New Book

NOW AVAILABLE!---Trevor's New Book: The Miracle and Magnificence of America. If you enjoy this site, please consider purchasing my brand-new book. Click here to get it at Amazon. See here for more information.

Book Banner

Book Facebook

HELP US GET THE WORD OUT: If you "Like" this page, please visit our new 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:

Wednesday, March 15, 2017

New York Mayor Bill de Blasio is Now a "Weather Skeptic"

After the latest Northeast snow storm brought less than expected (forecasted) totals to New York City at a news conference, Mayor, Bill de Blasio spoke on the "modest" snow totals seen in his city:
What we saw here is a very different than what was projected, even as of late yesterday.
He added,
This is the lesson we keep learning. The National Weather service does everything they know how to do. Mother Nature still does what it wants to do, so what we got was a storm where the numbers that were projected occurred to the north and west of us — not here, thank God so we were spared some of the worst of it.
If ONLY de Blasio and those like-minded would take such a view with the climate! One of the points I've often made when it comes to the oft-repeated doom-and-gloom forecasts perpetuated by climate alarmists of every rank is that, if the weather forecasters are sometimes very wrong predicting what's going to happen just days, or even hours, later, why in the world would anyone trust a climate forecast that purports to tell us what is going to happen years, decades, or even centuries in the future?

Think about it: How often are your local forecasts very wrong? Not very often when the days are not far away. But once one gets past a few days, the forecasts are often quite wrong and adjustments are made as those days draw closer. As I noted back in 2009, the reason there is such a devotion to dire climate forecasts by the "Warmists" is because they have, in a sense, made man-made global warming (or, "science" in general) their religion. (Sadly, the modern left has many such gods.)

And because the modern left has also made a god of government, an impending climate disaster is a convenient tool for more Big Government.

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

Sunday, March 12, 2017

UW-Madison Students Display Stunning Duplicity Towards Christians

Alliance Defending Freedom was recently on the campus of the University of Wisconsin. It wasn't pretty. The corruption of liberalism was on clear display. Watch:

Remember, the duplicity and illogic witnessed above is rampant across U.S. campuses. In addition, this sort-of thinking--or rather, lack of thinking--has infected, not only our classrooms, but our state houses, court houses--even churches! In other words, as I've pointed out often, the corruption of liberalism is wide and deep. Liberals on campuses, in the media, in elected office, et al, must be made to answer these sort of questions.

However, remember, Christians shouldn't even need the protection of "religious liberty" when it comes to marriage. The Supreme Court of the United States must reverse its perverse, immoral, and unconstitutional ruling on marriage.

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

Saturday, March 11, 2017

Is Roy Williams' UNC Degree in "Bullsh*t"?

Dear Roy Williams: If you can't tell the difference between what is a male, and what is a female, perhaps it is you who has a "bullsh*t" problem.

In case you missed it, after their win over Miami in the quarterfinal round of the ACC basketball tournament, Williams--the head coach of the University of North Carolina's men's basketball team--was asked about the impact (on recruiting and media attention) of having the ACC tournament in a big city such as New York (the site of this year's tournament), as opposed to a city like Greensboro, North Carolina (a frequent host city).

Williams answered,
It used to be much more [important to play in a big market] than I think it is now. Now everybody has got social media, and we don't need The New York Times to find out what in the dickens is going on in our country. You know, our president tweets out more bulls--- than anybody I've ever seen. We've got social media. 
In the old days, there's no question it was the media capital of the world, but I'm not sure it is right now.
Williams (an alumnus of UNC) was already not happy about having to play the opening rounds of the tournament in Brooklyn, New York. The first two rounds of this year's ACC men's basketball were originally scheduled to be played in Greensboro. However, after North Carolina legislators passed a common sense "bathroom bill" (in response to liberals in Charlotte ignoring said common sense and sound morality), and because the NCAA is committed to the perverse LGBT agenda, the ACC men's basketball tournament--and a half a dozen other championships--were pulled from the state of North Carolina.

After the "bathroom bill" (HB2) became law in North Carolina, University of North Carolina president vowed that she would not enforce the law on the campuses of UNC. She defiantly declared,
Pending a final [court] judgment in this case, I have no intent to exercise my authority to promulgate any guidelines or regulations that require that transgender students use the restrooms consistent with their biological sex.
Williams himself called the law "ridiculous" and "stupid." In other words, the head coach of UNC men's basketball thinks its "stupid" to require men to use the men's room, and women to use the ladies' room. Now I'm no expert in the excrement of male bovines, but it seems to me if you support the notion that a human being with XY chromosomes, testicles, and a penis somehow has a "right" to use the ladies' restroom or ladies' locker room, then perhaps you are the one peddling the "bullsh*t."

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

Thursday, March 2, 2017

I Told You Testosterone Would Make Women’s Sports More Interesting

To be fair—given the perverse transgender agenda of the modern left—my idea was that men (like Bruce—“Dude Looks Like a Lady!”—Jenner) would compete as “women.” My idea was not that female athletes who want to pretend that they are men (or boys)—and thus take athletic performance-enhancing drugs such as testosterone to help live such a deluded fantasy—would compete as females. I did not imagine this because (I thought) virtually every female athletic association would not allow such an advantage.

Of course, in most athletic associations this is the case, but at the high school level in the state of Texas, it seems there are exceptions. As has been widely reported recently, a female wrestler in Texas—Mack Beggs—has won the state championship in her division largely due to the fact that she has a significant competitive advantage: she’s taking steroids (testosterone).

Once upon a time, such behavior was widely considered cheating. In fact, some of the biggest scandals in sports history involve behavior virtually identical to the behavior of Mack Beggs. (Alex Rodriguez took testosterone.) In fact, due to the widespread problem of “doping” (taking performance-enhancing drugs) in the world of athletics, in 1999, the World Anti-Doping Agency was created. Clearly (and always) on the list of banned substances: testosterone. In spite of being an endogenous (naturally occurring) anabolic androgenic (promotes male characteristics) steroid, testosterone use among athletes is prohibited if administered from outside the body.

In the modern era of sports, scandals involving performance-enhancing drugs are numerous. One of the largest examples (in terms of sheer volume of athletes and length of time) involves the Olympians of East Germany. In a tragic attempt to hide the real devastating effects of a communist government and a socialist economy, and instead to present itself as a strong, healthy nation, during the Cold War, the East German government began doping its athletes.

The primary drug administered to thousands of East German athletes as young as eight years old was Chlorodehydromethyltestosterone (CDMT)—a synthetic steroid and, as the name indicates, a synthetic “derivative of testosterone.” (This was the same drug that disgraced Canadian sprinter Ben Johnson took.) Unlike Mack Beggs and others who knowingly take performance enhancing drugs, most of the East German athletes were duped into doping. Their coaches told them they were taking “vitamins.” In terms of medals—with over 500 summer and winter Olympic medals between 1968 and 1988—the result of the doping, as in the case of Beggs (a record of 56-0), was a huge success.

However, as The Daily Mirror reported in 2015, the East German athletes paid a terrible price. As the Mirror notes,
The stars of yesterday suffered severe depression, heart conditions, degenerative bone disease and infertility. Some even changed sex because of the drugs. Many spiraled into drink and drug addictions, unable to find work.
Shot putter Heidi Krieger suffered the loss of her femininity. She had a “sex-change” operation (of course, it’s not really possible to change one’s sex) and now lives her life pretending she’s a man, “teaching youngsters the dangers of pumping steroids in a bid for sporting glory.” Concerned that the current situation with Olympic athletes in Russia mirrors that of East Germany, Ines Geipel, 55, a 1980s East German champion sprinter, warns:
It is more than 25 years ago now and yet there are so many parallels with the Russian situation and ours. It is about a state-controlled abuse. 
It carried on until 1989. We are probably talking about 10 to 15,000 athletes in total. We saw kids as young as eight being doped. They were guinea pigs and we have seen the health impact down the generations, passed from grandfather to grandchild. 
The bodies are broken, and so are the souls. Naturally there was great gynaecological damage because the women were taking men’s hormones. We have seen still births, infertility, disabled children born to former athletes.
In other words, there are significant health risks—especially for women, in taking testosterone. Of course—like the oppressive East Germans—this is secondary to the perverse sexual agenda of the modern left. What’s more, whether those struggling with their gender identity take dangerous drugs, as Dr. Paul McHugh—University Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins Medical School and the former psychiatrist in chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital—puts it:
The idea that one’s sex is a feeling, not a fact, has permeated our culture and is leaving casualties in its wake. Gender dysphoria should be treated with psychotherapy, not surgery.
And when the perverse LGBT agenda invades the world of sports, the harm extends beyond the physical and mental damage done to the athlete who’s decided to indulge his or her delusions with drugs and surgeries. Whether it’s males competing as females—as in the case of Alaska’s Nattaphon Wangyot—or, as in the case of Beggs, a female taking testosterone, the ones who will suffer competitively are the female athletes who have decided to play by the rules of sound science, morality, and the athletic associations that govern their sports.

Beggs’ case is just the latest example of this lunacy. Multiple organizations corrupted by liberalism have laid the groundwork for rendering women’s athletics a farce. As I noted last year,
Among many other crazy things, on “transgender and gender non-conforming students,” The National Center for Transgender Equality declares:
  • You have the right to equal educational opportunities regardless of your gender, including your gender identity or expression, or your race, nationality, or disability. This includes not being punished or excluded from school activities or events [read: sports] because you are transgender or gender non-conforming.
  • You have the right to use restrooms, locker rooms, and other facilities that are consistent with your gender identity, and can’t be forced to use separate facilities. 
As early as five years ago the NCAA “Office of Inclusion” produced a document that, among many other crazy things, recommended allowing humans who were born male to compete as females. They piously and ignorantly declared that assumptions commonly made about humans born male who wish to pretend they are female “are not well founded.” 
Ignoring sound science and common sense, the June 2016 edition of the “science” magazine Cosmos concluded that, “It’s only a matter of time before trans female athletes compete in the Olympics,” and “they will not have an edge over the rest of the field.”

Given the physical advantages of men over women (as I’ve pointed out twice before—but which are obvious to those not corrupted by liberalism), male athletes will not suffer competitively in this latest cause of liberalism, where, ironically, trophies and money will be taken from women and given to men. A real feminist would fight against such an injustice, but alas, modern feminism is beholden to the sexual agenda of modern liberalism.

So beholden that, in spite of all that science and common sense reveal, prior to Beggs beginning her quest for a state championship, The Washington Post began their piece on her story with,
On Friday, Mack Beggs, an undefeated high school wrestler from Texas, will compete at the girls’ state tournament in suburban Houston. 
But unlike the rest of the teen’s female competitors, Beggs, 17, is a boy.
Pause for a moment and consider the stupendous stupidity of that last sentence. NOTHING in sound science or morality allows for that conclusion, yet one of the supposed premier news organizations in the world—the paper that helped bring down a U.S. President—printed that sentence.

Additionally, after Beggs’ story broke, “trans athlete and activist” Chris Mosier, via Twitter, ignorantly declared,
High school athletic association policies for trans athletes should allow for participation by gender identity, not by birth certificate.
So again, by this perverse logic, males “identifying” as females would be allowed to take trophies from real girls or women.

The University Interscholastic League (UIL), the governing body for public school athletics in the state of Texas, requires student athletes to compete as the gender listed on their birth certificate. With support of about 95 percent of Texas school superintendents, the wise rule change was made last year, no doubt in response to cases like that of Nattaphon Wangyot’s. Yet UIL rules also allow the use of steroids if “dispensed, prescribed, delivered and administered by a medical practitioner for a valid medical purpose.” Thus, the UIL and the state of Texas should have further ruled that, since “gender identity” is a disorder, and since it is not possible for a female to “transition” to a male, the “roided-up” Beggs should not have been allowed to compete in any division.

Again, these people need serious physical, mental, and spiritual help. They do not need accommodation in living a lie.

(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 brand new book The Miracle and Magnificence of America

Sunday, February 26, 2017

Racists and Transgender Apologists Both Reject Basic Biology

My wife’s mother was born and raised in Nigeria. Her parents were Baptist missionaries from America. Thus, in spite of the fact that my wife Michelle is almost as pale as I am, I sometimes (lightheartedly) tell people that I’m married to an “African-American.” This is (barely) humorous because of the modern left’s obsession with skin color and what is typically denoted as “race.”

It’s rare that Ken Ham (an evangelical Christian) and Bill Nye (a devoted Darwinist and secular humanist) agree, but when it comes to the issue of race, both rightly conclude: “There’s no such thing as race.” As Ham puts it,
As a result of Darwinian evolution, many people started thinking in terms of the different people groups around the world representing different “races,” but within the context of evolutionary philosophy. This has resulted in many people today, consciously or unconsciously, having ingrained prejudices against certain other groups of people.
However, all human beings in the world today are classified as Homo sapiens sapiens. Scientists today admit that, biologically, there really is only one race of humans. For instance, a scientist at the Advancement of Science Convention in Atlanta stated, “Race is a social construct derived mainly from perceptions conditioned by events of recorded history, and it has no basic biological reality.”
Bill Nye concludes,
We’re all the same, from a scientific standpoint. There’s no such thing as race — but there is such a thing as tribalism.
Many biologists avoid the term “race” and prefer a phrase such as “continental ancestry.” Thus, to prefer one “race” over another, or to declare one “race” superior to another, is biologically ignorant. Or, put another way, the “racists”—or “race-baiters”—of any era, of any color, on any continent, who battled against the cause of human rights of those of another skin color are guilty of contradicting the laws of basic human biology.

Likewise, those who fight to further the cause of the gender-confused (“transgenders”) are also guilty of contradicting the laws of basic human biology. Only in a world corrupted by liberalism must we debate who is a male, who is a female, and what restroom they get to use. The next time you encounter a liberal—especially one claiming the mantle of “champion of science”—who wants to lecture you about global warming—I mean climate change—or stem cells, or evolution, or the ignorance of Christians, conservatives, and the like, remind him that, when their side can settle on what is a male and a female, then you might only consider them ignorant and lost. Otherwise, tell them you have no time for madness.

And consider the ignorant irony: the modern liberals championing the cause of the gender-confused are on the same (wrong) side of science as those who fought against the civil rights of black Americans. As I began this piece, I encountered the following on the front page of the website of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution—the largest newspaper in my home state of Georgia:

When I clicked on the link, I was taken to a page headlined, “7 African American museums to visit with your kids for an unforforgettable (sic) history lesson.” The image above is taken from the National Civil Rights Museum in Memphis. It’s from a display that depicts the 1968 Memphis sanitation strike.

Barely a week into the strike (it lasted over two months), at a rally with the strikers (black sanitation workers), The Rev. James Lawson declared, “For at the heart of racism is the idea that a man is not a man, that a person is not a person. You are human beings. You are men. You deserve dignity.” Rev. Lawson’s uplifting words became the message on the iconic placards seen above. In other words, there was a time when liberals knew what was a man. No more.

Chris Cuomo of CNN, and—being the son of Mario Cuomo, former New York Governor, and the brother of Andrew Cuomo, current New York Governor—of strong New York liberal stock, provides the perfect anecdote here. After President Trump this week reversed the Obama administration’s perverse decree that instructed public schools to allow the gender-confused to access the bathrooms and locker rooms they prefer, Cuomo (Chris) went on what David French called “one of the strangest tweet exchanges I’ve ever seen.” (The Blaze provides a good summary of the tweets.)

As Cuomo attempted to promote the transgender agenda via Twitter, he was voluminously challenged. His retorts are telling. Most revealing is Cuomo’s response when one tweet asked, “What do you tell a 12-year-old girl who doesn’t want to see a penis in the locker room?” To this, Cuomo answered:

Only a mind and heart corrupted by liberalism could “wonder” about a young girl in a locker room with boys, and her “intolerant” father who merely wants to guard the eyes (not to mention, the rest of her body) of his 12 year-old daughter. Amazing, but not surprising.

On “tolerance,” G.K. Chesterton declared: “Tolerance is a virtue of a man without convictions.” As the debate over bathrooms and gender reveals, what better describes a modern liberal than “a man without convictions?” Thus, we see again that liberalism corrupts not only sound science, but common sense and morality as well.

What’s more, the “tolerance” of which Cuomo speaks is little more than a self-refuting system of thought that attempts to impose liberal values onto any culture unable or unwilling to recognize the fallacy. The United Nations’ Declaration of Principles on Tolerance (which Cuomo has probably memorized) instructs, “Tolerance … involves the rejection of dogmatism and absolutism.”

How about that, a dogmatic and absolute statement decrying “dogmatism and absolutism.” How intolerant! Given that its foundation is filled with lies—and as Cuomo, and his fellow gender-denying apologists well demonstrate—liberalism is filled with such contradictions. The fact is, we’re all intolerant. It’s just a matter of who’s right.

Again, some things deserve no debate. The great C.S. Lewis alludes to this as he rather bluntly declares, “An open mind, in questions that are not ultimate, is useful. But an open mind about the ultimate foundations either of Theoretical or of Practical Reason is idiocy.” More plainly put, one would have to be an idiot not to recognize that certain things—like a person’s gender—are settled for all time.

(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 brand new book The Miracle and Magnificence of America

Wednesday, February 22, 2017

Milo Needs "Moral Chains"

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.
Like many corrupted by liberalism, the liberty enjoyed by Milo Yiannopoulos has not served him well, because it seems that most of what he “pleases to do” is vile and vulgar. (And, with the loss of his job at Breitbart, his book deal, his CPAC invite, has recently cost him dearly.)

I’ve never been impressed with Yiannopoulos. His penchant for what is vulgar has always turned me off. Like a foul-mouthed musician or comedian, if you have to resort to regular use of cursing and crude sexual references to make your point, I’m just not going to pay attention. In light of that, I’ve never understood the fascination of some conservatives (“so-called” in many cases, I’m afraid) with a swearing, sex-crazed, unrepentant homosexual.

Yes, Yiannopoulos has boldly taken a stand for free-speech and bravely confronted the ignorant, safe-space seeking, “End of Discussion” mob that dominates U.S. campuses. However, he’s done so devoid of “morality and religion” and with few “civil and social manners.” And thus, as Matt Walsh recently pointed out,
[H]e [Yiannopoulos] is not equipped nor qualified to be a spokesman for the conservative cause. He never was. He was always a spokesman for his own cause, his own cult, and even before his foray into pederasty-promoting, his cult never had very much to do with anything resembling conservatism.
The notion of “pederasty-promoting” Walsh refers to comes from statements Yiannopoulos made in an interview with Drunken Peasants Podcast back in January of this year. It’s best to let Yiannopoulos speak for himself here:
This arbitrary and oppressive idea of consent, which totally destroys the understanding that many of us have of the complexities and subtleties and complicated nature of many relationships. People are messy and complex, and in the homosexual world particularly some of those relationships between younger boys and older men, the sort of coming of age relationships, the relationships in which those older men help those young boys discover who they are, and give them security and safety and provide them with love and, sort of, a rock.
Yiannopoulos later adds:
In the gay world, some of the most important, enriching, and incredibly life affirming, shaping relationships between younger boys and older men, they can be hugely positive experiences for those young boys.
A longer exchange, highlighted by Guy Benson at Townhall, can be heard here (warning: extremely vulgar). As Benson notes,
Despite the ages he cites in his Facebook post (16 and 17), he mentions the age of 13 at least three times…including a hypothetical example of sex between a 28-year-old adult and a 13-year-old child. “These things do happen, perfectly consensually,” he asserts. Milo can parse and spin until he's blue in the face -- and some of the points he makes are worthy of consideration and even empathy -- but he did mount a public justification of pederasty…
Whatever the age of “consent,” it is not unusual for those in the homosexual lifestyle to speak favorably of “man-boy love.” As Dr. Michael Brown points out,
[I]t is no secret that gay activists have often been at the forefront of pushing for the lowering of the age of consent. (For a 2010 example from England, see here.) It is also no secret that gay literature through the centuries has celebrated the “love” of grown men and boys; and in these cases, there is no doubt that they were minors rather than young men.
Make no mistake about it—as most not corrupted by a liberal worldview well know—this is evil, predatory behavior. Tragically, these attacks help to continue the cycle of pederasty. As Peter LaBarbera noted after the recent case in Minnesota of a homosexual elementary school teacher (who was “married” to another man) who was accused of molesting multiple young boys,
Pederasty—sex between men and boys—has long been a part of male homosexuality. A new study by world renowned psychiatrist Dr. Paul McHugh and Johns Hopkins University scholar Lawrence Mayer finds that homosexuals are “two to three times more likely to have experienced childhood sexual abuse.”
We know that many adult homosexuals were sexually abused as children [as was Yiannopoulos], and then they go on to abuse children as adults. Hopefully, these victims will break the chain of sexual abuse and escape the destructive bondage of homosexuality.
In the Minnesota case mentioned above, Life Site News reported,
Forty-year-old Aric Babbitt and 36-year-old Matthew Deyo were under investigation for regularly taking adolescent boys on overnight trips, specifically boys who identified as possibly gay, with parental approval, even though the men were openly homosexual. 
According to court records, Babbitt assured parents that he was “mentoring” their children, and when questioned about inappropriate gifts he gave them, such as underwear and skimpy yoga shorts, Babbitt told the parents that they wouldn't understand because “It's a gay thing.”
Note the similarities between the language of Babbit—who later committed suicide—and that of Yiannopoulos. LaBarbera is right, the homosexual lifestyle—like all sin—is a form of “bondage.” And as Burke further instructed us on liberty,
Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their appetite…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].
Or, put another way, as the Apostle Paul reveals, we are slaves to the one we serve. In spite of his reputation as a champion for liberty, Milo Yiannopoulos is in deep bondage. Given his fascination with sex (just about every lengthy exchange he has devolves into a discussion of it), it is clear what is his “passion,” and where he needs his “moral chains.”

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, February 19, 2017

Hey Ashton Kutcher: Tell the Whole Truth about Sexual Immorality

As his recent and moving testimony before the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee reveals, Ashton Kutcher seems to be doing some great work combating the horrendous evil of world-wide sex trafficking. I wish him much success, and I hope he continues his efforts for many years to come. However, I challenge Mr. Kutcher to go even further when it comes to battling evil in the sexual realm.

As he began his speech, Kutcher passionately declared that he was there to “defend the right to pursue happiness.” He, of course, was referencing the U.S. Declaration of Independence. However, he made a couple of mistakes in declaring that the “right to pursue happiness” was “bestowed upon all of us by our Constitution.” I thought perhaps it was simply an error in semantics. However, Mr. Kutcher doubled-down on his misunderstanding of our rights and in his next sentence said, “I believe that it is incumbent upon us as citizens—as Americans—to bestow that right upon others.”

Mr. Kutcher’s biggest mistake was not in referencing the Constitution instead of the Declaration; it was in his misunderstanding about where the rights of humans originate. Our rights are not “bestowed upon us” by any human being or any document created by human beings. As the Declaration of Independence reveals, we are “endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable [indisputable and irremovable] rights.” In other words, our rights come from God and not from man.

The job of men and women is to provide good government that guards those rights. (Kutcher later declared himself a product of our public school system, so I suppose we should cut him some slack here.) Mr. Kutcher’s current “day job,” as he described it, is as the chairman and co-founder of Thorn. Thorn’s motto declares the company to be the “digital defender of children.” Thorn works to prevent the sexual exploitation of children by fighting against human trafficking and the proliferation of child pornography. This work is what got him an audience with the U.S. Senate.

In addition to his work at Thorn, Kutcher also declared that another part of his day job is to be the father of his two young children. No doubt his role as the father of a two-year-old daughter and a two-month-old son has greatly enhanced his passion for fighting the scourge of human sex-trafficking. If Mr. Kutcher really wants to stand up and defend his children and rescue and defend other children, he would do well to note that there are other dangers beyond sex-trafficking and child pornography lurking in the sexual realm.

And as horrific as is child pornography and the child sexual slavery that is the result of sex-trafficking, far more children are ensnared into a different type of sexual slavery—one in which Mr. Kutcher himself has had a hand.

Ashton Kutcher would almost certainly not be in this position (technology entrepreneur/investor) if it were not for the tens of millions of dollars he’s made from his TV and movie career. Tragically, much of this career has involved “entertainment” that presents and promotes a wide array of sexually immoral behavior—everything from teenage sex to adultery, fornication, pornography, and the like.

Two of the television shows that prominently featured Kutcher—That ‘70s Show and Two and a Half Men—were regularly labeled as some of the worst programs on television by the Parents Television Council (PTC). Writing about That ‘70s Show in 2005, PTC noted,
Frequently included on the PTC's Top 10 Worst list, this series once again earns a spot for its casual and irresponsible treatment of teen sex and drug use, which are depicted as risk- and consequence-free. Frequent references are made to pornography and masturbation. In one episode, for example, Kelso [Kutcher’s character] decides that he has to start respecting women, so he gives Fez his entire collection of pornographic magazines. Jackie says that giving Fez a "box full of nudie magazines" is like giving a monkey a loaded gun, to which Fez replies, "No, it's not. A monkey with a loaded gun can hurt a lot of people. I can only hurt myself." When they see Fez later, he looks exhausted because he has done nothing but look at pornography all day. Episodes also endorse smoking marijuana as harmless fun.
Sex traffickers and child pornographers aren’t born, they’re made. As those on the front lines of the battle against child pornography have often noted, almost all adults who are engaging in child porn got their start with adult pornography. As was noted at The Witherspoon Institute several years ago,
The link between adult and child porn is observed globally, and it is nothing new. Fifteen years ago, at the 1996 World Congress against Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children, Margaret Healy stated in a paper titled “Child Pornography: An International Perspective” that “with the emergence of the use of computers to traffic in child pornography, a new and growing segment of producers and consumers is being identified. They are individuals who may not have a sexual preference for children, but who have seen the gamut of adult pornography and who are searching for more bizarre material.” (Emphasis added)
Likewise, almost all who are ensnared in the illicit world of adult pornography were first tantalized by what could be called the “soft-porn” (or at least, sexually graphic) images that exist in large numbers of TV sitcoms, dramas, motion pictures, music videos—even television commercials. As I’ve often noted, for decades now Hollywood has lied about sex and promoted the raunchy, perverted sexual agenda of modern liberalism. Sadly, for much of his professional life, Kutcher (along with Mila Kunis, his current wife and mother of his two children), has been right in the middle of this smut.

With multiple generations of American youth exposed to such sexual immorality, it is little surprise we live in a “hook-up” culture where women and men both are often seen as little more than a means to a selfish sexual end. Put another way, men and women across the U.S. have become objects to be used—as Kutcher put it to the Senate—“for the momentary happiness of another.”

The tragic results of this are detailed nearly daily: tens of millions of helpless children have been slaughtered in the womb, and tens of millions more are born out of wedlock and immediately thrust into broken and dysfunctional homes. Among many other tragic outcomes, in his testimony, Kutcher himself notes that children in foster care (almost always at least partly the result of a broken home) are four times more likely to be exposed to sexual abuse. Kutcher called this a “breeding ground” for trafficking.

I don’t how many more times it needs to be said, but here it is once again: broken families—families without a loving and married mother and father—are a “breeding ground” for a wide variety of sad outcomes for children. In addition to sexual abuse and prison (something else Kutcher mentions), there’s physical abuse, drug abuse, poor health outcomes, poor education results, and so on. In other words, in spite of the best efforts of liberals and their like-minded allies to ignore or explain away what common sense and sound morality have always revealed, the biblical family model produces the best results for children.

So Mr. Kutcher, if you want to be a complete advocate for the health and well-being of children the world over, abandon your notions of “social liberalism,” (Kutcher has described himself as a “fiscal conservative but a social liberal.” Another note to Mr. Kutcher: If you’re a “social liberal,” then you’re a liberal.) and support, live, and defend what the Bible reveals on the family and sex. The God that bestows upon us the right to pursue happiness that you so passionately defended before the U.S. Senate has also clearly revealed His plan for the family and sex.

(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 brand new book The Miracle and Magnificence of America

Thursday, February 16, 2017

The Moronic Madness of “Moral Mondays”

For liberals, attempting to claim the moral high ground is like a community organizer winning the Nobel Peace Prize (or getting elected President of the United States): it only happens with willful suspension of reason and facts—which means it happens a lot in liberal circles. The most recent case in point is the “Moral Monday” movement that is active in a handful of states across the U.S. (mostly the South).

For evidence of the corrupt morality that exists in this movement, you need to know nothing more than Moral Mondays were started by the NAACP. First in North Carolina, later in South Carolina, Georgia, Illinois, and New Mexico, Moral Mondays are a sad attempt to sway politicians and the public toward the perverse agenda of liberals. These attempts are usually through acts of civil dimwittedness—I mean disobedience—involving such things as protesting at state capitals, disrupting legislative sessions, and staging sit-ins.

Also telling about the Moral Monday movement is that it gained national prominence while protesting North Carolina’s common-sense bathroom law. Only a modern liberal would predicate his moral outrage upon a cause that runs contrary to biology (and morality) that a five year old can understand, and that is championed by an unrepentant registered sex offender.

Because the moral demands of liberalism are few and malleable, any movement born of liberalism will have a corrupt morality. For further evidence of this, the Moral Monday protestors are able to declare that it is “morally repugnant” that people are dying because “they don’t have access to health care,” while at the same time calling for taxpayer funded (“free” in the fantasy land of liberalism) “health care” that will allow them to kill their unborn children.

Can’t you just imagine some obscenely tattooed, belly-pierced, scantily-clad, braless feminazi screaming: “My mother died because she had no health care! Now give me my free healthcare so I can go to the clinic and kill my daughter!” Liberals at the Moral Monday marches refer to the genocide of abortion as “Reproductive Justice.” Excluding the unborn from “the universe of moral obligation” allows self-described “guardians of morality” to foolishly champion a supposed moral cause that not only excludes, but is violently hostile toward, the most innocent and vulnerable among us.

In addition to much other nonsense, Georgia’s Moral Monday (2014) website decried that the state “promoted bigotry [directed] towards the LGBTQ community.” No evidence is offered. We can only suppose that such “bigotry” is the result of Georgia legally defining marriage as a union of one man and one woman. Only a modern liberal can take an institution that has existed across cultures for thousands of years (from “the beginning” according to a Christian worldview) and deem it “bigoted.”

The most tragic aspect of this moronic moral movement is that many so-called “pastors” are at the forefront. The (Ir)reverend Raphael Warnock, pastor at Ebenezer Baptist Church where Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was a pastor, has been a large part of the Moral Monday protests in Georgia. The (Ir)reverend William Barber II is the leader of Moral Mondays in North Carolina and is widely considered the leader of the movement at large. (He’s also—surprise!—president of North Carolina’s chapter of the NAACP.)

How tragic is it that such supposed “men of God” have aligned themselves with a political party that boos the inclusion of God in its platform and has devoted itself to support of killing children in the womb (millions of whom are black children), a perverse re-definition of marriage, removing prayer, the Commandments, and the Bible from the public arena, and supports the gross sexual immorality of the homosexual agenda?

Of course, as we’ve seen with most organized groups of liberals lately, the election of Donald Trump has brought further rounds of protests from the Moral Monday marchers. With Barber leading the way, the largest “Moral March” yet took place in Raleigh, N.C. last Saturday (2/11/17). Portraying Trump’s election “as a right-wing response to recent expansions of equality and justice,” Barber used the biblical account of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego (who refused to bow down to King Nebuchadnezzar’s golden idol) to implore his fellow protestors to “stay strong.”

Having recently used the story of Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah (their Hebrew names) myself to make a moral point, I know well that “Reverend” Barber has it quite wrong. The biblical account of Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego recorded in the book of Daniel are great examples of a faith that runs counter to the culture—even the legal code of the culture, and even when it means facing the harshest of consequences.

Like a modern-day Nebuchadnezzar, for the last several years, it has been the vengeance-minded left—with their literal lust-driven desire to redefine marriage, kill children in the womb, and the like—that has sought to use the law to punish those with whom they disagree. Because of their refusal to bow down to the perverse sexual agenda of the modern left, all across the U.S., a wide variety of Americans have faced a wide array of harsh consequences, including fines, the loss of their jobs, the loss of their businesses, the loss of television shows, and so on.

As we all should know well by now, this is what liberalism does. This is what happens when liberals are in power. (Which is one of the big reasons why Donald Trump is now President of the United States.) There seems to be no end to their perversion. Whether sex, marriage, the family, the unborn, gender, education, the military, immigration, spending, and the like, on virtually every issue debated today, liberals are on the wrong side of the truth. Thus, today's liberals can be trusted with almost nothing, and certainly nothing deemed “moral.”

(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

Tuesday, February 14, 2017

“The Most Excellent Way”

I’ve often said that after our relationship with our Creator, the most important relationship in the universe is that between a husband and his wife. Whether or not you are married, when you were a child, the most important people on earth were your mother and father (or, it should have been this way). Thus, after our love for God, the most important love in the world is the love between a husband and wife.

A few weeks ago our family said goodbye (for now) to my wife’s beloved grandfather, Horace Fitzpatrick—known to all of the family as simply “Pa.” Nearly two years ago, Pa’s oldest son—my wife’s father—David was tragically killed by a drunk driver while bicycling near his home. When I spoke at David’s funeral, I made note of David’s loving devotion to his wife:
After his relationship with his creator and Savior, David was most devoted to his wife Margie. This was clear to all of us who knew him best. This is perhaps his greatest witness. Of course, David witnessed this devotion in the life of his own father. Thank you for that, Pa.
Pa’s funeral was the best “end-of-life celebration” that I’ve ever witnessed. His generous and loving life made for a powerful end. (We were especially close to “Granny and Pa,” as they played an important role in the debt-free manner in which we built our home.) Four men spoke at the funeral, including Pa’s son Roger. Roger made special note of Pa’s love for his “Beautiful, Sweet, Toony.” Horace and Bertie-Mae were married for 67 years. My wife’s parents, David and Margie (Papa and Mimi) had been married for 46 years when David was killed in 2015. My own parents, Edsel and Carolyn Thomas (Poppy and Nonny), have been married for 48 years.

In other words, I’ve had several excellent examples of what true and lasting love looks like. In today’s sex-crazed, fornicating, adulterating, divorcing culture, such examples were (and still are) immeasurably impactful. With 19 years of marriage already under my belt, I certainly hope to continue such a tradition.

I say all of this with Valentine’s Day in mind. Several years ago, I wrote the following to help paint a picture of “the most excellent way.” I provide it again to remind all of us what it really means to love. (Thank you to all of my family and friends—but especially Granny and Pa, Nonny and Poppy, Mimi and Papa, and Michelle, Caleb, Jesse, Caroline, and Noah—for all the love you’ve given me.)

The Will to Love

I believe that the one most revealing, the most essential characteristic of our Creator is love. By His love He made us, and because of His love He redeemed us. We are closest to His nature and what He created us to be when we are living our lives according to His idea of love.

He also told us that His entire law can be summed up with one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” What does that mean? What does it mean to love your neighbor as you love yourself?

First of all, who is our “neighbor?” Most of us have heard of “The Good Samaritan.” Through this parable, Christ taught us that our neighbor means more than those who live near us, or those within our circle of family and friends. In effect, what He was saying was that loving our neighbor also means loving our enemies.

Secondly, how do we “love” ourselves? If we are honest, we should all admit that there are times when none of us is particularly loveable. In fact, most of us have probably been pretty disappointed in and disgusted by our own behavior, and thus, in ourselves. We may even have seen ourselves as downright nasty.

Therefore, loving our neighbor does not mean always having pleasant feelings about him or being happy with everything she does. As C.S. Lewis put it, it does not mean “thinking them nice either.” In fact, love in the Christian sense isn’t a feeling at all. It is a matter of the will.

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

Consider 1 Corinthians chapter 13, where the Apostle Paul reveals to us what true love is.

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails.
Patience, kindness, a lack of envy or boasting; humility, politeness, and controlling your temper; keeping no record of wrongs, and so on—these all are matters of the will. As soon as you do these things, Lewis notes, “we find one of the great secrets. When you are behaving as if you loved someone, you will presently come to love him.”

Jesus said that the greatest act of love is to lay down one’s life for another. What is that if not an act of the will? No one “feels” like doing such a thing. Jesus even prayed that His act of sacrifice, if possible, would pass from Him, but His will was surrendered: “Not My will, but Yours be done.”

Of course, romantic love can generate a torrent of emotions within us. Almost all of us have been tied in knots over one person or another in our lives. But, even in the strongest of relationships, these feelings don’t last—and thank goodness! How would we function day to day and year to year with such emotions?!

Yet popular culture has chosen to highlight this brief and passing aspect of love and held it up as the ideal. Of course, popular culture has also made love synonymous with sex. This is especially true with our youth. They enter relationships—even marriage—with their hearts and minds full of the wrong ideas about love.

Thus, the most important relationship on the earth—that between a husband and a wife—often rests upon a very shaky foundation. If a marriage rests upon this feeling of “being in love” alone, it almost certainly will fail. Couples need to understand that when this feeling subsides, it does not mean that we should stop loving. Love in this deeper sense is about a promise or vow that nearly every couple makes upon marrying. And keeping this promise is a matter of the will.

However, Christians know that, left to ourselves, our own will is not enough. On our own we cannot love as we should. The selflessness that true love requires runs very contrary to our born nature. That is why, in order to love truly, we must look to the One who is love.

Happy Valentine’s Day!

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

Saturday, February 11, 2017

If Your Church is Celebrating Darwin, Leave (and Don’t Come Back)

The 200th anniversary of the birth of devoted Materialist and Evolutionist Charles Darwin was in 2009. It was that year that I first became aware of “Evolution Weekend.” Originally “Evolution Sunday,” Evolution Weekend is the product of The Clergy Letter Project. This project exists to promote the teaching of Darwinian evolution, especially within religious institutions. For example, the letter to Christian clergy, in part, reads,
While virtually all Christians take the Bible seriously and hold it to be authoritative in matters of faith and practice, the overwhelming majority do not read the Bible literally, as they would a science textbook…Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth. Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts. 
We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children.
First of all, a common criticism from Darwinists of all flavors—from the true believers: ardent atheists, to the spongy “theistic evolutionists” (ironically seen as heretics by the faithful on both sides of the evolution debate)—is that Christians who accept the biblical account of the origin of mankind are making the mistake of reading the Bible (especially Genesis) “literally.”

As apologist Greg Koukl puts it, the question “Do you take the Bible literally?” is ambiguous, confusing, and awkward to answer. The best way to answer such a question is that we (“literalists”) take the Bible literally when it is meant to be taken literally. In other words, as Koukl puts it, we read the Bible in its “ordinary sense.” (“When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense.”)

A good analogy that Koukl provides is the reading of a modern day sports page. When a sportswriter says that one team “crushed,” “destroyed,” or “annihilated” its opponent, no one speculates or frets about literal meanings. When we read that the Georgia Bulldogs “steam-rolled” the Florida Gators, there is no investigation into whether state highway equipment went missing during what used to be known as “The World’s Largest Outdoor Cocktail Party.” Though certainly a more difficult read than a sports page, we are to approach reading the Bible in the same way.

Additionally, when it comes to believing miraculous events recorded in the Bible, whether the virgin birth, the resurrection of Jesus, or the miracle of a literal six-day creation, the inconsistency applied by “evolutionary creationists” is fascinating and troubling. After all, why believe in the resurrection of Jesus? Has science proven how we can raise the dead?

After His resurrection, why did Jesus chastise the two disciples on the road to Emmaus? Was it because they failed biology 101? “How foolish you are, and how slow to believe all that the prophets have spoken!” In other words, why did you not believe what was written?! If one will doubt the creation account, why believe the prophets? Why believe any of the accounts of supernatural events in Scripture?

What’s more, if Genesis is a “metaphor,” then all the rest of Scripture is in question. There is much evidence throughout all of Scripture to support the fact that Genesis is literal history. Many other books directly refer to Genesis and its characters in a way that shows they were regarded as nothing but historical people and events. Consider how often the New Testament refers to Genesis and its characters. Dozens of times Adam, Eve, the Serpent (Satan), Cain, Abel, Noah, the Flood, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Lot, and so on, are directly (and indirectly) referenced. They are spoken of as real historical characters, not mythological beings.

In Romans chapter 5 Paul refers directly to Adam and compares him to Christ as “a pattern of the one to come.” First Corinthians 15:22 states, “For as in Adam all die, so as in Christ all will be made alive.” This refers to all of humanity being under the same curse of death that was placed on Adam, because we all are his descendants. Second Corinthians 11:2 says, “…just as Eve was deceived by the serpent’s cunning…” thus making a direct reference to Eve, Satan, and The Fall.

Secondly, all truth—whether deemed “scientific” or “religious”—exists to reveal God. (“For since the creation of the world, God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and his divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.”) Anything or anyone that purports to have information that denies God, or His Word, is a lie.

Thirdly, the Clergy Letter Project heretics got at least something right: there is no conflict between the Bible and “modern science” (or ancient science, or future science). The word “science” is derived from the Latin word “scientia,” meaning “knowledge.” It is frequently overlooked that every side of the creation/evolution debate derives their knowledge from certain governing presuppositions.

In other words, whether a person is a creationist or an evolutionist, or some combination of the two, eventually he or she must eventually rely on certain un-provable assumptions. As the late philosopher, Dr. Greg Bahnsen, put it, “At the most fundamental level of everyone’s thinking and beliefs there are primary convictions about reality, man, the world, knowledge, truth, behavior, and such things. Convictions about which all other experience is organized, interpreted, and applied.”

Thus neither side in the evolution debate can use exclusively the methods of science to verify their primary convictions. The scientific method of observing, measuring, testing, and repeating does not work when it comes to revealing exactly how life began. In spite of what some devoted evolutionists would have us believe, no one has ever observed or been able to experimentally repeat evolution that shows one kind of creature changing into another. We certainly have never seen life created in a Petri dish.

Of course, neither have we observed someone creating matter or speaking life into existence. However, what the creation account has that the Darwinian account lacks is a written record of events. Now, many are quick to discount the biblical record of events as fiction, but this is typically because the accounts of events recorded in Scripture directly contradict the primary convictions of Darwinian evolution (D.E.).

An atheist who completely denies God and the Bible and holds molecules to man evolution up as absolute truth has a more logically defensible position than the Christian who wants to mix evolution and Scripture. D.E. teaches that all life—plant, animal, human—billions of years ago sprang from the same single-celled source, strictly as a product of nature and natural processes (billions of years of death and struggle). Thus, as a liberal writer at Salon put it,

“Darwin…explained the evolution of life in a way that doesn’t require the hand of God.” (His piece is gleefully entitled “God is on the Ropes,” and writes about the “brilliant new science”—isn’t it always—that expands on Darwin’s work and will finally liberate us from any idea that God was involved in creating life.)

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

And if your church is so “deluded,” leave now and don’t go back.

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