a marketplace so I would say this is something that He would do.
Baltimore Ravens tight end, Ben Watson—a long-time outspoken Christian in the NFL—was also critical of Christians who put “politics above the gospel, empathy and understanding.” He added,
We talk about what Jesus would do. Let's think about that. How should I Biblically look at this situation? Is my response as an American going against what my response should be as a Christian?...Being kind is not predicated on what you can do for me. Justice is not predicated on if I experienced injustice or not. We can advocate for people who have experiences that we don't even have. True justice is blind and righteous. Christians should be about expanding and promoting the gospel. If you listen or think about the subject matter that players and people are concerned about, you could not as someone who reads scripture turn a blind eye to it.
Philadelphia Eagles safety Malcolm Jenkins, who often raises his fist during the anthem, wants the Christian community to be more united.
As big as we are, as much influence as we have on policy and politics, if the Church ever got behind really being for equality and really being for justice, it would show up, it would come. But a lot of times we don't show the empathy, we don't take the time to listen and we're just as segregated as the world is right now.
I’m not sure about the “Christian cred” of these other professionals, but I’ve long admired and respected the words and deeds of Ben Watson. As I’ve noted before, more than once Mr. Watson has boldly and articulately stood for the truth on some of the most important moral issues of our time—namely marriage and abortion. However, I think he needs to reexamine his approach to Colin Kaepernick and his protest and get his coworkers to do the same.

For example, when it comes to “What Would Jesus Do?” in this situation, of course, I can’t say for sure how Jesus would deal with a modern-day millionaire “social justice warrior,” but from what Scripture reveals, I imagine He would begin and end with what He always did: the truth.

As He did with the Samaritan woman at the well, Jesus might start by asking Mr. Kaepernick about his spouse. The woman of Samaria told Jesus, “I have no husband.” Likewise, Mr. Kaepernick would have to reply that he has no wife. Yet, as was the case with the Samaritan woman, Mr. Kaepernick is steeped in an immoral (sinful) relationship.

It is well known that for several years now Kaepernick has been “dating” (often known as “living in sin” with) Nessa Diab. Ms. Diab is a “radio and TV personality.” Specifically, she is an MTV host. That alone should send shutters down the spine of any spiritually “woke” individual. As if we needed direct clarification, Diab has openly spoken of her sexual exploits with Kaepernick.

What’s more, while Kaepernick claims to be a Christian, Diab is a Muslim and a raging liberal. (While this seems very contradictory, Islam and liberalism do have much in common.) Before trying to understand his kneeling protests, maybe Mr. Watson should speak to Colin about being “unequally yoked” and the sin of fornication.

What if Diab gets pregnant? Will they kill yet another black baby? Will they bring yet another American child into the world who doesn’t have a married mother and father? In other words, instead of being part of any a solution to what really plagues the American black community, Mr. Kaepernick is part of the problem and is very likely about to make things even worse.

What if, while standing among the crowds of urban youth—where he so often finds himself—instead of talking about the myth of “systemic oppression and police brutality,” Mr. Kaepernick would speak of the importance of marriage, family, and sexual morality? And more importantly, what if he lived those truths himself?

Again, Kaepernick kneels for a lie and is living his life according to multiple lies. Instead of trying to “understand” a lie, Mr. Kaepernick’s Christian friends should tell him the truth.

(See this column at American Thinker.)

Copyright 2017, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor is the author of the The Miracle and Magnificence of America

Saturday, November 11, 2017

It’s the Worldview, Stupid

If we want to defeat or change those who are wickedly determined to take the lives of other human beings unjustly, it should go without saying that we must look far beyond the killers’ chosen instrument of death. This is why the pro-life community doesn’t put any effort into attempting to ban suction curettes or forceps—which have killed far more people in the U.S. than have guns.

Nevertheless—and seemingly inevitably—whenever a mass murderer goes on a killing spree in the U.S., those who are terrified of the notion of absolute truth (who are determined to rule their own world)—and especially terrified of the Author of truth—ignore the real problems with homicidal deviants and almost always ignorantly insist that the solution is legislation that restricts access to weapons.

This is the case even if the weapon is a truck. Again, Satan laughs. Tragically, with those corrupted by liberalism, we see this time and again. Whether the problem is poverty, hunger, bad schools, gun violence, crime in general, or even the spread of disease, the liberal answer is always the same: more government. Because most of them have made a god of government, liberals are almost always looking for a political solution to whatever ails us.

Thus, virtually everything in our culture is politicized, and the public at large is subjected to never-ending campaigns. For liberals, nearly any solution to our cultural tribulations that will drive people to vote for democrats is most preferable. Sadly, far too many people are willing to cast their votes for those who promise to “protect” them—from the climate, from corporations, criminals, Christians, disease, pregnancy, and especially from the consequences of their own bad decisions. “Pajama Boy” and “Julia” are the poster children here.

In other words—whether through legislation, executive orders, or rulings from the bench—to cure societies’ ills, liberals insist that we heed the words of “enlightened” man instead of the Word of the eternal God. This is why, after a mass shooting with multiple deaths, the idea of prayer is so offensive to liberals. Even the benign “moment of silence” or “thoughts and prayers” (you can keep your thoughts, but I’ll take your prayers!) are now so often derided, mocked, and ignored.

However, in spite of liberal trepidations, prayer brings us to the heart of the matter when dealing with the likes of Sayfullo Saipov, Devin Kelley, Omar Mateen, Dylan Roof, and so on. As C.S. Lewis taught us, prayer reveals our “bankruptcy,” or, put another way, our powerlessness. Prayer helps us understand who we really are and who God really is. (Note how the Lord’s Prayer begins: “Our Father in heaven, holy is your name…”) And when necessary, prayer leads us up to the vital moment at which we “turn to God and say, ‘You must do this. I can’t.’”

Only the power of God can change the heart of a human. Good government should always remind us of and be rooted in the truth, but we will never be able to legislate away evil. Men like Sayfullo Saipov and Devin Kelley did what they did because they ignored God and decided truth for themselves.

Such a self-centered attitude is at the heart of liberalism. This is another reason why liberals want to focus on guns instead of what motivates men to do evil. The perverse worldview of angry atheists and murderous Islamists shares much in common with the godless worldview of modern liberalism. Again, the most common shared element is a rabid disdain for all things Christian.

Meanwhile, the search for the ever-elusive gun- and religion-clinging “Christian terrorist” continues.

Copyright 2017, Trevor Grant Thomas
Trevor is a mathematics teacher and the author of the The Miracle and Magnificence of America.